UK Home Secretary approves TVShack's O'Dwyer extradition Blighty's Home Secretary Theresa May has approved the extradition of Richard O'Dwyer to the US on charges of copyright infringement stemming from his TVShack website. According to his mother Julia, O'Dwyer's extradition was signed off by May on Tuesday as the Prime Minister David Cameron flew into the US for talks with …
Oh, I dont disagree, just because the US system requires proof, that their constitution requires, doesnt mean they shouldnt have to provide the same proof here.
However, its not beyond the US to provide all sorts of evidence, remember that a monkey in a suit convinced Tony Blair that Iraq had all sorts of nasty weapons.
"I doubt it would matter if the "much needed" change, so that the US had to provide proof, would matter in any of the cases mentioned.
In O'Dwyers case, they would show he profited from crime,"
Really ? I was un-aware of any proof of profit from a crime (not a crime in the UK that is, nor using resources located in the US). Judge Purdy did say in his ruling: "There are said to be direct consequences of criminal activity by Richard O'Dwyer in the USA" but that hardly constitutes an admission of proof, and i've not heard details of any such proof from the US side.
There are accusations of link bumping to copyrighted material, but they are just that - accusations. So perhaps there is "proof" somewhere - but i've missed it - and if so, please point me in the right direction. I know they (US) don't need it, but that was the thrust of your argument I believe.
Frankly, this smacks of capitulation for other reasons - isn't the first, won't be the last, just a pity.
Very often, in the US evidence is neither required nor produced in criminal cases. What will probably happen is he will be mercilessly badgered by the "nasty" cops for a few days until they convince him he's in jeopardy of a thousand year sentence, then the "nice" cop will show up and get him to sign a confession in exchange for dropping most of the charges. Bingo, conviction achieved, no evidence necessary.
My son got a ticket for running a stop sign. When he decided to go to court to fight it, they even offered him a plea bargain on that.
The lobbyist's expect results from politicians who they donate money too...
We are unable to put extremist clerics on a plane out of the country yet we extradite someone who runs a website which upsets a company or group of companies?
New laws and treaties are sold to us under the pretense of stopping terrorists and that they will not be used for anything else. Just like how coppers have misused the terrorism laws by threatening to arrest people under the terrorism act simply for wanting to record a simple event happening on the street.
It appears the US government wants to be the world police and does not care that more and more people are rising against it.
The fact that the actual copyrighted material is hosted on numerous streaming websites - which clearly have not been targeted - probably because they American.....
Meanwhile a certain popular website (with a .eu domain) which offers EXACTLY the same service as Richard's is still up and running......
Our justice system is now officially owned by the USA.
Time for us to learn all American laws as it is clear they all apply here irrespective of what our own law might be and our government is happy to ship us off to be tried in a foreign land for doing something that isn't a crime here.
If it's not a crime here, why are we extraditing?
I'm pretty sure that Rick Santorum has said a few things which are homophobic enough to get him prosecuted on the east side of the pond - any chance of getting him prosecuted over here?
Thought not.
In the meantime, anyone sad enough to look for US TV shows online since they haven't come out over here yet will probably watch them again when they finally cross the ocean, and then buy the DVD box set.
The U.S. does not have a legitimate claim against O'Dwyer.
It is not as if he went to the U.S., murdered someone while he was there and then returned back to the U.K. In a situation like that, extradition would be justified.
In this case, a student sets up and operates website in the U.K., where he lives. He is not an American citizen, has not been to the U.S. Therefore American laws don't apply. British law and only British law should apply.
On what basis does the U.S.gov think it should be able to enforce its laws on U.K. citizens living in the U.K? Surely, if O'Dwyer broke the law, he should be prosecuted in Britain, by a British court according to BRITISH law.
It is disgusting that this government is happy to ship British citizens to foreign countries that have no legitimate claim against the individual, and that individual has never set foot in that country.
USA has a very interesting judicial doctrine.
