3 ms·

The UK signed a treaty with the US that requires them to extradite McKinnon Wasn't the deal that the UK also gets a treaty in the other direction? Isn't what t

by nodata 16y ago

The UK signed a treaty with the US that requires them to extradite McKinnon Wasn't the deal that the UK also gets a treaty in the other direction? Isn't what this is all about?

tptacek 16y ago
The US and the UK both have extradition rights. The two countries have slightly different evidentiary standards. Neither country has a "no evidence required" standard. Neither country requires incontrovertable proof; such a standard makes no sense, since the purpose of extradition is to enable criminal trials.
- nodata 16y ago
  This is what I was referring to: "Britain has also signed up to a controversial agreement with the United States government to fast-track suspects back to the US - even though some critics say the agreement is not adequately reciprocated." -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7312853.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7312853.stm
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Read upthread. What is true about the "new" treaty is that it made the evidentiary standards applied to the US more lenient than they were in the past. What is not true is that the new treaty was designed to fast-track terror suspects to Gitmo without evidence (the treaty had been under negotiation prior to 9/11, and was changed because the previous treaty --- which was egregiously "unfair" to the US [to the extent that matters] --- had become unwieldy). Because the US and UK have different criminal justice systems, the resulting treaty does not apply exactly the same terms to each country; doing so would apparently not make sense. It is less clear that there is overt unfairness in the resulting treaty to either side (again: the previous treaty was overtly unfair to the US). I'm commenting about this because it's interesting and (I think) fun to talk about. I don't think it's particularly relevant to the McKinnon case.

3 ms·

The UK signed a treaty with the US that requires them to extradite McKinnon Wasn't the deal that the UK also gets a treaty in the other direction? Isn't what t

by nodata 16y ago

The UK signed a treaty with the US that requires them to extradite McKinnon Wasn't the deal that the UK also gets a treaty in the other direction? Isn't what this is all about?

tptacek 16y ago
The US and the UK both have extradition rights. The two countries have slightly different evidentiary standards. Neither country has a "no evidence required" standard. Neither country requires incontrovertable proof; such a standard makes no sense, since the purpose of extradition is to enable criminal trials.
- nodata 16y ago
  This is what I was referring to: "Britain has also signed up to a controversial agreement with the United States government to fast-track suspects back to the US - even though some critics say the agreement is not adequately reciprocated." -- http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7312853.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7312853.stm
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Read upthread. What is true about the "new" treaty is that it made the evidentiary standards applied to the US more lenient than they were in the past. What is not true is that the new treaty was designed to fast-track terror suspects to Gitmo without evidence (the treaty had been under negotiation prior to 9/11, and was changed because the previous treaty --- which was egregiously "unfair" to the US [to the extent that matters] --- had become unwieldy). Because the US and UK have different criminal justice systems, the resulting treaty does not apply exactly the same terms to each country; doing so would apparently not make sense. It is less clear that there is overt unfairness in the resulting treaty to either side (again: the previous treaty was overtly unfair to the US). I'm commenting about this because it's interesting and (I think) fun to talk about. I don't think it's particularly relevant to the McKinnon case.