If the US refuses to extradite Knox, fugitives from justice here should get their asses to Italy.

[Nye Bevan]

Because in the wake of the US refusing a valid extradition request, I doubt that Italy will ever again extradite a fugitive back to the US. Imagine a Bernie Madoff living out the rest of his life in comfort in Venice.

[hobbit709]

1. Pft!

[quinnox]

2. yup

On this one I agree with you. I know she is a pretty white American girl, who looks like she comes from a upper class background, but that doesn't mean she should get to have a free ride and escape justice.

[Downtown Hound]

6. No, but the fact that there's no hard evidence to convict her should.

A kangaroo court making up justice as it sees fit should not be honored as legitimate.

[Nye Bevan]

8. If we truly believe that the Italian justice system is comprised of "kangaroo courts",

we never should have signed the extradition treaty in the first place. And we should certainly rip up the extradition treaty that currently exists.

[Downtown Hound]

9. Fine then, rip it up.

And I'm sorry, but any legal system that would convict it's top seismologists of manslaughter for failing to predict an earthquake is most definitely comprised of kangaroo courts.

[pnwmom]

81. I agree. They don't have a modern system of justice even though they pretend to.

They don't follow the concept of "reasonable doubt," for instance -- even though it is supposedly part of their law now. And they don't prohibit double jeopardy, allowing for an endless string of trials over the course of years.

[hobbit709]

11. You mean the treaty of 1937 when Benito was in charge there?

[Nye Bevan]

14. No, I'm thinking of the one that was signed on October 13, 1983,

and entered into force on September 24, 1984.

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_extradition_treaties

[Fred Sanders]

107. You are trying to speak logic, law and evidence to those that are convinced the Italian justice

is unworthy of an extradition treaty that has few complaints in 30 years, because America's is the beacon of course.

[WeekendWarrior]

7. She hasn't had a free ride. She spent four years in

an Italian jail for a crime she clearly didn't commit. There is no evidence against her and the man convicted of the killing (who confessed to a cell mate and said Knox and her boyfriend were NOT involved) left his DNA all over the crime scene and INSIDE the victim. There is no evidence linking Knox or her boyfriend to this man, and the appeals court, in the second phase of her trial, said that there was no credible evidence supporting her conviction—which is why they let her go.

What this case boils down to is that the Italian public thinks this pretty American is getting away with murder because the prosecutor in the case—who has himself been convicted of crimes—waged a media campaign against her. So the court is now "saving face" by convicting her a second time.

Try reading Douglas Preston's book about the Monster of Florence to find out how Italian justice works and how corrupt some of the officials—including the Knox prosecutor—are.

Amanda Knox has not had a free ride. She was railroaded from the beginning and has suffered more than any innocent human should have to.

[quinnox]

15. maybe that is all true, and she is innocent, but she should go appeal her conviction then

she should not get to hide out in America, in my opinion, she should have to go and face the music in Italy.

[Downtown Hound]

17. Oh Jesus, another bullshit "face the music" rant.

I'm sure you would just be chomping at the bit to go spend the majority of your life in a foreign prison if you were innocent and facing a corrupt legal system that wasn't the least bit interested in the truth, but rather saving face by destroying your life.

Did you know that during the four years that Amanda was incarcerated in Italy, she spent most of her days locked in a cell 22 hours per day? Right, I'm sure if you were facing the same situation you would be jumping at the chance to go through that again and trust in a legal system that deserves no trust.

[quinnox]

20. I would never put myself in that situation to begin with

And no one truly knows for sure whether she is innocent, except for herself. And if she is guilty, it would be a miscarriage of justice to allow her to stay in this country scot-free.

If she is innocent, she can go prove it. America should not get to be the King of the World, and withhold its citizens from other countries justice systems.

[Downtown Hound]

24. You know what's funny about you?

You call Amanda spoiled and entitled, and yet everything you're writing smacks of arrogant privilege. The assumption that she can just go back to Italy and prove her innocence to a court and a country that isn't interested in hearing it is American privilege at its worst. You're coming from the point of view that Italian courts are even interested in justice or even care if she's innocent. Has it occurred to you that at this point all they're trying to do is save face?

Hey, why don't we send political refugees back to their dictatorial home countries so they can prove their innocence? What, because those countries aren't interested in justice, and sending them back there would be condemning them to an unjust fate? You don't say.

[quinnox]

29. Italy is not some Soviet era fascist state, it is a modern Western country

And has a democratically elected government. I can't believe people are trying to paint Italy as some kind of barbaric third world country, it is a modern sophisticated Western country like others in Europe.

[Downtown Hound]

31. Oh but of course, a modern, Democratic government that

CONVICTS SCIENTISTS OF MANSLAUGHTER FOR FAILING TO PREDICT AN EARTHQUAKE:

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/italian-court-convicts-scientists-for-not-predicting-earthquake/

Yeah, that's a really intelligent, modern, democratic legal system there, Quinnox.