USA disagrees with the doctrine of the universal jurisdiction when the defendant is American. Google for USA and the international war crime tribunals, etc for an example. At the same time they are quite zealous at enforcing it when the plaintiff is American (especially if the plaintiff is the USA government).
This stems from several old supreme court decisions. Their government is mandated by their law to disregard any foreign justice and always enforce USA justice. Similarly, all treaties USA signs are effectively null and void too because they have no value whatsoever in USA - only USA law applies. So a ratification of a treaty by USA actually means plain nothing. There has to be a USA law and it has to enter the law books after that.
As a comparison - any treaty ratified by any Eu country (sans UK) automatically becomes law and overrides any local law. It is in the constitutions for most of them.
These differences are something which any country must keep in mind when signing docs with USA. Quite clearly previous (and current) UK governments have not done their homework on this one so we will now have consume the consequences for time to come.
I agree with your post entirely. However...
As a computer science student at Sheffield Hallam University, O’Dwyer set up the TVShack website in 2007. The US government alleges he made over $230,000 from advertising revenues given the site's popularity. When the original site was shut down he set up a mirror, with an NWA graphic and the slogan “F*ck the Police”.
That just really wasn't smart. Funding by ad-revenue even though you have hosting costs stokes the "did it for profit" argument. Being a total twat after a takedown when you should have just skulked away is really dumb. Sooner or later someone will stand up to the US's extra-territorial bullshit. I doubt it will be the UK though.
Not so. Groupthink here seems strong, though, so I fully expect to get downvoted lots for this.
The main issues here are:
- O'Dwyer created a site which encouraged viewing of unlicensed content (Top 10 list consistently showed unlicensed titles)
- O'Dwyer profited from this (advertising revenue estimated at $230,000)
- O'Dwyer's site was a "nexus" for copyright infringement in the US (Look it up)
Unless you think that demanding extradition of a person standing in Mexico and firing a rifle over the US border is also outrageous, you're being a little hypocritical. It's perfectly reasonable for them to demand a trial in the US for this. He won't be tried in the UK as linking to unlicensed content isn't a crime in the UK.
FWIW, he visited the US on holiday when he was five years old. It makes no difference, but it's just one more fact of the case you've missed. Remember, your opinion != (however flawed) fact.
i'm baffled by these cases
if the person was not physically present in usa territiory when the alleged offence was committed, then what fuck has it got to do with the usa? since when did johhny foreigner's laws apply to the uk?
if he committed a crime while in uk, under uk law, bang him up, otherwise, he's innocent
otherwise, i assume we're going to extradite all usa handgun owners and lock them up because they are committing a crime in uk law
Extradite all USA hand gun owners?! In direct contravention of UK laws that do not allow anyone (in theory) except the plod, the private LTD company (ACPO) that profits from them, and the armed forces to bear arms, it would seem that we have a shed-load of gun-toting Foreign Bureau of Intoxicants coming over to visit the Olympics! Grrr! (/rant off)
If this kid made $230,000 from this website why was he still living at home with his mum and attending Uni? Seems to me that the first thing a student would do would be move out of his mums house!
I think this is a total abuse of power, if he is clear of all charges in this country then we shouldn't be extraditing him, else surely that means we think we didn't do a proper job ourselves??
The whole treaty and it's application are the complete fucking disgrace:
Brought in to supposedly 'fight terrorism' the treaties recent application proves the much laboured point that bad laws will ALWAYS be abused and used for purposes that were not originally intended.
Now UK citizens can be shipped out when they've done NOTHING illegal under UK law, (as the Oink verdict established - linking to copyrighted content is not a crime).
While I don't agree with the extradition issue, I think the guy and his mother need a reality check if they think he's done nothing wrong.
Did she not even question the £147,000 he raked in? You don't get that kind of dosh from a website and Google ads.
