Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #1063 > unrolled thread

British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2014-02-27 22:49 -0600
    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-02-28 05:36 +0000
      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 09:25 +0000
        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-02-28 09:41 +0000
          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-02-28 11:34 +0000
            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-01 19:08 -0300
              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-02 00:21 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 08:14 +0000
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 09:30 -0300
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:31 +0000
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-02 13:07 +0000
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 12:19 -0300
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:33 +0000
                      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 10:19 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 11:57 -0300
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 15:22 +0000
                            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:56 +0100
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 17:23 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-03 17:44 +0100
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-03 17:16 +0000
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 17:00 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 09:24 -0300
                  Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-02 14:00 +0100
                    Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-02 12:11 -0300
                      Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> - 2014-03-02 16:53 +0100
                        Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-02 23:38 +0000
                          Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 12:00 -0300
                            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 17:03 +0000
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-03-03 18:02 +0000
                              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2014-03-03 21:52 -0300
            Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-03-04 23:05 +0100
              Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-03-05 11:55 +0000
                Re: British Hacker Faces Extradition To US, Not To Mention Five Years' Imprisonment In UK For Failing To Hand Over Encryption Keys Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-03-05 13:11 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#1202

In message <030320141019158216%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnlh7fv4.6aq.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> In message <020320141307209311%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> > In article <slrnlh5q3b.h2.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>> > <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>> 
>> >> In message <020320140021050749%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>> >>   Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> >> > In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.
>> >> 
>> >> The UK doesn't have him.
>> 
>> > Neither does Sweden. My point is that if the UK *did* have him, and so
>> > was in a position to extradite him to Sweden, the Yanks could ask the
>> > UK for him directly without waiting for him to get to Sweden and then
>> > asking the Swedes.
>> 
>> Not as easily. Assange is at least a citizen of the commonwealth,a nd as
>> such extraditing him to the US would be tricky because he is a well
>> known figure. Extraditing some nobody for 'hacking' is A-OK, but if the
>> UK handed him directly to the US it would be a problem.

> I assume you mean "citizen of a Commonwealth country" although that is
> neither here nor there.

> And by "asking for" I obviously meant "seek to extradite". His
> notoriety or otherwise is also irrelevant.

How do you figure that's irrelevant? If the UK government turned him
over directly to the US there would be riots and a rather quick change
in government.

> I agree that the UK-US extradition situation is egregious ATM.

The US has bullied a lot of countries into being basically satellite
states to the US. In Sweden the raids against Pirate Bay for violating
US Laws (but not Swedish laws) were led by a police officer who took a
high paying job with Warner Brothers within a year of the raid.

-- 
"He is a self-made man and worships his creator." - John Bright

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1138

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:21:05 +0000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <t9m4h99dkthct36ojt285gf5k5a5ohfbd3@4ax.com>, Shadow
><Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:13 +0000, Tim Streater
>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> 
>> >Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he could
>> >then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why.
>> 
>>    For "Treason". One of the few people in the world accused of
>> treason by a foreign (to him) country.
>
>Is this another case of the US arbitrarily extending its laws to places
>and in ways that it has no business doing? They do have form in that
>regard.
>
>>    Sweden has extradition treaties with the US. Once he lands
>> there, he'll be on his way to Guantanamo the next day.
>
>In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite him.

	They did. The UK gvnmt was getting a lot of flak from the
public for being USA's lapdog, so they ordered him extradited to
Sweden. It's why he's holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.
	Like I said, if he steps out the next day he's on his way to
Guantanamo, with a transit stop in Sweden, and no lawyers allowed.
	They call that "human rights". It's what they are preaching in
the Ukraine, after felling the democratically elected government. 95%
of the Ukraine people still defend ties with Russia. The dissidents
were a mere 5%.
	War is big business. And bugger the "collateral damage" as
long as nothing lands on Wall Street.
	[]'s

>Instead, its the Swedes. Why would that be? And why would the Swedes
>send him to the US? I know ours is a fuckup in re: the US, but is the
>Swedes' one also?
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1141

On Sunday 02 March 2014 13:24, Shadow conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 00:21:05 +0000, Tim Streater
> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> 
>> In article <t9m4h99dkthct36ojt285gf5k5a5ohfbd3@4ax.com>, Shadow
>> <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 28 Feb 2014 11:34:13 +0000, Tim Streater
>>> <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he
>>> > could then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why.
>>> 
>>>    For "Treason". One of the few people in the world accused of
>>> treason by a foreign (to him) country.
>>
>> Is this another case of the US arbitrarily extending its laws to
>> places and in ways that it has no business doing? They do have form
>> in that regard.
>>
>>>    Sweden has extradition treaties with the US. Once he lands
>>> there, he'll be on his way to Guantanamo the next day.
>>
>> In that case, you'd expect the US to be asking the UK to extradite
>> him.
> 
> They did. The UK gvnmt was getting a lot of flak from the
> public for being USA's lapdog, so they ordered him extradited to
> Sweden.

