Scottish Couple To Be Extradited To U.s.

[Big Man]

The BBC have just broken this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...entral-14339901

 

A Scottish couple are being extradited to the U.S. to face charges of deliberately supplying chemicals that can be used in the manufacture of crystal meth.

 

Should the U.K. extradite its citizens to face charges in a foreign jurisdiction, Or like China should we point blankly refuse all extradition requests

[fifered]

The BBC have just broken this story:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14339901

 

A Scottish couple are being extradited to the U.S. to face charges of deliberately supplying chemicals that can be used in the manufacture of crystal meth.

 

Should the U.K. extradite its citizens to face charges in a foreign jurisdiction, Or like China should we point blankly refuse all extradition requests

[Dynamo]

If you get caught, nae luck, s'later.

[Bebo]

If they broke no law in the UK, then no.

 

If they broke a UK law, then they should be tried in the UK.

[Big Man]

If they broke no law in the UK, then no.

 

If they broke a UK law, then they should be tried in the UK.

 

Its not been suggested that they have broken any UK law in the course of their business dealings.

 

The chemicals they were selling are perfectly legal to own and distribute in the UK, but are controlled substances in the US.

[Bebo]

Its not been suggested that they have broken any UK law in the course of their business dealings.

 

The chemicals they were selling are perfectly legal to own and distribute in the UK, but are controlled substances in the US.

 

 

Saudi Arabia should start sending extradition requests to the UK for every woman that drives or leaves the house without a relative. Or anyone that drinks.

[Ke1t]

Bollocks.

 

British citizens, resident in Britain, breaking no British laws.

 

This is f**king nonsensical.

 

How about the UK starts legal proceedings to have anyone who contributed to NORAID extradited from the United States for supporting terrorism against Britain?

 

But no, Britain is yet again happy to bend over and act like America's bitch.

 

That makes you all my bitches by association.

 

How does that feel?

 

Pretty good?

 

Yeah, it feels pretty good, I'll bet.

[fifered]

Its not been suggested that they have broken any UK law in the course of their business dealings.

 

The chemicals they were selling are perfectly legal to own and distribute in the UK, but are controlled substances in the US.

Whilst the chemicals themselves are not illegal they are precursor chemicals for use in manufacturing crystal meth. It is their knowledge of the intended use of the chemicals that is important. People in the UK have been convicted for supplying perfectly legal chemicals knowing that they would be used in the manufacture/cutting of drugs.

 

http://www.soca.gov.uk/news/301-17-tonnes-of-cutting-agents-sold-to-drug-dealers

[Ke1t]

Whilst the chemicals themselves are not illegal they are precursor chemicals for use in manufacturing crystal meth. It is their knowledge of the intended use of the chemicals that is important. People in the UK have been convicted for supplying perfectly legal chemicals knowing that they would be used in the manufacture of drugs.

 

http://www.soca.gov.uk/news/301-17-tonnes-of-cutting-agents-sold-to-drug-dealers

 

That also seems like bollocks. Not saying you're talking bollocks, but simply having the means by which to do something illegal shouldn't be an offense if it's not illegal to own or supply those means.

 

Why not arrest me for rape on the grounds that I have a cock?

 

Got a cock, you can go out and rape just a whole bunch of folks.

[fifered]

That also seems like bollocks. Not saying you're talking bollocks, but simply having the means by which to do something illegal shouldn't be an offense if it's not illegal to own or supply those means.

 

Why not arrest me for rape on the grounds that I have a cock?

 

Got a cock, you can go out and rape just a whole bunch of folks.

Having the means to do something is not in itself illegal it is the act of doing it together with the knowledge that it is illegal that makes it a crime. They will only be found guilty if they knew that the chemicals were to be used to manufacture illegal drugs. Given that the report says they were warned by the American authorities to stop I presume that they were told why they were to stop. Seems they are pretty screwed to me.

[Ke1t]

Having the means to do something is not in itself illegal it is the act of doing it together with the knowledge that it is illegal that makes it a crime. They will only be found guilty if they knew that the chemicals were to be used to manufacture illegal drugs. Given that the report says they were warned by the American authorities to stop I presume that they were told why they were to stop. Seems they are pretty screwed to me.