In the never ending battle of the entertainment industry of the US versus the internet and the way they use the US legal system did he honestly think he'd be completely safe from prosecution? Maybe he should have read The Reg and seen all the stories that have been published over the years.
The alleged infringement was way back in 2002, when the site was first set up the extradition treaty wasn't even in place...
Even so, if this had all occurred last week I'd still argue that he's done nothing illegal under UK law and should not be subject to the Whims of the US media industry.
1. Is what he did also illegal here in Blighty?
2. Could it also be argued that the effects of the crime were felt here?
I suspect the answers are yes and yes. However, I'd not be surprised if a compliant CPS had declined to prosecute. I'd quite like to know what May carefully considered; not to mention see where all the aledged profits went, since US prosecutors aren't exactly shy when it comes comes to exaggerating numbers.
This post has been deleted by its author
You can only be extradited to the US if the offense is an "extraditiion offence", which is defined in section 137 of the Extradition Act 2003:
* if the offense occurred either the US, or not in the US but no part of it in the UK, and the conduct would get him 12 months or more in the UK
* if the offence occurred outside the US and no part of it occurred in the UK, and the conduct would get him 12 months or more in the US.
I'm not sure which of these applies, but I think given "command and control" of the site was clearly in the UK it would have to be the first - the offense occurred in the US and he could get 12 months for the same offence in the UK.
Clearly the CPS believes a crime would have been committed in the UK, which given his site was available worldwide, does make me wonder why they're not prosecuting here. If I were him right now I'd be supplying the UK with all the evidence of the crime so they could prosecute him here.
@Androgynous Cupboard
IANAL, but looking at what you quoted there, he is not elligible. Looking at both statements, they say "but no part of it in the UK". He was in the UK, and so were his servers, hence part of it was in the UK. Whether or not the rest applies, surely it must hold that part of the "offence" occured in the UK.
As a side note, from now on I am making any sites I run inaccessible from the US. I don't know US law, can't afford to hire a US lawyer and do not wish to be subject to US law, so I shall block all US IP addresses. Simples.
"based on the location of the web server"
I am fairly sure I read that all services were hosted in the UK.
Even if they weren't, the site was developed in the UK, so some part was done in the UK.
I wish a lawyer would come on and explain this. May have to try to convince OutLaw to do a write up...
Answer to both questions is no...
1. The Oink verdict firmly established that sites which link to potentially infringing content but host nothing infringing do not break UK law, even if the site operator profits from advertising / donations as Oink did.
2. Did this site enhance / proliferate other sites which held infringing content, probably yes, but the same can be said of any search engine. If the US want to protect creative rights they should go after those who are infringing those rights. If I were to offer up copyrighted content, or sell illegal satellite decoders / copy bypass systems then I've clearly broken the law, if I publish URLs of sites doing this, I have done nothing wrong; indeed, the media police should be thankful to me that they can use my site for it's intended purpose and to their own ends - to locate and take action against those infringing their rights.
If I see someone shop lifting and I point them out and publicly declare; "this person is shoplifting, and probably has stolen goods to sell" I'm doing nothing wrong, I';m being a good public servant.
The only factor which could turn this into a crime would be an element of agreement / conspiracy between the infringer, and the one linking to the infringing content - if that could be proven then the site owner would become an accessory - it looks like this is the route being pursued against Tim Dotcom and Mega-Upload where the US believe they can prove a degree of collusion.
Theresa May is in power to protect UK citizens, not US corporate interests. Therefore Theresa May is now guilty of a gross violation of allegiance to our country and its citizens, which is literally an act of treason against our country and all of us.
I said a few months ago, this legal president, if allowed though, is so shocking it would have been unbelievable 10 years ago. This extradition law was brought in to stop terrorists. That was it, from what we were told. Now its being abused into a way to drag a 23-year-old student to America to stand trial for telling people where to find something!
