The only argument is if it was something done in the UK that was not a crime in UK law. But if it is, or if it was committed in the USA, then if the US decides something is worthy of extradition, it's a done deal. No court can overrule it, no argument can be made by the individual being extradited. So - you're better off going to any other EU country, all of whom refused to sign unless the US reciprocated. Which, of course, they refused to do.
On 6-Oct-09, at 4:35 PM, Adrian Miles wrote: > ah yes, but presumably Blair at least left a court to determine this? > in which case it is still reasonable to think that an English court is > not going to extradite an English citizen for cash for comment in > their blog :-) > > or can we expect extraordinary rendition for cash for comment > bloggers? > > On 07/10/2009, at 2:19 AM, Rupert Howe wrote: > > > Slightly beside the point, but sadly since 2003 the UK has had a > one- > > sided Extradition Act in which the USA can demand the extradition of > > anybody without presenting prima facie evidence. Although the UK, of > > course, doesn't have the right to demand extradition of US citizens > > under the same terms. It was fast tracked through parliament in the > > name of fighting terrorism - though it has of course been used more > > often to extradite non-terrorist suspects. Another lovely part of > > Blair's proud legacy as W's bitch. > > cheers > Adrian Miles > adrian.mi...@rmit.edu.au > Program Director, Bachelor of Communication Honours > vogmae.net.au > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
