3 ms·

You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on political

You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on political grounds.

btilly 7y ago
No. They are arguing that the extradition treaty is valid but that this specific term of it is void. Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies. Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win. In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision. The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.
- emayljames 7y ago
  Also though, as Craig points out, that this particular treaty is fully legal as is only in existence (and the political part of the treaty) because of the enabling act of law, not void because of it. Any and all treaties have incredible legal scrutiny for years before being signed. Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed. If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.

You couldn't make that up!. So the prosecution are arguing that the very extradition treaty that they are using is void as it excludes extradition on political grounds.

btilly 7y ago

No. They are arguing that the extradition treaty is valid but that this specific term of it is void. Parties agreeing on something then finding that a term of it is void is much more common than you think. This is why legal contracts usually include verbiage about being severable - aka if any part of it is void the rest still applies. Moving on, it is very common for lawyers to present a multitude of incompatible arguments for their position. With the idea that they don't care which the judge accepts, any will win. In this case, the terms of the treaty preventing extradition on political grounds are void. If they are not void, then this was not a political act. If it was a political act, then it didn't take place in the USA and so is not covered by the treaty provision. The judge has to choose which argument(s) to accept or reject. But the lawyers are not going to help the judge reject an argument by failing to present it.

emayljames 7y ago
Also though, as Craig points out, that this particular treaty is fully legal as is only in existence (and the political part of the treaty) because of the enabling act of law, not void because of it. Any and all treaties have incredible legal scrutiny for years before being signed. Also of note is a similar legal treaty case that the UK government lost in this same week, regarding the paris agreement and them trying to build a new Heathrow runway, trying to break a treaty they had signed. If he was not in the US, then how could he have committed a criminal act, if US law applies only to the US territories. It is some mental gymnastics to pick and choose legality like a pick 'n mix sweet shop.