Also this shockingly bad legal president can now be used to silence any whistle blower who tries to release information deemed to be copyrighted, which is all of it. So no more exposure of corruption then, because any attempt to release the information and its off to the US for punishment.
The US are trying to create a global totalitarian state and the UK politicians are helping them. Our politicians are suppose to be our representatives in government. They are not our dictators. This has gone far enough.
Seriously, do our leaders want a revolution against them and the growing global Corporatocracy that rules them and us?!
1) The treaty IS unballanced, and this should be redressed. I am unsure what good this would do in the cases publicised so far, but it needs sorting.
2) As many pointed out here, he did all this in the UK, AFAIK hosted on UK servers. To extradite him to the US when all his actions were in the UK is rediculous! There is something to the extradition of McKinnon (as he "hacked" US computers), although I still think he acted in the UK so should be dealt with here. When it gets to the point where someone can act soley in the UK and be extradited to the US, we really do have "Team America - World Police". We all need to learn about US law as that applies here thanks to a spineless UK government and a US govt which thinks it's entitled to police the world.
No British citizen should be bound by foreign laws that do not carry the same level of punishment in the UK.. The action(Civil - not criminal) were committed while residing in the UK. He should be charged and punished in the UK by UK law if applicable.
What next - British citizens shipped to Thailand and given 20 years for saying something rude about the Thai monarchy while in the UK
Madness
Someone start the petition on the Government's "echo chamber for those lowly scum that voted us in and we need to make out we're listening to" website and we can all sign up.
I'd start it myself but fear my lack of wordsmith capability and the flagrant overuse of such terms as "scum", "wankers", "self-serving pricks" etc would likely undermine said campaign.
Online petitions are a waste of time. MPs have already proven that here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15283837
Write to your MP: http://www.writetothem.com/ tell them why this is wrong and why you want something done about it. Tell all your family and friends to write to their MPs too. Keep writing to them. Make it clear we're not going to go away until they revoke this treaty. It's the only way we're going to get any movement on this.
You too can vote with your feet and STOP this disgraceful abuse of power by the USA
If you disagree how a company behaves then simply STOP purchasing their products.
I am strongly against disproportionate legal action such as this case so make your views known and stop funding this abuse. They just won't learn will they?
Don't blame the American government for selling their souls to lobbyists. They are fucking stupid and corrupt and we all know that. Blame yourselves in UK for not making any changes in the government. You guys can protest, can vote and can make the changes using the Media.
If you are so unhappy that all the policies seem fucked up, move out of the country like many people do. Here in Canada the government stupidity is at the same level, but we are starting to put pressure on the government. And if it doesn't work, they will be out in the next election. If nothing changes, then you can complain.
Policy changes usually take years to reverse so start forcing the changes NOW. The french seem to know how to pressure the government quite well. We should learn from them on this topic.
"You guys can protest, can vote and can make the changes using the Media."
We tried. The previous Govt enacted the treaty. The new Govt are using it without seeing anything wrong with it. That's all three of a major parties (well, two major and the biggest of the minors). There is no other choice.
I notice every comment even remotely suggesting O'Dwyer is guilty is getting down-voted.
Some people need a reality check.
What O'Dwyer has done IS illegal in this country (rightly or wrongly) - the fact that nobody here could be bothered prosecuting him over it is another matter entirely.
Given the fact that after shutting one site down - he gave them the finger, I think the little **** deserves all the jail-time he'll get.
That said the treaty does need a re-write and we should tell the USA to f**k off - the way they have treated Chris Tappin is disgraceful - and he is a guy who should never have been extradited.
No, some just have this old fashioned idea that you should be tried and convicted in the country where the alleged crime happened. Rather than having the US policing the world and taking people from around the world to stand trial there. As a precedent it is rather worrying.
This has noting to do with the specific crime, but is due to the precedent setting circumstances of it, i.e there was no crime on US soil, so it is none of their business.
I am sure every day, I do something that is against the law somewhere in the world. Should I be extradited to stand trial in a country where my actions are illegal.
