It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UK in for a even worse exritdition treaty?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:35 AM
link   
BBC news

So for the last decade since our traitor of a prime minster Tony Blair sold us out to foreign interests with the 2003 extradition treaty now our new traitors government wants to expand on it?


Sure Abu Hamza has a abhorrent individual. And some might say? So what if terrorists get what coming to them good! But his individual case could mean less rights for the rest of us! Sure they say its for terrorists but the extradition treaty we have had with the USA so far has been abused for many non terrorist reasons.

First we have
Gary McKinnon

sure he committed a crime. A crime in both the US and UK. But the crime was committed on UK soil so why not tried and sentenced in the UK?
Lucky he got off, barely.

Second
Richard O'Dwyer

US tried to extradite him on on copy right infringement. again he was in the UK and technically did not do any thing illegal here.
Lucky he escape the tyrannical arm of the USA. JUST

Lastly we have
Bryan and Kerri-Ann Howe
Both owned a legitimate UK business selling chemical not illegal in the UK, while on British Soil they imported some of these chemical too the USA where they are illegal. Although the UK authority have fully declared no crime in the UK was committed they were held on remand for several months They home repossessed and family destroyed with Bryan being sent to spend 5 years in a brutal Arizona prison far from home. To add injury to insult no evidence was presented to the UK authority's of his crime due to unfair extradition arrangements.,


If Cameroon gets his way these cases would become more common and worse the ones that manged to escape the US tyrannical arm would likely not be able to in the future if extradition is fast track.

Sure a quick fix for "terrorists" may sound like a good idea but in the long run you could end up serving 5 years in a Arizona prison for supposedly breaking the law of a country you never stepped foot in.


Write to your MP tell them NO! We want our sovereignty back!
edit on 20-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 20 2014 @ 06:42 AM
link   
At this rate were all going to end up 5 years in an American prison.

I am still asking myself how someone can end up in prison in another country for committing a crime NOT on home soil.
The message this sends is that before you sell any goods (from the UK), check that it's not illegal in America.

on the flip side, at least Abu Hamza is not preaching hate in the UK any more.
your problem now my fellow American friends


edit on 20/5/2014 by diddy1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: diddy1234

I know how can one commit a crime in another country when not under that country?

USA customs should have just seized the contraband and went after the buyers and if possible blocked imports from the UK company.
It like me being extradited to North Korea for putting up a dear leader hate site!

Only time I agree with extradition is if a person commits a crime while on another country's soil then returns home. IE If I killed a US citizen while in Florida It would only be fair to send me back to Florida.

In the case of Gary McKinnon hacking is illegal in the UK and the hacking was committed on UK soil therefore any legal proceedings should have been done in the UK with any punishment given by the UK if he had been in the USA and hacked into the UK then I would have been ok with the USA taking him.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: diddy1234

I know how can one commit a crime in another country when not under that country?

USA customs should have just seized the contraband and went after the buyers and if possible blocked imports from the UK company.
It like me being extradited to North Korea for putting up a dear leader hate site!

Only time I agree with extradition is if a person commits a crime while on another country's soil then returns home. IE If I killed a US citizen while in Florida It would only be fair to send me back to Florida.

In the case of Gary McKinnon hacking is illegal in the UK and the hacking was committed on UK soil therefore any legal proceedings should have been done in the UK with any punishment given by the UK if he had been in the USA and hacked into the UK then I would have been ok with the USA taking him.



Sorry, you are wrong. America is the world, didn't you hear of "world order" ran by the dictatorship of America.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Seems the US must be obeyed, always, without question, no matter how crazy or downright insulting it may look.

I read a news item this morning that really beggars belief, regarding the proposed questioning of Snowden by German politicians.
It seems Angela Merkel is knuckling under to US demands and has hired a US law firm, to threaten German Politicians with prosecution in the US if they go ahead and question Snowden on German soil or by conference call. I couldn't believe what I was reading but it just goes to show the craziness of it all. They REALLY must have some dirt on Merkel to get her to go to those lengths!