 

Seems remarkable to me that the US can deem the UK within its jurisdiction and dictate American law to foreign nationals on that foreign national's territory.

 

And it seems that American law is being deemed to override British sovereign law.

[fifered]

Seems remarkable to me that the US can deem the UK within its jurisdiction and dictate American law to foreign nationals on that foreign national's territory.

 

And it seems that American law is being deemed to override British sovereign law.

I would agree that the extradition laws are totally unbalanced. However if they were not and US citizens could be extradited to the UK and some American was supplying tonnes of a chemical used to manufacture drugs in the UK to drug dealers in the UK, he was told to stop and yet kept on doing it, would it not be right that he was brought to the UK to stand trial?

 

Taking it away from the drugs aspect, if it were somebody in the US financially supporting or assisting a terrorist in the UK or visa versa, would it not be right to extradite them?

[Ke1t]

I would agree that the extradition laws are totally unbalanced. However if they were not and US citizens could be extradited to the UK and some American was supplying tonnes of a chemical used to manufacture drugs in the UK to drug dealers in the UK, he was told to stop and yet kept on doing it, would it not be right that he was brought to the UK to stand trial?

 

I don't even know about that. I mean, if the United States or Britain had a specific set of laws that dictate the ownership and supply of certain substances then I would much prefer that those laws are restricted to the country in question. The notion that something can be made illegal in one sovereign state and enforced in an entirely separate state in direct contravention of that other state's own laws concerns me greatly.

 

An extreme example might be if you were supplying Bibles to an Islamic state, the Islamic state makes it an offense punishable by death to supply Christian literature, and then you find yourself extradited to that country to face a death sentence. That IS an extreme example, but it follows the exact same logic as the process regarding this Scottish couple.

 

The only time i would expect Sovereign law to be secondary might be in the case of the United Nations or E.U., both international organisations to which the UK is a party.

 

 

Taking it away from the drugs aspect, if it were somebody in the US financially supporting or assisting a terrorist in the UK or visa versa, would it not be right to extradite them?

 

Again, that would depend upon the definition of terrorist.

 

For example, 30 years ago the Mujahideen were Freedom Fighters, now they're Terrorists.

 

If Mujahideen had come to the UK to escape execution by the Soviet Union, should we have extradited them to Russia based upon Soviet claims of 'terrorism'?

 

Even that's a grey area....

[fifered]

I don't even know about that. I mean, if the United States or Britain had a specific set of laws that dictate the ownership and supply of certain substances then I would much prefer that those laws are restricted to the country in question. The notion that something can be made illegal in one sovereign state and enforced in an entirely separate state in direct contravention of that other state's own laws concerns me greatly.

 

An extreme example might be if you were supplying Bibles to an Islamic state, the Islamic state makes it an offense punishable by death to supply Christian literature, and then you find yourself extradited to that country to face a death sentence. That IS an extreme example, but it follows the exact same logic as the process regarding this Scottish couple.

 

The only time i would expect Sovereign law to be secondary might be in the case of the United Nations or E.U., both international organisations to which the UK is a party.

I actually quite like that Bible analogy. Certainly makes you think, although like you said it is extreme as a UK court would have to grant extradition and I think common sense would prevail.

 

For me, the over riding thing in this particular case is the fact that they were warned to stop, presumably warned what the chemicals were being used for and they still thought they were being smart arses in continuing to supply them. They thought they could make easy money in some legally grey area and it came back to bite them. They must have known the potential consequences when they were doing it but they continued, tough sh!t as far as I'm concerned. Don't do the crime if you're not prepared for the day you might get caught.

[Ke1t]

Don't do the crime if you're not prepared for the day you might get caught.

 

But there's the thing... it wasn't a crime for a Briton in Britain to distribute these things under British law.

 

If it HAD been illegal then I could agree with the "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" maxim. But if the law of the land says it's legal then they're not doing anything wrong at all, regardless of whether it's legal or not abroad.