Or if I do break the law in my own country but the CPS does not want to press the case, should I then be extradited to another country, where they have more of an interest in prosecuting.
Why not just out source the whole of our justice system to countries like the US, by extraditing any alleged criminal there. It will save a lot of money in these debt ridden times. Call me old fashioned, but I don't like that idea....
From what I understand what he did is NOT illegal in the UK, and if it was it would be a civil matter at most, not a criminal one.
There is even legal precedent set by the Oink and FileSoup trials (where prosecutions over linking to torrent files were dropped) that shows that his actions are not illegal in the UK. The CPS investigated him and didn't press charges.
So our governmental prosecution service (CPS) think he has no case to answer within UK law, we have legal precedent saying he has no case to answer within UK law, and he only operated within the UK. Why exactly is he being extradited again? Oh I remember, US law is enforceable worldwide and our Government is happy to sell its people down the line.
I'm sure we all do something everyday that is illegal somewhere in the world. Should we all start worrying?
It ceases to be a civil matter when it is carried out commercially, it's pretty easy to argue that if he's made something like quarter of a million dollars then it was a commercial operation.
As well as this, we don't know where the advertising was being served from, it's highly likely that the company serving the advertising is from the USA, as most are, this would be a fairly good link to a crime happening on US soil.
As a final point when a crime happens in multiple jurisdictions the general agreed way forward is that the jurisdiction who signals intent to prosecute first is the one who gets the extradition/puts on the trial. This is what happened with the NatWest four.
I think the point is that it doesn't really matter about O'Dwyer, beyond his just being an example. It doesn't matter what he has or hasn't done, because this extradition treaty is magnitudes more serious. It has to be stopped.
Really so-called 'Democracy' is a joke. You can't wait 4 or 5 years before you can stop them by voting (I mean, if voting the opposition it ever made a difference anyway!). That's about as responsible as emergency services only doing something about fires, motorway pile-ups, murder sprees, on one day a month and justifying it with the hope that 'not too many people die in the meantime!'
America is to the modern world what Rome was to the ancient: the no. 1 power. Like any over-arching power it can do what it likes & it's little tributary nations (e.g. the UK) submit. But there is a double standard. You can bet that American soldier who slaughtered those Afghan civilians won't face Afghan justice.
So this is a case in point of legislation put in place for one thing, being used for something else completely. The current extradition treaty was set-up in the way it was, to allow the US to get hold of potential terrorists who even though not in the US, have had involvement in crimes against US interests.
Of course no-one was bothered at the time as it was stuff to stop only terrorism, right? As per usual, wrong. Like most legislation put in place to combat the bogey men terrorists or child abusers, it will mostly end up being used against people who have not involvement in these crimes. Another case in point is that the extreme porn law gets mostly used against immigrants selling pirated DVD's (report from this website), rather than against stopping more murders like the Jane Longhurst one, that promoted the legislation. Don't even get me started on the RIPA abuses.
So those of us who argue against these kinds of legislation. Which are advertised as needed to stop terrorists or child abuse. We are doing so not because we support either of those crimes, but because we know from experience that the legislation will not be used against the groups intended, but against others who do not deserve the same treatment.
Has the guy who is being extradited done something wrong, probably. Does he deserve to have legislation designed for people who want to perpetrate terrorist acts against others, of course not. And this will keep continue while people are happy to give up there rights in order to be protected from the Terrorists or Paedos, without realising they are just shooting themselves in the foot....
Google and other search engines etc have a "takedown mechanism" in place by which content owners can send them a request to have something removed from the site or de-listed from search engine results.
As long as you can show reasonable compliance and action for these requests you have a "get out of jail card". Its pretty stupid really, if O'Dwyer had a button offering the ability to remove content he probably would have got away with it.