All joking aside though, it's actually quite frightening to think that you could be snatched by your own country's police, put on a plane to the US and spend a long stretch in one of their wonderful prisons, without ever committing a crime on your own soil and all purely down to political expediency. As for the terrorism prevention part, that is so broad based that we ARE ALL suspects merely for discussing matters online or amongst friends, that they would rather we just shut up about. Any dissent must be crushed!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Britguy

It frighten me it really does.

Our MP should be protecting us not selling us out.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Britguy

It frighten me it really does.

Our MP should be protecting us not selling us out.

Don't worry about it, just don't break any US laws and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, if non US citizens are subjected to US laws then they should be able to vote in US elections



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Letter I sent to my local MP in protest.

Reading the BBC new report www.bbc.co.uk... I was horrified.

The UK is already subject to draconian extradition laws.

Sure the argument is it is to stop terrorism but already our extradition treaty's are being abused!

Cases such as Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer both were on UK solid while the crimes the US accused them of happened.
1) How can you commit a US crime while not in that country?
2) Both were laws broken in the UK

Surely they should have stood trial here in the UK were the alleged crime was committed.

Lucky both won there extradition battle but if Camron got his way in the future people in said circumstance may not be so lucky.

You also have the case of Brian Howes, who was not so lucky and is now serving 5 years in a brutal Arizona jail.
The alleged action the US called a crime is not even illegal here in the UK! Him and his wife were held for 7 months on remand without charge here in the UK and it has been stated they broke no UK laws. Yet him and his wife were extradited for legal actions committed while in the UK. Although there action were unethical it was not illegal. Last time I checked the UK was a sovereign nation with it own laws and our citizen were NOT subject to foreign laws while inside the UK borders. Would I be extradited to North Korea for criticizing there leadership? As that would be exactly the same principle.

What worse no evidence is required to be presented to the courts before extradition according to this disgraceful agreements!

I have no problem with extradition if a crime is committed on a foreign soil. If someone went to Florida and committed murder and returned to England I would have no issue with extradition.

But as a UK citizen I want to grantee my rights and my position under UK law and my nations sovereignty and not be under the threat of other country imposing there will while on my home county s soil.

To clarify I want to see a tight extradition laws that grantee the UK sovereignty and protection of UK Citizens and also making sure evidence is required before extradition and that it is based of dual criminality.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Britguy
a reply to: crazyewok

Seems the US must be obeyed, always, without question, no matter how crazy or downright insulting it may look.

I read a news item this morning that really beggars belief, regarding the proposed questioning of Snowden by German politicians.
It seems Angela Merkel is knuckling under to US demands and has hired a US law firm, to threaten German Politicians with prosecution in the US if they go ahead and question Snowden on German soil or by conference call. I couldn't believe what I was reading but it just goes to show the craziness of it all. They REALLY must have some dirt on Merkel to get her to go to those lengths!


All joking aside though, it's actually quite frightening to think that you could be snatched by your own country's police, put on a plane to the US and spend a long stretch in one of their wonderful prisons, without ever committing a crime on your own soil and all purely down to political expediency. As for the terrorism prevention part, that is so broad based that we ARE ALL suspects merely for discussing matters online or amongst friends, that they would rather we just shut up about. Any dissent must be crushed!


Have you ever wondered why the TPP was started by the US in favor of the US and to control how the world will behave to American policies. Google the negative news for the TPP. American leadership now actually believes they control what goes on in your backyard on an international level.

edit on 0500000040492014-05-20T07:49:40-05:00494005am7 by musicismagic because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: yizzel

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Britguy

It frighten me it really does.

Our MP should be protecting us not selling us out.

Don't worry about it, just don't break any US laws and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, if non US citizens are subjected to US laws then they should be able to vote in US elections


It just really really angers me and I think I just found a cause here


Make me want to quit biology and do a law conversion course and become a extradition lawyer!



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: yizzel

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: Britguy

It frighten me it really does.

Our MP should be protecting us not selling us out.

Don't worry about it, just don't break any US laws and you'll be fine.
Seriously though, if non US citizens are subjected to US laws then they should be able to vote in US elections


It just really really angers me and I think I just found a cause here


Make me want to quit biology and do a law conversion course and become a extradition lawyer!



Man, self employed is the best even if you collect cardboard or cans for recycle treatment. Now that is a real job and hard work.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok



Cases such as Gary McKinnon and Richard O'Dwyer both were on UK solid while the crimes the US accused them of happened. 1) How can you commit a US crime while not in that country?

