Ad_Captandum
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2013
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 184
- Location
- Britain, Mother of Civilisation
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Socialist
If America wants to scrap it's extradition treaty with European countries that's fine with me, in fact it won't make much difference because we hardly ever have extradition granted any way and that includes those who have carried out acts of terrorism in the UK, whilst allow Americans to just extradite who ever they want and even use our country for extraordinary rendition.
The Italians are also getting tired of a one way US extradition treaty, this being the latest in a long line of cases such as the 1998 "Massacre of Cermis.", when American military jet clipped a ski lift cable, sending a gondola of 20 passengers to their deaths in the Italian Dolomite Mountains.
Italian prosecutors wanted the crew of the jet tried in Italy, but an Italian court ruled they should face courts-martial in the U.S., in accordance with NATO treaties. The aircraft's pilot and navigator were found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter, even though the military admitted the plane had been flying lower and faster than authorized.
When it emerged that a video that captured the accident from inside the plane had been destroyed, they were dismissed from the Marine Corps. Italians were outraged, referring to the incident as the "massacre of Cermis."
In another incident that raised tensions, Egyptian cleric Abu Omar was seized off the streets of Milan in 2003 and smuggled to Egypt, where he says he was tortured and released four years later.
Although Italy did not request the extradition of any of the suspects, 22 CIA agents were convicted in absentia of the kidnapping and sentenced to prison time for their role in the abduction, but none ever served time in Italy.
Furthermore if Knox is not extradited for Murder, the Italians may review it's extradition treaty with the US, and guess what the Italian Mafia have close links to organised crime groups in the US, so that's good news for organised crime in the US.
Finally not returning a convicted murderer makes a mockery of attempts to extradite the likes of Edward Snowden or Julian Assange, and other countries including Russia will look at this case when determining extradition cases, it may even become a judicial precedent.
1) the bold part distinguishes this
2) I am an American. One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens from the depredations or injustices of other governments or peoples. Italy has proven to me (someone with 3 decades of dealing with criminal appeals and due process and probable cause) that its handling of this case was grossly incompetent to the point that the interest in our government protecting one of its citizens trumps the desire of an incompetent and corrupt tribunal to continue to perpetrate a fraud in the name of justice
1) the bold part distinguishes this
2) I am an American. One of the purposes of government is to protect its citizens from the depredations or injustices of other governments or peoples. Italy has proven to me (someone with 3 decades of dealing with criminal appeals and due process and probable cause) that its handling of this case was grossly incompetent to the point that the interest in our government protecting one of its citizens trumps the desire of an incompetent and corrupt tribunal to continue to perpetrate a fraud in the name of justice
The Polanski thing is just a high-profile example that sometimes countries do not always honor these treaties, for whatever reason is important to them. This is not uncommon, and it happens in both directions. It is NOT solely an American, or French, or anybody else thing. And the treaties still stand and all countries that participate still extradite far more often than they don't.Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?
Why the double standard?
Weren't you annoyed when France refused to extradite Roman Polanski for crimes committed in the US?
Why the double standard?
That's what's happening in Italy. The prosecution found more evidence that they feel could change the outcome of the previous trial, so they're having another. That's even exactly what you said. You said if the state finds more evidence of a crime, they should be able to call back and retry that person.
If you have enough trials, you'll eventually get a conviction for something.
That's what's happening in Italy. The prosecution found more evidence that they feel could change the outcome of the previous trial, so they're having another. That's even exactly what you said. You said if the state finds more evidence of a crime, they should be able to call back and retry that person.
If you have enough trials, you'll eventually get a conviction for something.
I believe that's kind of what some people have thought about Bill Clinton.
But so far he's still walking around doing whatever he wants to do.
I agree. The trial was a complete circus, and I still haven't heard of any kind of valid evidence to prove that Amanda Knox had anything to do with the murder. I think it was the guy she took home from the bar (whatever his name was) who murdered her, and I think that Amanda and her boyfriend were probably doing their own thing at the time of the murder.