 

By logical extension having sex with a 16 year could be construed as statutory rape in the United States. So let's say you're 18 and you go to Florida with your 16 year old girlfriend, and you're just banging the sh*t out of her.... would it be fair to have you arrested and put on a sex register in the UK for being a paedophile?

 

Just the notion that you not only have to adhere to your own country's laws AND everyone else's is bizarre and unsound. what if two countries have diametrically opposed laws? Say, it's illegal in Pakistan to run a website for gays, but in The Democratic Republic of Fagland it's illegal to run a website that isn't specifically aimed at gays.... you're supplying material, via the internet, to both countries... should one or the other be allowed to demand your extradition, even though your website, freely accessible abroad, is created and supplied via a British ISP where what you're doing is perfectly legal?

[fifered]

But there's the thing... it wasn't a crime for a Briton in Britain to distribute these things under British law.

 

If it HAD been illegal then I could agree with the "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" maxim. But if the law of the land says it's legal then they're not doing anything wrong at all, regardless of whether it's legal or not abroad.

 

By logical extension having sex with a 16 year could be construed as statutory rape in the United States. So let's say you're 18 and you go to Florida with your 16 year old girlfriend, and you're just banging the sh*t out of her.... would it be fair to have you arrested and put on a sex register in the UK for being a paedophile?

 

Just the notion that you not only have to adhere to your own country's laws AND everyone else's is bizarre and unsound. what if two countries have diametrically opposed laws? Say, it's illegal in Pakistan to run a website for gays, but in The Democratic Republic of Fagland it's illegal to run a website that isn't specifically aimed at gays.... you're supplying material, via the internet, to both countries... should one or the other be allowed to demand your extradition, even though your website, freely accessible abroad, is created and supplied via a British ISP where what you're doing is perfectly legal?

It wouldn't be in the UK but it would be in the US because you committed the crime in the US. Much like the folk that get done in some Arab states for the most ridiculous crimes that are not crimes here, like adultery, and end up going to jail in that country.

 

The same applies to the chemical supply. The US presumably think that they have jusidiction because the drugs have been supplied to the US so a crime has been committed there. Had they supplied the chemicals to the US drug dealers in the UK and then the US drug dealer shipped them to America then they would not have committed a crime in the US so I would probably tend to agree with you then.

 

Look at it another way. If there were some country where supplying Heroin, Cocaine or whatever drug was legal and some person there was shipping it by the tonne to the UK, is that person guilty of a crime of supplying drugs in the UK? I would say yes.

[Big Man]

Whilst the chemicals themselves are not illegal they are precursor chemicals for use in manufacturing crystal meth. It is their knowledge of the intended use of the chemicals that is important. People in the UK have been convicted for supplying perfectly legal chemicals knowing that they would be used in the manufacture/cutting of drugs.

 

http://www.soca.gov....to-drug-dealers

The case you refer to went through the English courts. Whilst the statutory provisions relating to controlled substances are the same across Scotland, England, NI and Wales the rules governing criminal procedure, standards of evidence and burden of proof are very different.

 

The relevant authority in Scots law is Khaliq Vs HM Advocate where the court of criminal appeal held that is was an offence at common law to supply materials that are otherwise legal, with the knowledge that they are to be used for some harmful purpose.

 

Like i said before, it has not been alleged they have broken any Scots law and the crown has taken no interest in their activities here. Were they to be tried here, the burden would be on the crown to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that either:

 

i) They knew what their product was being used for, knew it was illegal, and continued to supply it anyway

 

OR

 

ii) They were reckless as to the end use of their product

 

There is also a requirement for corroboration of all facts relied on by the crown for prosecution, and a time limit within which the prosecution must be brought. Arizona State Law does not provide these protections and is far less stringent.

 

So, whether or not they should be extradited is far more complicated than you make out. The U.S. is not a signatory of the European convention on human rights. So, is it a breach of a Scottish citizens right to a fair trial to be extradited to a country which does not afford them the same rights under their own sovereign law? Note Arizona is a state which has the death penalty.

 

Also, facts that the bbc did not report:

 

1) Evidence was obtained illegally by the U.S. DEA in covert operations before any charges were drafted – had the trial been held over here this evidence would have likely been ruled inadmissible.