The thing I find amazing with these cases it the US constantly quoting how much this site and that site made from advertising which has some serious flaws:
1. The amount they make on advertising has nothing to do with copyright infringement.. the advertising is based on site views, just because someone viewed an advertisement generating income does not mean they then viewed copyrighted material.
2. The figures they use are always based on gross costs they never seem to add the costs of actually running sites which in some cases can be as much as the revenue generated effectively making no profit at all.
This post has been deleted by its author
I travel for work and spend plenty of time in the US so I'm shafted really by any government that wants to deem me a threat to their cartoon mice... that said it's becoming clear for UK citizenry (myself included) that if the US ever comes knocking at the door for the next extradition on spurious charges your only hope is to go on the rampage.
Yes, I mean start a riot, steal a car, set fire to a school (at the weekend) or cause some other incalculable financial loss that is (a) enough to raise the ire of Daily Fail and Sun readers but (b) does not cause death or GBH and (c) ensures you get national attention and (d) a long enough term in a UK slammer that delays or frustrates the US process.
I can't say whether it would be successful but it may force a national debate and possibly set UK law enforcement against US law enforcement. But you have better survival chance in a UK prison versus the very real threat of rape and murder in a US prison. There's also the slight possibility that when you get released in the UK a change of culture has taken effect in the US that they no longer wish to pursue you.
On the other hand if the US still manages to twist the UK's arm and extradite - think about all the scores you could settle and effectively leave the country knowing your enemies would see no justice.
$$$$$$'s worth of property damage vs $'s worth of copyright infringement
That's right. Don't go for the big guys, Ms. May. Go for the little ones who probably can't defend themselves properly. Why is he being extradited anyway? What's the matter, Theresa? Afraid of upsetting the Yanks? It's about time someone did, poking their noses into foreign governments' business and trying to rule the world.
You may well be right, but you're a few decades too late.
It's interesting that now this US "extraterritoriality" (?) affects the British man in the street, suddenly it's a hot topic. But actually it's nothing new. Not if you're in business, or if you have your eyes open, anyway.
It's been affecting British companies for literally decades. If you are a British company with significant US connections, and you want to stay in business, you have to obey US export controls even when the UK (or more recently the EU) has no equivalent restrictions. End of. Same probably applies elsewhere, but it's the UK I know about.
See also "secondary boycotts".
Has everyone gone mad?
The issue here (and with Christopher Tappin) is not *extradition* but *jurisdiction*. If what O'Dwyer did in the UK was illegal in the UK, then he is subject to UK law. He can not be subject to US law for something he did in the UK. I do not believe an American would ever be extradited for something he did in America.
If I, as a UK citizen, have never been to the USA I should not have to concern myself with what is or is not legal in the USA. Or China, or Venezuela, or Djibouti. If I travel to another country and commit a crime there, then it is my lookout. But I can't become subject to foreign law just by, for example, trading with someone in that country. That would be absurd.
E.g. Tappin is accused of the crime of exporting batteries from the USA. But he did not *export* them he *imported* them. Whoever sold them from the USA was breaking US law. But Tappin wasn't.
It is illegal to import Bibles into Saudi Arabia. So if I sell Bibles to someone in Saudi can I be extradited?
The test that the crime has to be illegal in both countries is flawed - because we do not know if what O'Dwyer or Tappin did was illegal in the UK unless there is a trial in the UK. It makes sense to apply that test only after jurisdiction has been established - not to transfer jurisdiction.
I have serious doubts about the Yanks calculation for the amount of revenue that site brought in.
I don't have any doubts that he will be "forced" to plead guilty and enter a plea bargain e.g. 6 years in prison isof. 120.
Yeah, he did something wrong, we all did when we were young, but he never killed or injured anyone and yet he'll be receiving more time in Prison than UK rioters got.
If I was Richard O'Dwyer, I would be seeing Political Asylum in the United Arab Emirates Embassy right now!!
He shouldn't have set the mirror up after the site was taken down for the first time, but this is very, very scary, disproportionate and some big changes need to be made here.
