You think the US would extradite one of their to the UK to face charges? This is just bang out of order considering the fella has never stepped foot in that country

A la Assange treatment

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/ar...adition-treaty

I have long been outraged at the extra territorial application of American law, whereby the U.S. seeks the extradition of foreign nationals who commit an alleged offence in their home country, and for which the U.S. seeks to indict them.

I bombarded my MP about Marc Emory, who posted marijuana seeds to U.S. customers via Canada Post. What he was doing was not, I believe, an offence in Canada, and he was not prosecuted here for that. Eventually our cowardly government handed him over to the U.S. where their thug judicial system gave him a choice, plead guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence, or go to prison for decades.

Then there was the NatWest six. These people were carrying out banking and financial trades for a British bank, on behalf of a British based subsidiary of the infamous Enron. The six committed no crime in Britain, the serious farce office there declined to prosecute them. However, Britain had just signed a treaty to speed up the extradition of those accused of terrorism. Britain ratified that treaty whose express purpose was the pursuit of alleged terrorists, not alleged "ordinary" criminal offences committed in Britain by British citizens.

When Britain, following its ratification of the treaty asked for the extradition from the U.S. of suspected members of the IRA, who were wanted in connection with terrorist offences in the U.K., the British were refused. The U.S. congress, under the influence of the Irish American lobby never ratified the treaty.

The English conceived the legal concept of Habeas Corpus, which would have offered some protection for Assange against foreign extradition. The charges against him would have had to have been proved to the satisfaction of an English court. Britain has done away with Habeas Corpus, and the right to remain silent in the face of criminal charge, (or face an assumption that you are guilty). Britain now has the European Arrest Warrant, used by Sweden to seek Assange's extradition. No proof is required, just an allegation.

Those cheese eating surrender monkeys, the French, they are made of sterner stuff-when the U.S. recently applied for extradition of a French citizen, they were told to get lost.

No self-respecting nation should turn over its citizens to another country for prosecution for criminal offences allegedly carried out on its own soil if those offences were not indictable in their own country.

I am so glad I wasn't taking a drink when I read that!

In the case of Assange, are you arguing that sexual assault is not an indictable offence in the UK?

Do you understand what habeas corpus is? If so, could you please explain how it has been done away with in the UK. How would the doctrine of habeas corpus prevent Assange's extradition to Sweden?

Isn't Britain now 100% reliant on America for its nukes?

That might explain a thing or two.

I guess the current PM is just a new and improved Lapdog then

Do you believe that extradition is never appropriate and that, all one has to do is leave the jurisdiction to avoid any form of penalties for any form of offence?

Well...I don't know about "any form offence", as exposing a country's defence network weakness, Human trafficking and child pornography aren't exactly on the same scale

Do the allegations of Assange's sexual assault fall into such a category? I ask as you referred to him above.

Remind me, wasn't he acquitted of those allegations though? Some of the girls were found to have made it up according to reports.

If indeed it turns out that Assange did commit the sex crimes, by all means he should be sent to the country where it happned. To be sent to another country is just wrong

He hasn't been acquitted as there hasn't been a trial. He is wanted in Sweden so the investigators can question him. If you read the judgments of the hearings that took place in the UK, you will likely note that there appears to be sufficient evidence to support the request to question him.

The order for extradition is to send him to Sweden (where the crimes are alleged to have occured). The judgments make reference to the fact that he cannot be extradited to the US from Sweden, without further hearings and legal argument.