That is not entirely correct.  Sweden does have an arrest warrant for 
Julian Assange on account of what Swedish law considers rape - in his 
case, there were two women who filed charges against Assange for having 
had *unsafe* sex with them, with the unsafe part being without their 
consent.

Bear no mistake: Assange is definitely a narcissistic and even 
misogynistic individual, but there was definitely something fishy about 
the charges brought up against him.  

For starters, it's conspicuously coincidental that these charges were 
brought up against him in Sweden, the only country in Europe which 
considers unsafe sex a form of rape, even if both parties consented to 
the act, but with one party insisting on safe sex and the other party 
refusing to comply with that.

Secondly, one of the women who filed charges against Assange in Sweden 
has disappeared off the radar.  Given that both rape charges were 
immediately brought up against Assange right after Wikileaks published 
the Bradley Manning material, there's definitely a stench of rotting 
fish to this whole affair.

Given that Wikileaks is not a US American organization and that Julian 
Assange is an Australian citizen, not a US American, there was very 
little that the USA could do, so they probably set up those charges 
against him in Sweden, given that Sweden is a secret NATO ally, and as 
soon as Assange were to be apprehended there, he would be on his way to 
the USA, and from there undoubtedly to Guantanamo Bay.

> It's why he's holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Um, no. That's the result of the arrest warrant running against him in 
Sweden, and Sweden requesting Assange's arrest in the UK.  

Of course, everyone knows that this is all a smokescreen.

> Like I said, if he steps out the next day he's on his way to
> Guantanamo, with a transit stop in Sweden, and no lawyers allowed.
> They call that "human rights". It's what they are preaching in
> the Ukraine, after felling the democratically elected government. 95%
> of the Ukraine people still defend ties with Russia. The dissidents
> were a mere 5%.

Isn't it highly ironic that the minute that there are problems in 
Ukraine, John Kerry and John McCain suddenly show up in that country to 
"support the opposition"?

It is no secret that governments and corporations deploy shills these 
days to create dissent on the Internet.  It should therefore also not be 
considered a secret that the same governments and the same corporations 
also send out proselytizers to foreign nations in order to subvert the 
local regimes.  That's how the civil war in Libya started, that's how 
the civil war in Georgia started, and now it's how the civil unrest in 
Ukraine got started.

> War is big business. And bugger the "collateral damage" as
> long as nothing lands on Wall Street.

Amen to that.

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1148

On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:00:40 +0100, Aragorn
<thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:

>It is no secret that governments and corporations deploy shills these 
>days to create dissent on the Internet.  It should therefore also not be 
>considered a secret that the same governments and the same corporations 
>also send out proselytizers to foreign nations in order to subvert the 
>local regimes.  That's how the civil war in Libya started, that's how 
>the civil war in Georgia started, and now it's how the civil unrest in 
>Ukraine got started.
>
>> War is big business. And bugger the "collateral damage" as
>> long as nothing lands on Wall Street.

	Good post, TY

	Here's to hope:

	http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj

	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1151

On Sunday 02 March 2014 16:11, Shadow conveyed the following to 
comp.misc...

> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:00:40 +0100, Aragorn
> <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> 
>> It is no secret that governments and corporations deploy shills these
>> days to create dissent on the Internet.  It should therefore also not
>> be considered a secret that the same governments and the same
>> corporations also send out proselytizers to foreign nations in order
>> to subvert the local regimes.  That's how the civil war in Libya
>> started, that's how the civil war in Georgia started, and now it's
>> how the civil unrest in Ukraine got started.
>>
>>> War is big business. And bugger the "collateral damage" as
>>> long as nothing lands on Wall Street.
> 
> Good post, TY
> 
> Here's to hope:
> 
> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj

Haha!  Love it! :p

-- 
= Aragorn =

         http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1171

In message <levk5a$bl0$1@dont-email.me> 
  Aragorn <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2014 16:11, Shadow conveyed the following to 
> comp.misc...

