UK extradition failure may put US base in jeopardy

UK extradition failure may put US base in jeopardy

rt.com

17 June, 2010, 12:10

The Kyrgyz government is putting pressure on London via the US. If Washington wants to keep its transit air base, it should ask its British friends to extradite the ousted Kyrgyz president’s son, an official said.

The move is sponsored by Azimbek Meknazarov, deputy chair in Kyrgyzstan’s temporary government, who is responsible judiciary issues and prosecution, AKIpress news agency reports.

The American Manas transit base in Kyrgyzstan is used by NATO to supply its Afghani

(visit the link for the full news article)

The base must go, then the base may stay by paying higher rent, and now it may stay provided one of your friends does this thing. Since the ousted Kyrgyz president’s son has applied for political asylum in the UK, I wonder if that application will have to be processed before any extradiction can occur.

Also, what happens to the base if the UK determines his asylum application has merit and he is permitted albeit doubtful, to remain in the UK?

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

'British friends?'

Obama has it in for us brits doesn't he? Although Beyond Petroleum is 36% american, he was shouting his fat mouth off at his British Friends.

I hold my middle finger up at Obama (the other americans are ok though :roll

reply to post by sinthia


I'm right there with you in holding up my middle finger at obama.

But yeah, I thought that was worded kind of strange too.

I do wonder who's line Cameron will toe, the US or Europe so will be nice to see the way he handles this one...

Edit to add: Obama certainly has not had an easy time in British press, and I have to admit the use of the term "British Friends" seems rather quaint whilst being quite bizzare.

[edit on 17/6/10 by thoughtsfull]

Obama is not attacking Britain over the oil spill. The name of the company is British Petroleum and I have noticed that at most conferences and during his address to the nation he uses simply the name 'BP'. How much more pc can you get?

As far as the base goes, it almost always comes down to wanting something whenever countries order these bases closed. Usually it's money [higher rent], sometimes it's political [release so and so], this time it's both.

But to think that the United States is going to demand the release of someone that Britain is holding is rather presumptuous. Unless Cameron is going to make a deal with Obama regarding some of those monies being held for the Gulf [the $20 B fund] and pass it over to some of the people in the UK that lost their retirement funds due to the stock tanking, I don't see why it would even behoove Cameron to entertain the idea of any kind of swap.

My guess is that the US will laugh this off and there will simply be a higher rent needed to keep the base open -- or a more direct amount paid in aide -- which of course the United States will happily pay with all of the reserves we have on hand.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Ya never know...maybe the Russians are trying to play the peacemaker between obama and his "British friends" with their stab at humor.

I really don't see how they could not hand him over. If the guy is on the international wanted list and all. Then that could have been politically motivated too. I guess we really need some more information on that.

Originally posted by Wayne60
reply to post by thoughtsfull

 

Ya never know...maybe the Russians are trying to play the peacemaker between obama and his "British friends" with their stab at humor.

My first thoughts on this where that the Russians really do want the Techy stuff on the new French amphibs they want to buy/produce and really want to sell their helicopters to NATO countries...

So what better way than a back room deal like this so perhaps they are the ones seeking to be Friends

[edit on 17/6/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply to post by lpowell0627


The name hasn't been British Petroleum for well over 10 years, and any comment about the name is plain wrong - it's BP, end of story.

As for extradition - ever notice how the US wants us to play ball (computer hacker, harmless) but won't play ball with us? (refused to let US personnel come to UK to take part in a coroners report)

Seems to me that there are a lot of double standards at play with the US attitude to extradition, usually to the detriment of the UK.

Special relationship only seems to apply when the US wants something...

Originally posted by budski
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

The name hasn't been British Petroleum for well over 10 years, and any comment about the name is plain wrong - it's BP, end of story.

We can agree to disagree on this and the intent of using the "old" name that they used to conduct business for more than 50 years.

When companies begin buying out other companies after having been known by one name for so long, it is very common for people to refer to the original name.

Exxon is technically Exxon Mobile now -- but most people still just call it Exxon.

As for extradition - ever notice how the US wants us to play ball (computer hacker, harmless) but won't play ball with us? (refused to let US personnel come to UK to take part in a coroners report)

I agree if you simply read it on paper.
However, if you are referring to the death of Hull, it was a little more complicated and not applicable to discuss in this thread.

Seems to me that there are a lot of double standards at play with the US attitude to extradition, usually to the detriment of the UK.

Special relationship only seems to apply when the US wants something...

And I would argue that the UK made many questionable deals with the US along the way as well. Many that DID benefit the UK.

But for now, with Obama in office, he seems much less swayed by our relationship than past Presidents. In fact, I think Obama is fairly focused on estranging the US from most of our allies.

But, to make the blanket statement that the United States is more open to negotiations when we need or want something, than yes I agree with that as well.

The uk should keep the guy just to spite the u.s let them lose the base.. One less military base in the world would be a good thing..

UPDATE:
According to the Russian Times the son of the former Kyrgyz president has been granted temporary asylum.

Published 19 June, 2010, 01:19
Maksim Bakiyev, son of Kyrgyzstan’s ousted president, has been granted temporary asylum in the UK, the BBC news service reported Friday.

Carter Ruck – the London-based law firm that represents Bakiyev –told the media that Bakiyev has been allowed entry into the UK.

Read more
Previously, the media reported that Bakiyev was detained by border guards at Farnborough Airport in Hampshire, United Kingdom, where he had arrived on a private jet.

In the meantime, Bakiyev remains on the wanted list in Kyrgyzstan, where the interim government has demanded his extradition to put him on trial for the alleged charges of fraud and abuse of power.

Now let's sit back and see what if anything happens to the base.