NatWest 3 'will get fair trial' in the US.

JoeM

Imperator
Joined
Sep 5, 2001
Messages
2,612
Location
Centre of the maritime world
Is it me or is the human rights angle just waffle, as they are guilty as hell?

Don't get me wrong, I think the treaty is pure diatribe to appease the American warlords, but from BBC reports the evidence against these guys is damning. I can't find a link online, but the Beeb reporters quoted the telephone recording evidence that one of the guys said he hoped his conterpart in the US had managed to steal some of the money for himself.
 
The issue is, to quote the beeb -

Under the new rules, the US is no longer required to provide prima facie evidence in court when seeking to extradite suspects from Britain, while the UK still has to prove its case in court to extradite US citizens to the UK.

Business leaders have also complained that while the new treaty was originally supposed to help combat terrorism, the US authorities have mostly used it to target white collar suspects.
 
One thing I haven't been able to find is if these guys traveled to the US when they were taking part in these alleged crimes (I don't know if these guys are guilty, I can't say I care much either one way or another but they haven't been convicted of anything yet.) Maybe I haven't read the articles properly. But no matter what they were doing in the UK or what consequences it had in the US, if they commited the crimes in the UK no US court should have any say in the matter. Now if they did travel to the US and do whatever illicit things that is being claimed, then fair enough, there is at least a case for extradition.
 
One of the witnesses in the case was found dead in mysterious circumstances. As far as I'm concerned, these guys deserve Guantanamo as much as anyone. They paid big money to publicists to make themselves a cause celebre, but it's all BS.
 
That may or may not be the case, dear Xeno, but hardly a call for Gitmo. Not to say that such serious white collar crime should not be punished severely, within the law.

Am I wrong in saying that British justice saw no case to answer btw? I'm not that sure about the statement.
 
Back
Top Bottom