 

2) Authorities failed to give the loon a copy of the warrant which was issued for his arrest – this is a breach o rights under scots law and if the case was being heard over here the case against him would probably have to be abandoned.

 

I agree with you that the extradition terms have to be renegotiated. All the U.S. have to do in theory is ask, and unless the request can be ruled in breach of an ECHR article right, it has to be granted.

[Ke1t]

It wouldn't be in the UK but it would be in the US because you committed the crime in the US. Much like the folk that get done in some Arab states for the most ridiculous crimes that are not crimes here, like adultery, and end up going to jail in that country.

 

But you would be okay if you were put on a British sex offenders list for having sex with your 16 year old girlfriend in the US even though it's legal in Britain? You would be marked as a paedophile even though under British law you're nothing of the sort, but since US law overrules British law you're now considered a sex offender in Britain....

 

You see what I'm saying about committing 'crimes' that under British law are no crimes at all, yet because US law demands precedence you are then considered a sex offender and registered as such within the United Kingdom?

 

This is my point about one sovereign state demanding precedence over another's.

 

Certainly if you break American law in America then it's possible, probable even, that you may be subject to American justice. But to then enforce that law on foreign soil where local law is at odds with those American laws?

 

And why stop at American law? If Britain is to be subservient to one state then why not Pakistani or Romanian law? Why not hold Britons to every law of every country, even when those laws contradict each other, as many of them will?

 

It seems to me to be an entirely arbitrary decision to kowtow to American law, but if the Iranians demand the extradition of Salman Rushdie they're told to f**k right off....

[Terrorfex]

Bollocks.

 

British citizens, resident in Britain, breaking no British laws.

 

This is f**king nonsensical.

 

How about the UK starts legal proceedings to have anyone who contributed to NORAID extradited from the United States for supporting terrorism against Britain?

 

But no, Britain is yet again happy to bend over and act like America's bitch.

 

That makes you all my bitches by association.

 

How does that feel?

 

Pretty good?

 

Yeah, it feels pretty good, I'll bet.

 

You should calm down the vitriol in your post(s), considering your're now a citizen of said country. Being a former dirty foreigner, I'd expect a permanent CIA Ice Cream Van to be stationed across the road from your front door.

[fifered]

The case you refer to went through the English courts. Whilst the statutory provisions relating to controlled substances are the same across Scotland, England, NI and Wales the rules governing criminal procedure, standards of evidence and burden of proof are very different.

 

The relevant authority in Scots law is Khaliq Vs HM Advocate where the court of criminal appeal held that is was an offence at common law to supply materials that are otherwise legal, with the knowledge that they are to be used for some harmful purpose.

 

Like i said before, it has not been alleged they have broken any Scots law and the crown has taken no interest in their activities here. Were they to be tried here, the burden would be on the crown to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that either:

 

i) They knew what their product was being used for, knew it was illegal, and continued to supply it anyway

 

OR

 

ii) They were reckless as to the end use of their product

 

There is also a requirement for corroboration of all facts relied on by the crown for prosecution, and a time limit within which the prosecution must be brought. Arizona State Law does not provide these protections and is far less stringent.

 

So, whether or not they should be extradited is far more complicated than you make out. The U.S. is not a signatory of the European convention on human rights. So, is it a breach of a Scottish citizens right to a fair trial to be extradited to a country which does not afford them the same rights under their own sovereign law? Note Arizona is a state which has the death penalty.

 

Also, facts that the bbc did not report:

 

1) Evidence was obtained illegally by the U.S. DEA in covert operations before any charges were drafted

[Ke1t]

Kelt, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I agree with you that in your example putting someone on the sex offenders register in the UK would not be correct but if they committed the crime in the US, got caught there and they decided to put them on an equivalent register or whatever then so be it. You go to a country you have to abide by their laws.

 

This is my point. You go to a country and you abide by their laws.... in their country. Why, then, should you abide by their laws outside their country? You go to America and you don't bang a 16 year old unless you get a permission slip from their parents, otherwise you're labelled a sex beast. Come back home, bang all the 16 year olds you want, and regardless of what America thinks.