>> On Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:00:40 +0100, Aragorn
>> <thorongil@telenet.be.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>> It is no secret that governments and corporations deploy shills these
>>> days to create dissent on the Internet.  It should therefore also not
>>> be considered a secret that the same governments and the same
>>> corporations also send out proselytizers to foreign nations in order
>>> to subvert the local regimes.  That's how the civil war in Libya
>>> started, that's how the civil war in Georgia started, and now it's
>>> how the civil unrest in Ukraine got started.
>>>
>>>> War is big business. And bugger the "collateral damage" as
>>>> long as nothing lands on Wall Street.
>> 
>> Good post, TY
>> 
>> Here's to hope:
>> 
>> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj

> Haha!  Love it! :p

Doesn't load here... :/

-- 
Hudd: 'I've just done this radio show where I never met any of the other
actors and I didn't understand what any of it was about' Moore: 'Ah, yes
I expect that's the thing I'm in.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1193

On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>> Here's to hope:
>>> 
>>> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj
>
>> Haha!  Love it! :p
>
>Doesn't load here... :/

	You have to allow scripts from bayimg.com, a Swedish company
(ironic). But I detected no spyware or cross scripting. If in doubt,
use a proxy, or a live CD.
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1204

In message <5469h9hqb8rma4g9nquc7olj25hco6bdei@4ax.com> 
  Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>>> Here's to hope:
>>>> 
>>>> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj
>>
>>> Haha!  Love it! :p
>>
>>Doesn't load here... :/

> 	You have to allow scripts from bayimg.com, a Swedish company
> (ironic). But I detected no spyware or cross scripting. If in doubt,
> use a proxy, or a live CD.

That's not the issue, it just does not load anything at all.

Well, it *didn't* load. It loads today.

-- 
A cubicle is simply a cell without a door.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1212

On 2014-03-03, Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
> In message <5469h9hqb8rma4g9nquc7olj25hco6bdei@4ax.com> Shadow
> <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>>> Here's to hope:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj
>>>
>>>> Haha!  Love it! :p
>>>
>>>Doesn't load here... :/
>
>> 	You have to allow scripts from bayimg.com, a Swedish company
>> 	(ironic). But I detected no spyware or cross scripting. If in
>> 	doubt, use a proxy, or a live CD.
>
> That's not the issue, it just does not load anything at all.
>
> Well, it *didn't* load. It loads today.

Is this an early example of "comp.misc-ing" in action?

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1227

On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:03:35 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <5469h9hqb8rma4g9nquc7olj25hco6bdei@4ax.com> 
>  Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2014 23:38:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>>> Here's to hope:
>>>>> 
>>>>> http://bayimg.com/PAkDjaAFj
>>>
>>>> Haha!  Love it! :p
>>>
>>>Doesn't load here... :/
>
>> 	You have to allow scripts from bayimg.com, a Swedish company
>> (ironic). But I detected no spyware or cross scripting. If in doubt,
>> use a proxy, or a live CD.
>
>That's not the issue, it just does not load anything at all.
>
>Well, it *didn't* load. It loads today.

	Anything I upload is quarantined by the NSA. I'm apparently a
person of interest.
	http://bayimg.com/makhFaafL

	;)
	[]'s
-- 
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy  - Google 2012

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1249

On 2014-02-28, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <leplje$tid$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
><hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>> 
>> You may as well include the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act,
>> which not only allows GCHQ to intercept the communications of citizens
>> not suspected of any crime, but allows a very wide range of public
>> employees to intercept private communications for a very wide range of
>> reasons (the "economic well-being of the United Kingdom" FFS).
>
> A bad piece of legislation that should be repealed. It is also being
> misused by local authorities.
>
>> You may as well also include the legislation under which David
>> Miranda was detained ...
>
> I know nothing of him.
>
>> and which keeps Julian Assange imprisoned.
>
> Assange's supposed reason is that, once extradited to Sweden, he could
> then be sent on to the US, although I'm not sure why. The extradition
> to Sweden issue may, for all I know, be being done under the European
> Arrest Warrant, which, along with the actual Extradition Treaty
> conditions between the UK and the US, was another egregious action
> taken by the charlatan Blair. If someone is wanted by a foreign state,
> then the validity of the case should be tested in a UK court.

