4 ms·

Its not policy, its law [0]. Changing that would have to be put past MPs. What happened in the case you linked was people with dual citizenship who lost their

Its not policy, its law [0]. Changing that would have to be put past MPs. What happened in the case you linked was people with dual citizenship who lost their UK citizenship (Which can't happen if you don't have dual citizenship) were captured outside of the UK (not extradited from the UK) and the home secretary said they will not oppose the death penality. [0] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/41/section/94

monocasa 7y ago
They didn't have dual citizenship, only UK citizenship. The UK jumping through this hoop made them stateless, which is against international law. They are UK citizens, and only UK citizens, by birth. And there's all sorts of ways around the law here. Like tacking on a new charge once he's on US soil that they then seek the death penalty on. Then the state office goes "oh no, how could we have seen this coming", when it was the back room deal the whole time.
- Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
  El Shafee Elsheikh was born in Sudan who's father was a sudan citizen at the time of his birth, Alexanda Kotey on the other hand was born in the UK but would have dual citizenship in Ghana if his father still held Ghana citizenship. > A person born on or after 24 September 1979 and before 7 January 1993 is a citizen of Ghana by birth if— >(a) He/She was born in Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents or one grandparent was a citizen of Ghana; or >(b) He/She was born outside Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents was a citizen of Ghana. Even if their British citizenship has been illegally withdrawn (Which Alexanda Kotey appears to be fighting), the law is about the extradition of people from the UK. They were captured outside of the UK (and even the EU were similar extradition laws apply). My point being the UK Extradition laws arn't being loosened up by the backdoor.
  - monocasa 7y ago
    My point is that the UK government is jumping through hoops to avoid the policy in general. And the law itself only functionally works if you start with the axiom that Boris Johnson's state office wouldn't lie to the British public about the timeline of when they knew and didn't know certain facts about the nature of the extradition. A law is only useful in a discussion of what can and can't happen if there's a meaningful way to enforce it given the people in charge currently.
    - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
      > Boris Johnson's state office wouldn't lie to the British public about the timeline of when they knew and didn't know certain facts about the nature of the extradition. The home secretary would have to get assurances from the country they are extraditing to before the extradition request can be completed. It would most likely even be done before a judge signs off on a arrest warrant, even so there is then a preliminary hearing and a extradition hearing before the final decision to extradite by the home secretary is done. The office of the home secretary (because unless there was special circumstances the HS wouldn't be appearing in person to every extradition hearing, but their would be people there acting on behalf of the office and in turn the HS) wouldn't just be lying to the public but would be lying to a judge in court. Failure to do so will result in the judge ordering the discharge of the person being sought for extradition.
      - monocasa 7y ago
        "I had their assurances and they broke them. Those damn Americans, amirite?" Like the law is based on the idea that everyone there is working in good faith, and they're pretty clearly not at the moment.
        Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
        If the US lied they would never have an extradition request approved ever again, the treaty would in effect be null and void. The next case the defendants laywer would bring up this case and the judge would dismiss the extradition case and that not even considering the a huge diplomatic incident it would start. If the HS lied and forged paperwork relating to this many people getting are going to get dragged into court over it, get found guilty of crimes, get jail time, lawyers for the home office losing their licenses all over a single case over a single extradition...
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

monocasa 7y ago

They didn't have dual citizenship, only UK citizenship. The UK jumping through this hoop made them stateless, which is against international law. They are UK citizens, and only UK citizens, by birth. And there's all sorts of ways around the law here. Like tacking on a new charge once he's on US soil that they then seek the death penalty on. Then the state office goes "oh no, how could we have seen this coming", when it was the back room deal the whole time.

Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
El Shafee Elsheikh was born in Sudan who's father was a sudan citizen at the time of his birth, Alexanda Kotey on the other hand was born in the UK but would have dual citizenship in Ghana if his father still held Ghana citizenship. > A person born on or after 24 September 1979 and before 7 January 1993 is a citizen of Ghana by birth if— >(a) He/She was born in Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents or one grandparent was a citizen of Ghana; or >(b) He/She was born outside Ghana and at the date of his/her birth either of his/her parents was a citizen of Ghana. Even if their British citizenship has been illegally withdrawn (Which Alexanda Kotey appears to be fighting), the law is about the extradition of people from the UK. They were captured outside of the UK (and even the EU were similar extradition laws apply). My point being the UK Extradition laws arn't being loosened up by the backdoor.
- monocasa 7y ago
  My point is that the UK government is jumping through hoops to avoid the policy in general. And the law itself only functionally works if you start with the axiom that Boris Johnson's state office wouldn't lie to the British public about the timeline of when they knew and didn't know certain facts about the nature of the extradition. A law is only useful in a discussion of what can and can't happen if there's a meaningful way to enforce it given the people in charge currently.
  - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
    > Boris Johnson's state office wouldn't lie to the British public about the timeline of when they knew and didn't know certain facts about the nature of the extradition. The home secretary would have to get assurances from the country they are extraditing to before the extradition request can be completed. It would most likely even be done before a judge signs off on a arrest warrant, even so there is then a preliminary hearing and a extradition hearing before the final decision to extradite by the home secretary is done. The office of the home secretary (because unless there was special circumstances the HS wouldn't be appearing in person to every extradition hearing, but their would be people there acting on behalf of the office and in turn the HS) wouldn't just be lying to the public but would be lying to a judge in court. Failure to do so will result in the judge ordering the discharge of the person being sought for extradition.
    - monocasa 7y ago
      "I had their assurances and they broke them. Those damn Americans, amirite?" Like the law is based on the idea that everyone there is working in good faith, and they're pretty clearly not at the moment.
      - Crosseye_Jack 7y ago
        If the US lied they would never have an extradition request approved ever again, the treaty would in effect be null and void. The next case the defendants laywer would bring up this case and the judge would dismiss the extradition case and that not even considering the a huge diplomatic incident it would start. If the HS lied and forged paperwork relating to this many people getting are going to get dragged into court over it, get found guilty of crimes, get jail time, lawyers for the home office losing their licenses all over a single case over a single extradition...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]