Why don't you ask that question of Abu Hamza? He broke laws in other countries but not in the US but he still is extradited and charged. If you supported him being sent to the Us to face charges then by all rights you should also support the others being sent to the US to face their charges as well. The other two did break laws in the US but seeing how they weren't labeled as a terrorist then they shouldn't be charged for their crimes?



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: buster2010

I 100% agree with you.

Abu Hamza should have faced trial and prison in the UK.

If he had killed or injured American while in the USA I would have handed him over myself.
edit on 20-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
"Abu Hamza should have faced trial and prison in the UK"

err...... he did and was found not guilty !



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: diddy1234
"Abu Hamza should have faced trial and prison in the UK"

err...... he did and was found not guilty !


Well then he should be free how ever much we hate him.

Not passed off to the USA.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The reason why Abu Hamz's extradition took over 10 years to happen was that the UK Law delt with him first and then after finding him not guilty (even though Teresa May wanted rid of him at any cost) he was extradited.

The UK law is so limp wristed and feeble, numerous times it's reported on the news of people getting off free or a reduced sentence because they 'knew how to play the system'.

UK Law at your disposal, if you have lots of money or you know how to play the system.
Meanwhile the UK worker foots the bill for it.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

You know how I feel about this crazyewok, but I am going to reiterate for the sake of spreading the word where ever it is needed.

Abu Hamza needed to be gone from this country. I accept that.

What I do not accept, is the idea that the only way to make that happen, is by utilising a treaty which not only makes it easier for TERROR SUSPECTS, A NARROW DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE FOR THE SAKE OF SOWING TERROR, but regular people, business owners, Aspergers sufferers, and a potentially growing list of other persons, liable to be removed from this sovereign nation without due process in our courts.

Here is the be all and end all. British citizens should not have to be concerned about being extradited under terror legislation, unless they are confirmed as being either a member of, or a supporter of, an actual terrorist organisation or cell, or guilty of planning and executing a terrorist plot. Only criminals whose crimes are committed under those narrow definitions, ought to be considered for extradition under the treaty.

The other thing is, that when you break the law in the UK, you should expect to be punished. If you do NOT break UK law, and you live in, and work in the UK, then that is just too bad for the rest of the world. You live in the UK, but you broke a law in India from your office in Bristol? It does not matter a damn. You broke a law in New York City, but you were in Yorkshire in England at the time? Then Uncle Sam ought to button his lip and suck it up, because unless you broke UK law, on UK soil, you should not have to worry about being extradited, because as far as our government is concerned, you did not break any law.

Our government is supposed to be protecting us from terrorists, if you believe their psycho-dramatic propaganda. Well, perhaps our government ought to consider protecting its people from outrageous extradition treaties, because I will wager that over time, more British citizens will be harmed by poorly drafted extradition treaty documents, than will have been harmed by terror bombers.

Either the UK government ought to grow a spine and shred that document, demanding one which limits the use of the treaty to actual terrorism offences, or they should pull out of that treaty altogether.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit
Exactly.

Im all for punishment and deportation of terrorist but NOT at the expense of our rights.


As a individual I have little concern for Abu Hamza and will not shed a tear if he us shanked in a US prison shower room.

What worries is the way he was extradited and the rights we lose due to the treaty that allows that extradition.
edit on 20-5-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: buster2010

The other two did break laws in the US but seeing how they weren't labeled as a terrorist then they shouldn't be charged for their crimes?


What I will add to that is the other 2 were not in the USA, they committed there crimes while in the UK and therefore should be tried and sentenced under UK law.



posted on May, 20 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok
Abu Hamza is a good point in question. He is a terrorist that dealt across borders with his crimes. Therefore is an "international" terrorist so whatever country(really any country attacked by his actions) that wants to prosecute him they have the legal right. Think about dictators dragged to be prosecuted in The Hague even though their crimes were committed in another country. Another good example(which absolutely no-one complained about) Adolph Eichmann. Committed his crime in Germany, kidnapped(not extradited) from South America, taken for trial in Israel and executed there. Where were his rights. You should recognise that the biggest bully in the school yard ALWAYS gets his way.




top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join