And what is wrong with...
... having to build a strong case before extraditition is granted?
Unlike here in Britain where you can get thrown to the wolves with no case at all.
Two Romanian men accused of internet scams that defrauded customers of PayPal, Citibank and other financial institutions have been extradited to the United States to face charges. Petru Bogdan Belbita, 25, of Craiova, Romania, was arrested in Montreal, Canada in January and formally extradited to the US late last week, …
How awful for the US prosecutors to have to build a strong case before wrenching people out of their homelands and chucking them into the slammer for 37 years thousands of miles away from family and friends.
Maybe that's why the US policy is that foreign countries who want to do that, have to build a strong case against a US national that is verified by a US court before extradition will be permitted.
Their remote locations, often in countries without strong treaties with the United States, means it can take months or years just to take custody of a defendant. And before that can happen, authorities first must build strong cases against the suspects.
Yet when the Afghani government AKA Taliban asked the US to provide reasonable evidence against Osama bin Laden they were basically told to go shove it, hand him over or get bombed. And I don't accept the argument that the situations were different. A crime is a crime and due process should be used otherwise the result is anarchy. If the US had spent years building a reasonable and strong case against bin Laden then there would be no war in Afghanistan now.
NB: these guys are still innocent unless proven guilty.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021