So, who do we vote for at the next election then (with reference to this issue only - I could give long lists why I wouldn't vote for any of them but that's not relevant to this thread)? Labour, I believe, paved the way for this, so not them. The Tories are using the legislation, so not them. And the Lib Dems... (disclaimer: the party I always voted for up until this time)... Absolutely not.
...we're pretty fucked then, and this is only going to get worse.
You hit the nail on the head all our politicians are subservient to the mighty USA.
I don't know about you but I'm getting pretty sick of it.
Labour brought in the laws and the coalition uses them, says it all really.
Guy Fawkes the only man to enter parliament with honest intentions...
>Blame yourselves in UK for not making any changes in the government.<
Er, we did, the last election was called a hung parliament, where no party got a major vote, so it was down to the most liberal party (the liberal democrats) choosing to share power with one of the other parties -
1) Labour (the left), seduced by Hollywood moguls into forcing the anti piracy DEA thru, signing this extradition agreement, whilst simultaneously being for 'spying on our citizens' and spunking cash trying to buy their way out of a global economy dive... or the
2) Conservatives (the right), which is who they chose and immediately forgot they were the Liberal party and agreed to everything David Cameron wanted (pretty much), so - shutting down community centres, libraries etc and raising the cost of University fees, not getting rid of the DEA or camera's and proving that -
3) it doesn't matter who you fucking vote for (I used to vote Liberal Democrat - splitters!).
Mumble, whinge, moan, damn kids - GET OFF MY LAWN!
So America can extradite a British citizen without showing much evidence to back up their case. So can the whole of Europe with the EAW. Witness the recent case of Graham Mitchell who has been re-arrested under the EAW for a crime he was found NOT guilty of 20 years ago - look it up his name on Google.
How long before the whole world can extradite British citizens and the UK legal system and the politicians allow it to happen without doing anything to stop it.
A quick read of the actual extradition treaty might vent some of the hot air.
The United States is required to show 'reasonable suspicion' that a criminal act has occured in an environment in which the US has jurisdiction (in this case, where US companies claim to have been damaged). The United Kingdom has to show 'probable cause' to believe that a crime has been committed, etc. This change to the extradition treaty was made, in part, to redress an imbalance which, until 2003, had worked in the UK's favour.
Sir Scott Baker, in 2011, was tasked with chairing an independent inquiry into the treaty and concluded that, in terms of evidentiary requirement, there is no material difference between the US' 'reasonable suspicion' and the UK's 'probable cause'.
Is the US' claim of jurisdiction open to argument? Sure. Claims of Britain 'giving in' to the US over the treaty terms, however, are harder to support.
Now there is actually a world of difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" in law and you should know the difference before making a claim that its the same.
Reasonable suspicion is weaker than probable cause and here is an example...
Reasonable Suspicion - A police officer sees someone who looks out of place enough to be suspicious of their motives and think a crime may or may not have been committed.
For example would be someone is stumbling around and not walking right when exiting a car, leading to the suspicion he may be drunk (but he might be injured or some other cause etc)
Next the police officer approaches the suspect and smells alcohol on his breath. Now the officer has probable cause that a crime has been committed, and can perform a breath test or something on the subject and arrest him for drink driving.
Basically probable cause needs more evidence to back it up than simply "someone appears to be acting suspiciously"
"I heard on Radio4 news (IIRC) that more have been extradited to the UK than to the US..."
Yes, but had those Americans committed crimes in the UK, or in the US? I do not believe the US would extradite one if its citizens for a crime committed while that person was physically in the USA. American law would apply. Happy to be proved wrong if anyone can give an example.
.... what US extradition etc is
Example 1 = gut in the UK sets up a website that links forward to copyrighted media, not a criminal offense in his country, US extradites him
Example 2 = guy in Afghanistan kills 16 civilians including children, a crimilan offense worldwide, US flies him out
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