 

Now i understand there's a difference between performing an act that impacts America and one that does NOT impact America, as in the case of the chemicals.... but I would then ask this, continuing the analogy... what if the 16 year old you're banging in Aberdeen is an American citizen?

 

Little Cindy Mae is 16 and just looking to get hammered by some Scottish dude... you duly oblige, KNOWING that in the States you'd be stuck on the sex offender's list for shagging what is legally a minor....

 

The American government demand that you, a paedophile under their laws, be extradited to face the full fury of the law for banging one of their kids.

 

Given paedophiles and terrorists occupy the same ethical pigeonhole, more or less, in the eyes of the world, you can see the dilemma posed by extraditing non-criminals to states where they would be considered criminals.

[fifered]

This is my point. You go to a country and you abide by their laws.... in their country. Why, then, should you abide by their laws outside their country? You go to America and you don't bang a 16 year old unless you get a permission slip from their parents, otherwise you're labelled a sex beast. Come back home, bang all the 16 year olds you want, and regardless of what America thinks.

 

Now i understand there's a difference between performing an act that impacts America and one that does NOT impact America, as in the case of the chemicals.... but I would then ask this, continuing the analogy... what if the 16 year old you're banging in Aberdeen is an American citizen?

 

Little Cindy Mae is 16 and just looking to get hammered by some Scottish dude... you duly oblige, KNOWING that in the States you'd be stuck on the sex offender's list for shagging what is legally a minor....

 

The American government demand that you, a paedophile under their laws, be extradited to face the full fury of the law for banging one of their kids.

 

Given paedophiles and terrorists occupy the same ethical pigeonhole, more or less, in the eyes of the world, you can see the dilemma posed by extraditing non-criminals to states where they would be considered criminals.

that example would not be a crime as it happened here. the chemical one is a crime in America in my opinion because they physically sent material which was illegal in America to America. riding a 16 year old American whilst they are in aberdeen is not the same.

[Big Man]

I realise that the example I used was English law and not Scots law but I merely used it to illustrate that the fact that just because a chemical is legal does not mean that no offence has been committed. I presume the person in my example was found guilty of conspiracy, a law we don't have in Scotland. In Scotland it would be almost impossible for someone to be convicted of supplying these type of cutting agents as the Misuse of Drugs Act really is not suitable for that type of offence.

 

Whilst I wouldn't claim the same knowledge of this case or indeed case law as yourself, I do think that at its heart this case is simple. There is a law in America making supplying these chemicals illegal. This couple allegedly supplied these chemicals to people in the US and despite being told not to they appear to have persisted. More fool them. I'm sure in all of these types of cases there are technicalities like those you speak of as international laws and what papers should be served when can become complicated however I have absolutely no sympathy for this pair whatsoever. They tried to make a quick buck and got caught.

 

I do understand what you're saying, but legally the case is quite complex – you can read the full judgement in the case here if you are interested - But:

 

i) You should accept as an established matter of fact that the couple broke no U.K. law and would face no charges for their conduct here in scotland.

 

ii) ''The fact that just because a chemical is legal does not mean that no offence has been committed'' has only material relevance to the case.

 

Put simply, i think it is dangerous for a person to be extradited to a foreign country to stand trial for an offence which:

 

1) Would not be an offence under their own domestic law

 

And,

 

2) The jurisdiction which they are being tried in does not afford them the same legal protections and rights that their native country affords them

 

3) Without a single scrap of evidence to suggest their guilt (the U.S. have to demonstrate absolutely nothing – they could have sweet FA on the couple and still secure an extradition) being put before the court which is deciding whether or not to allow their extradition.

 

Also, the substances they are accused of supplying to the U.S. are not illegal per se they are ''controlled'' substances. It is perfectly legal for companies in the UK to supply controlled substances to companies in the U.S. provided they comply with U.S. regulations and laws – clearly the couple were not doing that. But does their failure to comply with the U.S. regulations amount to criminal conduct of the type that the U.S. is alleging? - Well thats not a matter our courts even get to decide...

