As a UK citizen I feel that he certainly hasn't done me any harm and probably has done quite a lot of good so I find it bizarre that the government would make such a statement, especially as he would be mad to consider coming here!
I presume the real reasons for this are:
- To show solidarity with the US (presumably the NSA and GCHQ are as thick as thieves)
> To show solidarity with the US (presumably the NSA and GCHQ are as thick as thieves)
Yes, and it is also consistent with the proposition that the UK's decision to extradite Assange was made at the political level in order to suck up to the USA.
Maybe it is a warning for him. Don't come here, or we may be forced to hand you over. We are too weak to protect anyone, so just stay away? Can I be that optimistic?
Great link, I will write to mine now. Any ideas what kind of thing to write and how to structure it? I've never done this kind of thing before so any help would be great :-)
That is fun. But they do have the right according to wikipedia.
The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.[4]
So basically Toni Blair has bent over, spreaded cheeks and prelubed himself.
More over, the US doesn't NOT need to show evidence. It just needs to make the claim and say that it has evidence. No UK court gets to see any evidence at all.
IIRC, it was supposed to be two way, but the US never signed off on it's half of it, while we good little Brits let the legislation sail through.
Related: "Senior politicians from across the political divide have united to call for UK security services to be given greater internet monitoring powers" [1]
When the 'Hong Kong Baffled by Snowden's Hideout' WSJ article was posted (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5853397), one paragraph that leaped out at me and also got some attention in the comments was the following:
"Hong Kong is the worst place in the world for any person to avoid extradition, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom," said one lawyer who’s worked on a dozen extradition cases both in the U.K. and Hong Kong"
I don't know what to make of that or how to put it together with this Home Office alert, but it is all rather interesting.
They probably mean detrimental to the governments good. They wouldn't want to say no to US requests but they would been seen as the bad guys while the extradition (and/or asylum) proceedings dragged on for months.
They are also trying to pass legislation (Communications Data Bill) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22891845 to allow[1] communications logging of metadata. Having him in the country would make it even more newsworthy as there would be a human interest angle.
[1] Whether they are doing it now without legal standing is an interesting question. My guess is yes and the former Labour home secretaries are aware and complicit and would really like it legitimised.
"This is clearly as a result of political pressure from the US"
If that was the case I would expect them to accept him with open arms, and then extradite him. It seems rather like a preliminary move that avoids placing them in that position.
[+] [-] arethuza|12 years ago|reply
I presume the real reasons for this are:
- To show solidarity with the US (presumably the NSA and GCHQ are as thick as thieves)
- So he doesn't give anyone at GCHQ ideas
I'm going to write to my MP about this:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
[+] [-] cabalamat|12 years ago|reply
Yes, and it is also consistent with the proposition that the UK's decision to extradite Assange was made at the political level in order to suck up to the USA.
[+] [-] megablast|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyhmltn|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|12 years ago|reply
The UK government simply doesn't want a repeat of the diplomatic mess that was Julian Assange's asylum claim.
[+] [-] venomsnake|12 years ago|reply
The treaty has been claimed to be one-sided[3] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.[4]
So basically Toni Blair has bent over, spreaded cheeks and prelubed himself.
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
More over, the US doesn't NOT need to show evidence. It just needs to make the claim and say that it has evidence. No UK court gets to see any evidence at all.
IIRC, it was supposed to be two way, but the US never signed off on it's half of it, while we good little Brits let the legislation sail through.
[+] [-] voltagex_|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FuzzyDunlop|12 years ago|reply
The irony is delicious.
[+] [-] rurounijones|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alan_cx|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amirmc|12 years ago|reply
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22891845
[+] [-] kryten|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] luckystarr|12 years ago|reply
Just think about all those police officers constantly monitoring the ecuadorian embassy.
Now think about having two of them in the country! Crikey!
[+] [-] JDGM|12 years ago|reply
"Hong Kong is the worst place in the world for any person to avoid extradition, with the possible exception of the United Kingdom," said one lawyer who’s worked on a dozen extradition cases both in the U.K. and Hong Kong"
I don't know what to make of that or how to put it together with this Home Office alert, but it is all rather interesting.
[+] [-] ig1|12 years ago|reply
Realistically if he was in the UK he'd face extradition to the US. The home office putting out this alert means they won't have to do that.
The US would be happy for Snowden to enter the UK where he could easily be arrested.
[+] [-] weavie|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simonsez1808|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] josephlord|12 years ago|reply
They are also trying to pass legislation (Communications Data Bill) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22891845 to allow[1] communications logging of metadata. Having him in the country would make it even more newsworthy as there would be a human interest angle.
[1] Whether they are doing it now without legal standing is an interesting question. My guess is yes and the former Labour home secretaries are aware and complicit and would really like it legitimised.
[+] [-] hobolobo|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuxy|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|12 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ramblerman|12 years ago|reply
If that was the case I would expect them to accept him with open arms, and then extradite him. It seems rather like a preliminary move that avoids placing them in that position.
[+] [-] addflip|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pyalot2|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] einhverfr|12 years ago|reply