Re: Evidence is portable...
A crime should be tried in the locale of where the crime occurred, and yes, extradition was definitely meant as a mechanism to force the return of unwilling people to the locale of the crime so that they could face local justice. It could be in a different city or state, not just country.
In this case, you have the legal question of WHERE the crime was committed. Was the crime committed in the US where the servers were located (and US law applies) or was it committed in the UK where UK laws apply?
Different cases have ruled in different ways, but the reality is that BOTH apply. As such, for one criminal act over the Internet a person can be charged in multiple locales. The questions then become which has presidence, and does trial and acquittal in one locale qualify as protection against double-indemnity?
If Love is tried in the UK, could he then still be extradited to the US for trial there? If he is tried in the US first, could he then be returned to the UK for additional trials? Those are the questions that needed answered, regardless of what Love may or may not have done.
In the case of Love's extradition, the questions before the UK court are basically:
(1) Is the alleged crime an extraditable offense under the treaty?
(2) Has the required burden of proof been met as required under the treaty?
(3) Are there any extraneous aspects that would exempt Love from the treaty?
(1) and (2) seem to be cut and dried, as Love has actually confessed. (3) is an open question.