Heads, we extradite. Tails, you don't (UK-US extradition)

[struggle4progress]

... Why, then, is the business community so angry? The 2003 Extradition Act was introduced by the Government in the aftermath of 9/11. Prompted by the War on Terror, it followed the negotiation of an extradition treaty between the two nations.

Traditionally, countries wanting to extradite people from the UK had to produce prima facie evidence of the crime they were alleged to have committed. This was usually in the form of witness statements, and the production of evidence was regarded as an important protection. Under the 2003 Act, the Americans don’t have to do this. They need to outline only the alleged offence and the punishment,and provide an accurate description of the suspect. That’s whether the suspect is wanted for terrorism, white-collar crime or something else entirely. Yet we in Britain still have to produce prima facie evidence if we wish to extradite someone from the US ...

Lawyers are also troubled by what happens when the extradited person stands trial in America. One rather astonishing example illustrates the point. If you are charged with five counts in the US and acquitted of four of them by the jury, the judge in sentencing is able and advised to take into account those four if he comes to the conclusion that you were guilty of the offences on a balance of probabilities. The implications of this are considerable. The federal sentencing guidelines that give the judge this power are advisory not compulsory, but judges are under pressure to follow them. Prosecutors are invited to report judges who fall below the standards set out in the guidelines ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2248092,00.html

[eridani]

1. The Guardian weighs in

http://www.guardian.co.uk/enron/story/0,,1809565,00.html

They came in their navy suits and animal-print ties, spilling out of black taxis and chauffeur-driven cars, clasping umbrellas, blackthorn canes and Daily Telegraphs. By 5pm there was a small crowd, waiting politely in ones or twos for the signal to get going. Then, "Come on!" shouted Karl Watkin, one of the organisers, beckoning exuberantly. "The champagnes are on me after we've finished the march!"

London can rarely have seen a less unruly rabble, or a better mannered demo. Around 100 business people gathered yesterday in Pall Mall to march on the Home Office in protest at an extradition treaty with the US that will see three British businessmen extradited to Texas next month to face fraud charges. Though their alleged crimes were committed in Britain against a British firm, and though no charges are being brought in this country, the US is seeking to prosecute them there as part of the wider fallout of the Enron scandal.

The controversial 2003 agreement allows the US to extradite British citizens without producing solid evidence of wrongdoing, though the refusal of the US Senate to ratify the treaty means the arrangement is not a reciprocal one. Introduced principally to expedite terrorism cases, the bulk of requests have in fact involved white-collar financial crime - a situation about which the City was eager yesterday to register its displeasure.

"The last time I protested was against the war in Vietnam!" giggled one expensively dressed gentleman, who declined with a pregnant smile to give his name or occupation. "It's taken something this horrific to get me out again!"

[MasonJar]

2. And we wonder why the entire world despises us.

[Briar]

3. In the UK

we despise the Labour Government which signed this extraordinary treaty in general and the Home Secretary of the time, David Blunkett, in particular.