I only became aware of the European Arrest Warrant a few years ago, but
it has been in existence since 2002:

<http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/justice_freedom_security/judicial_cooperation_in_criminal_matters/l33167_en.htm>

It occurred to me that the misuse of RIP you mention above by local
authorities (or other government bodies) could lead to a situation where a
European Arrest Warrant was issued by the UK for someone living in the EU.
Prior to the EAW coming into effect they would have presumably had the
protection of the court in their local jurisdiction, but not any more.

As an aside, I was puzzled several years ago by an increase in the length
of prison sentences for various (minor-ish) crimes by the UK government;
various studies have concluded that lengthening sentences is not really a
deterrent, so why do it?  The answer may lie in this extract from the
above article:

"The warrant applies in the following cases:

* where a final sentence of imprisonment or a detention order has been
imposed for a period of at least four months;
* for offences punishable by imprisonment or a detention order for a
maximum period of at least one year."

-- 
Paul Sture
Not the one on Facebook

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1258

On 2014-03-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> On 2014-02-28, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <leplje$tid$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
>><hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
>>> 
> authorities (or other government bodies) could lead to a situation where a
> European Arrest Warrant was issued by the UK for someone living in the EU.
> Prior to the EAW coming into effect they would have presumably had the
> protection of the court in their local jurisdiction, but not any more.
>
> As an aside, I was puzzled several years ago by an increase in the length
> of prison sentences for various (minor-ish) crimes by the UK government;
> various studies have concluded that lengthening sentences is not really a
> deterrent, so why do it?  The answer may lie in this extract from the
> above article:
>
> "The warrant applies in the following cases:
>
> * where a final sentence of imprisonment or a detention order has been
> imposed for a period of at least four months;
> * for offences punishable by imprisonment or a detention order for a
> maximum period of at least one year."
>

Historically, AFAIK, if there was an extradition treaty between two states,
extradition was possible if the crime allegded was a crime in the state
where the suspect was present.

The present US-(Various countries) extradition treaty is unfair because, 
from the  US end, they can ask for someone to be extradited there for
any trivial reason. Other contries citizens can be extradited to the US 
for a trivial parking offences in Arkansas, for instance. Four UK bankers
were extradited, and , as far as I am aware, convicted for crimes that the
UK authorities had considered that they had not enough evidence for.

One UK citizen has won a case against extradition to France from Ireland
in a murder case because he pointed out that there was no evidence
against him.


-- 
maus
 .
  .
...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1263

In article <slrnlhe3ap.37p.maus@gmaus.org>, greymausg <maus@mail.com>
wrote:

> On 2014-03-04, Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> wrote:
> > On 2014-02-28, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> >> In article <leplje$tid$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Hils
> >><hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> > authorities (or other government bodies) could lead to a situation where a
> > European Arrest Warrant was issued by the UK for someone living in the EU.
> > Prior to the EAW coming into effect they would have presumably had the
> > protection of the court in their local jurisdiction, but not any more.
> >
> > As an aside, I was puzzled several years ago by an increase in the length
> > of prison sentences for various (minor-ish) crimes by the UK government;
> > various studies have concluded that lengthening sentences is not really a
> > deterrent, so why do it?  The answer may lie in this extract from the
> > above article:
> >
> > "The warrant applies in the following cases:
> >
> > * where a final sentence of imprisonment or a detention order has been
> > imposed for a period of at least four months;
> > * for offences punishable by imprisonment or a detention order for a
> > maximum period of at least one year."
> >
> 
> Historically, AFAIK, if there was an extradition treaty between two states,
> extradition was possible if the crime allegded was a crime in the state
> where the suspect was present.
> 
> The present US-(Various countries) extradition treaty is unfair because, 
> from the  US end, they can ask for someone to be extradited there for
> any trivial reason. Other contries citizens can be extradited to the US 
> for a trivial parking offences in Arkansas, for instance. Four UK bankers
> were extradited, and , as far as I am aware, convicted for crimes that the
> UK authorities had considered that they had not enough evidence for.

That was the case I was referring to in another post.

-- 
"The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to
 lead all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores 
 the fact that it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them
 into it in the first place."                             - Douglas Adams

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web