 

Having said all this the couple do seem like a puckle o' c@nts:

 

[Ke1t]

that example would not be a crime as it happened here. the chemical one is a crime in America in my opinion because they physically sent material which was illegal in America to America. riding a 16 year old American whilst they are in aberdeen is not the same.

 

But surely that would be subjective?

 

Sending chemicals to Americans while on British soil, or banging their minors while on British soil....

 

What I'm getting at isn't the legality of either, because frankly I don't know what kind of things are in British/UK extradition agreements, but rather the ethics of it. Not whether it is or isn't legal but whether or not it should be legal.

 

Undeniably this couple had the idea to exploit a legal loophole, but then banging an American 16 year old in Britain could also be considered exploiting a legal loophole.

 

Certainly if you do something that's illegal in both countries, but involves citizens of both countries, then I would say it's fair to extradite if both parties agree to prosecute the case in the other country... like the Lockerbie bombing, it's a case of deciding where to prosecute the perpetrators.

 

But in the case where there IS a legal loophole to exploit then either the loophole needs to be closed or you just don't prosecute, given the act in question isn't illegal in the territory in which it is being perpetrated.

 

The website thing is a case in point. Say you have a website called Sexy 16 year old chicks getting pumped. That would be about as illegal as shooting a cop in the face in the States, but if it's legal in Britain then should the British government be deporting Britons to the US to be prosecuted, simply because the US chooses not to do something to restrict it on their end?

 

Surely the onus is on the Americans to limit their own citizens' access to illegal material, rather than allowing them to stomp into other countries where these things are legal and drag them back to the States?

 

Again, not arguing the legality of it, because clearly the UK considers it legal to extradite people who haven't broken British law.... I'm simply arguing the ethics of it.

[Terrorfex]

Here's my (sensible) contribution to your discussion :

 

Don't forget to consider the application of modern technology. What if the Scottish Gent in your example used the internet to build a relationship and invite over a 16 year old American girl, and then bang her? Then part of his act will have (knowingly) been committed on "American Soil", so to speak.

[Big Man]

What a boring discussion.

 

Boring because what is and what should be is poles apart and what should be is obvious to all decent thinkers thereby negating any need for further debate.

 

It is my sincere hope that if you are ever accused, charged or indicted of a crime that you have access to legal counsel that think and act in direct contravention of the sentiments expressed by you here.

 

:thumbs:

 

Here's my (sensible) contribution to your discussion :

 

Don't forget to consider the application of modern technology. What if the Scottish Gent in your example used the internet to build a relationship and invite over a 16 year old American girl, and then bang her? Then part of his act will have (knowingly) been committed on "American Soil", so to speak.

 

Interesting point to raise actually, there are legal provisions for this type of thing in Scotland now. Put simply:

 

Man pumps woman who is underage in Scotland = illegal in scotland

 

Man pumps woman who is underage in Scotland outside U.K. jurisdiction = illegal in Scotland

 

Man invites woman from abroad who is underage in scotland to pump her in scotland = illegal in Scotland

 

Man invites underage woman from abroad when he is based in Scotland, and mutually arranges to pump her outside of Scotland, whether legal or illegal in host country = illegal in Scotland

 

Don't know what would happen in the example you give though – it depends what view Scottish prosecutors would take of his conduct. The U.S. could always extradite him i suppose...

[Big Man]

It is my sincere hope that you can communicate with the precision and accuracy that your profession is attributed with, without getting in to the merits or otherwise of the attribution.

 

What the f**k are you on about?

 

In the simplest terms possible:

 

I hope tae f**k that if you ever get done by the polis, the boy who speaks for you in court dusnae just say to the judge,

[Terrorfex]

In the simplest terms possible:

 

I hope tae f**k that if you ever get done by the polis, the boy who speaks for you in court dusnae just say to the judge,

[Big Man]

Scottish couple have been granted leave to appeal to the UK supreme court. Should be an interesting watch when the hearing date comes around...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk...entral-14496805

[Ke1t]

I'm surprised they've any right of appeal. The Patriot act (I & II) are pretty restrictive on what 'terrorists' are are aren't allowed.

 

Stuff like Habeas Corpus, or the protection of the U.S. Constitution, for example.... none of that liberal sh*te for 'terrorists'.