ChatterBank0 min ago
Why won't ECHR help this chap?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/...gland-london-17146487
I suppose if he'd been preaching death to the infidel they'd be all over it!
I suppose if he'd been preaching death to the infidel they'd be all over it!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by d9f1c7. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Mr Qatada has never been prosecuted for anything. He said some unpopular things in a country that has free speech.
Christopher Tappin, whatever he thought he was doing, he acted suspiciously by trying to cover his tracks. He used a fake name, and sent the money through an intermediary.
// US authorities claim Tappin used the alias "Ian Pullen" in contacts with the undercover agents, and according to an indictment filed at the Texas western district court in February 2007, Tappin spoke with the customs agent at least five times in 2006 to arrange the deal. He then wired a $25,000 payment into the fake company's bank account to pay for the batteries and sent a $5,000 cheque to one of the undercover agents through an intermediary. //
Christopher Tappin, whatever he thought he was doing, he acted suspiciously by trying to cover his tracks. He used a fake name, and sent the money through an intermediary.
// US authorities claim Tappin used the alias "Ian Pullen" in contacts with the undercover agents, and according to an indictment filed at the Texas western district court in February 2007, Tappin spoke with the customs agent at least five times in 2006 to arrange the deal. He then wired a $25,000 payment into the fake company's bank account to pay for the batteries and sent a $5,000 cheque to one of the undercover agents through an intermediary. //
From Louis Susman, the US ambassador to Britain (and possibly a bit biased):
First, critics say that it is easier to extradite someone from the UK than from the US due to a different burden of proof. There may be some confusion because the standards of evidence for extradition under the treaty are different in terminology. But in practice, the UK’s “reasonable suspicion” test is the same as the US’s “probable cause”. They are the standards that police officers in our respective countries must meet to justify an arrest.
British citizens are also protected by the “probable cause” test since the US cannot make an extradition request to the UK until probable cause has been successfully established in a US court. So the standard of evidence that each country has to meet to extradite someone is the same. Plain and simple.
In fact, it is worth noting that the United States has never denied an extradition request from the UK under the present treaty.
(I think that last bit is worth noting in the current climate).
First, critics say that it is easier to extradite someone from the UK than from the US due to a different burden of proof. There may be some confusion because the standards of evidence for extradition under the treaty are different in terminology. But in practice, the UK’s “reasonable suspicion” test is the same as the US’s “probable cause”. They are the standards that police officers in our respective countries must meet to justify an arrest.
British citizens are also protected by the “probable cause” test since the US cannot make an extradition request to the UK until probable cause has been successfully established in a US court. So the standard of evidence that each country has to meet to extradite someone is the same. Plain and simple.
In fact, it is worth noting that the United States has never denied an extradition request from the UK under the present treaty.
(I think that last bit is worth noting in the current climate).
If you read this, it certainly seems that he has a case to answer.
http://www.bailii.org...HC/Admin/2011/22.html
http://www.bailii.org...HC/Admin/2011/22.html
It is of no surprise, it is becoming increasingly obvious that our politicians think more of foreigners, than they do of their own countrymen.
Why can't the ECHR step in and prevent him from being extradited to a country where the death penalty and if we are to believe in certain press reports torture, are practised.
Why can't the ECHR step in and prevent him from being extradited to a country where the death penalty and if we are to believe in certain press reports torture, are practised.
jackthehat
/// Have you read *anything* that went before your own post, AOG? ///
If you mean the lengthy document that you posted a link to, then the answer is no.
Apart from my accusation of the Governments treatment of their own nationals, then I cannot see anyone else making a similar accusation.
If you are referring to my tongue in the cheek, reference to torture and capital punishment, then once again I cannot see a similar tongue in the cheek post.
It was simply a dig at the ECHR's decisions taken when the UK wishes to get rid of our undesirables.
I hope that clears up your obvious concerns, but why the need to go to the trouble of asking such a snide if not unnecessary question, I just do not know, but then only you must know how your brain works.
/// Have you read *anything* that went before your own post, AOG? ///
If you mean the lengthy document that you posted a link to, then the answer is no.
Apart from my accusation of the Governments treatment of their own nationals, then I cannot see anyone else making a similar accusation.
If you are referring to my tongue in the cheek, reference to torture and capital punishment, then once again I cannot see a similar tongue in the cheek post.
It was simply a dig at the ECHR's decisions taken when the UK wishes to get rid of our undesirables.
I hope that clears up your obvious concerns, but why the need to go to the trouble of asking such a snide if not unnecessary question, I just do not know, but then only you must know how your brain works.
Quite right, it was a bit naughty of me to ask a question to which I already knew the answer.
For your further education I would say, the ECourtHR will not and can not get involved in this case because there is no danger of any of the EConventionHR articles being contravened.
If you want to gnash away at the injustices and inequities in the 'reciprocal' extradition treaty between US and UK feel free to set up a thread which deals with that.
The OP is about ECHR......
For your further education I would say, the ECourtHR will not and can not get involved in this case because there is no danger of any of the EConventionHR articles being contravened.
If you want to gnash away at the injustices and inequities in the 'reciprocal' extradition treaty between US and UK feel free to set up a thread which deals with that.
The OP is about ECHR......
sunny dave is a little off.....the Guardian 09 reported 68 sent out of the UK on a 89% success rate on US petitioning in the court and the UK recieving 34 on a 70% success rate in their courts.
The figures were mentioned this morning on R4 and I think it was 84 to 44 now excl. this one?
The issue really must be what should the extradition treaty cover - obstensibly and logically it was established to cover terrorism and Cat 3 sanction countries on imports and exports (under this, this bozo probably does have a case to answer if his battery units have been ending upin Iranian missiles). However, hacking and IT issues, - now that I question....
The figures were mentioned this morning on R4 and I think it was 84 to 44 now excl. this one?
The issue really must be what should the extradition treaty cover - obstensibly and logically it was established to cover terrorism and Cat 3 sanction countries on imports and exports (under this, this bozo probably does have a case to answer if his battery units have been ending upin Iranian missiles). However, hacking and IT issues, - now that I question....
jackthehat
/// The OP is about ECHR...... ///
And I was referring to the ECHR.
Since they usually use the excuse for not allowing the extradition of a person from the UK, that the person may face death or torture in the country the UK is trying to send him to.
And seeing that the US is accused by some to operate both punishments, I was 'tongue in the cheek' asking, doesn't the same ECHR rule apply when extraditing persons to the US.
/// The OP is about ECHR...... ///
And I was referring to the ECHR.
Since they usually use the excuse for not allowing the extradition of a person from the UK, that the person may face death or torture in the country the UK is trying to send him to.
And seeing that the US is accused by some to operate both punishments, I was 'tongue in the cheek' asking, doesn't the same ECHR rule apply when extraditing persons to the US.
AOG
The UK have entered into an Extradition Treaty with the US and Politicians have signed it into law. By entering into that agreement, we are saying we do not except that the US uses torture, or that Christopher Tallin will be exucuted.
We had no such agreement with Jordan, and the country was unwilling to provide us with a guarantee that the man we hand over will not be tortured or killed.
The UK have entered into an Extradition Treaty with the US and Politicians have signed it into law. By entering into that agreement, we are saying we do not except that the US uses torture, or that Christopher Tallin will be exucuted.
We had no such agreement with Jordan, and the country was unwilling to provide us with a guarantee that the man we hand over will not be tortured or killed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.