Y'see? This is exactly what I was saying in the other thread. You appear to need no evidence to convict Woody Allen, but you need loads of it for Knox. This argument has more than a touch of hypocrisy about it. What convicted Knox, I suspect, was her own evidence and testimonies that she changed, invented, forgot about and contradicted herself. She accused someone of committing the murder, which she 'witnessed', who was then proved to have a cast-iron alibi. I think she pretty much convicted herself.
I don't think you're being entirely fair -- the US extradites both Britons and Americans to the UK all the time. There have been some high-profile cases, particularly to do with the IRA, that have aroused the ire of the UK about the UK-US extradition treaty, but if you read it, I think you'll agree it's pretty fair.
I agree with you that the US refusing to extradite some IRA members due to a very loose interpretation of what 'political refugee' means is pretty unstomachable. Equally, though, Britain flatly refuses to extradite murderers to the US unless the US promises not to go for the death penalty.
Are you serious, and this is guy serious? That is NOT evidence beyond circumstantial. Lots of evidence? What a joke!
The Wall Street Journal said:Now Italy's highest court has 90 days to explain its decision to reverse that acquittal. Whatever its reasoning, Italian law calls for the case to be reheard by a new appeals court, which can either affirm the conviction or order an acquittal. If the conviction is ultimately affirmed, the Italian government can petition the U.S. to extradite Ms. Knox to Italy to complete serving the 26-year prison term to which she was sentenced in 2009.
Ms. Knox would likely challenge any extradition request on the ground that she was already acquitted by the lower appellate court, so any subsequent conviction would constitute double jeopardy.
That is when the real legal complexities would kick in, because Italian and American law are quite different and both will be applicable in this transnational case involving a citizen of one country charged with killing a citizen of another country in yet a third country.
America's extradition treaty with Italy prohibits the U.S. from extraditing someone who has been "acquitted," which under American law generally means acquitted by a jury at trial. But Ms. Knox was acquitted by an appeals court after having been found guilty at trial. So would her circumstance constitute double jeopardy under American law?
That is uncertain because appellate courts in the U.S. don't retry cases and render acquittals (they judge whether lower courts made mistakes of law, not fact). Ms. Knox's own Italian lawyer has acknowledged that her appellate "acquittal" wouldn't constitute double jeopardy under Italian law since it wasn't a final judgment—it was subject to further appeal, which has now resulted in a reversal of the acquittal. This argument will probably carry considerable weight with U.S. authorities, likely yielding the conclusion that her extradition wouldn't violate the treaty. Still, a sympathetic U.S. State Department or judge might find that her appellate acquittal was final enough to preclude extradition on double-jeopardy grounds.
Alan Dershowitz: Amanda Knox
Don't be an absurd -- what you're recommending is a recipe for ignorance and xenophobia. The wide world is a fascinating and beautiful place, and the vast majority of it does not lie within the boundaries of your country.
Perhaps wiser advice is, "Don't murder people", potentially with an added "Especially in foreign countries."
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
The wide world if the modern age is a place I have no use for. I am an Isolationist at heart and always will be. There's nothing outside the US that I need to see.
Don't leave the US and it's not an issue to begin with. Honestly, she shouldn't have gotten any aid from the US when she was tried originally but now that she's home there's no way the US should allow her to be sent back to a Socialist **** hole like Italy.
Speaking for everyone who lives outside the USA, I'd like to say I sincerely hope you take your own advice.
It might be subject to review, in terms of Italy and there is a long running campaign to further reform the current UK extradition arrangements with the US.
Technically, probably. On paper.Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
Would it nullify the treaty if an extradition request was denied?
Broadly speaking, it might be less complicated for the US to just not have extradition treaties with anyone. Might not be long before other countries negate their treaties with the US, thinking it's just a one-way deal anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?