[quinnox]

33. I saw someone debunk that in another thread

but I went to the story link, and look what a comment said - "Those scientists were convicted not because they were not able to predict an earthquake, but because they lied to the people telling them that there was no risk and that they (the people) could go back to their homes without fear because no big earthquake was coming!

Judge and jury found them guilty of lying, not of not being able to predict."

Its in the comments section.

[Downtown Hound]

34. Yeah, I know this comes as a big shock to you, but Earthquake prediction is hardly an exact science

Those scientists made a mistake. That hardly makes them liable for an act of nature. Are you actually defending this now? Keep digging...

[quinnox]

37. I think Italy is a civilized and modern Western style country, and it would be wrong to allow

someone who is possibly guilty of a severe crime to stay in the USA and not have to face trial. If she was able to reverse her first conviction, and is innocent, she should be able to do the same thing once again. That is my bottom line on this, you can say what you will about Italy's justice system, but my opinion is it would be wrong to not agree to send her for trial, if Italy, who is an ally of ours, wants us to.

You obviously are very opinionated on this, so I will leave it at that. We obviously do not agree.

[Downtown Hound]

45. Total arrogance on your part

to assume that an innocent person should go back and give up decades of their life to a legal system that has already screwed up twice. I wouldn't do it and I seriously doubt you would either. To sit there in the comfort of your own home, behind your own computer and condemn her when you have no idea what that would be like is pathetic.

And Amanda is not guilty. It may interest you to know that I didn't always think so. But after reading about the case and accepting the reality that there is NO EVIDENCE against her I changed my mind. To think that an innocent person that has already suffered greatly should suffer more out of some bullshit obligation is the absolute height of entitlement and detached privilege.

[ohheckyeah]

85. Why should she have to do it

again? She was able to reverse her first conviction, so why was she tried again? How many times can they try her?

[sked14]

35. Let me ask you,

do you think those same scientists would have been convicted under US law?
If not, then why should Americans trust Italian law?

[quinnox]

40. My opinion is, other countries have their own justice systems, and it really is none of our business

For example, some countries have the death penalty for having barely any drugs on your person, where in the USA it would be a far less severe sentence. But you know what, that is the way it is. Those Americans who are convicted in those countries have to pay the penalty there, and that is that.

[sked14]

44. So even though there's a huge lack of evidence, both physical and forensic,

that she had anything to do with this murder, she should return to Italy and probably spend decades in prison for a crime that she more than likely didn't commit?

[quinnox]

50. My opinion is she should have to go to Italy, if Italy asks the USA to do so

I don't know what the result would be, maybe she could reverse her conviction, and be found innocent. Maybe she would be found guilty. I don't know, that is not my main issue.

[Downtown Hound]

53. You openly admit that you don't care if she's wrongfully convicted

It's "not your main issue." All you care about is that she goes back to Italy. Well, at least you've finally come clean that you don't really care about justice.

[quinnox]

57. I didn't say that. I said she should have to face whatever the justice system in Italy requires

And have you ever read Plato, Socrates was unjustly convicted of a crime that had the death penalty, and he accepted it. And he knew he was innocent, but he said it was the right thing to do, to follow the laws of the state. That it would be wrong for him to refuse the punishment. That is what Socrates said.

[Downtown Hound]

59. Yeah, well guess what? Socrates was a wimp.

A brilliant wimp to be sure, but a wimp. If I'm ever wrongfully convicted of a crime, you can bet your ass that I'll go down fighting like a rampaging beast, and I will NEVER just accept injustice. Only cowards blindly accept injustice.

[sked14]

60. It would be wrong to refuse the punishment? Even though he was innocent?

Are you serious? Why would anyone submit themselves to a foreign country to serve a prison sentence that they're innocent of?
That doesn't even make sense.

[quinnox]

61. its a philosophical point

I was studying it recently. I agree it is an extreme position, but Socrates is known as a wise man in the Western tradition and a leading philosopher.

[sked14]

65. I don't care what he's leading in, yes, he was a brilliant man,

but his position on accepting punishment for something he didn't do is just stupid, and I wouldn't accept punishment for something I didn't do I don't think anyone else should either, including Amanda Knox by returning to Italy.

[sked14]

70. BTW, thanks for the rational and civil discussion.

I enjoyed it despite our different opinions.

[quinnox]

71. likewise

[sked14]

55. My main issue is that she was falsely arrested, falsely accused by a corrupt prosecutor,

falsely tried by a corrupt prosecutor, falsely convicted, finally acquitted by the appeals court, and then, again, falsely convicted by the Italian justice system on non existent evidence, that would never even make it in an American court.

Give all that, why in the world would anyone voluntarily return to that country to face what could be decades in prison for a crime that wouldn't even be prosecuted in any American court

[Downtown Hound]

48. Nice. I myself actually believe in this thing called justice

And in not playing nice with those who pervert it.

[Downtown Hound]

25. Oh and, what situation would you have never put yourself into in the first place?

Traveling to Italy? Good for you. I myself remain unconvinced that traveling to Italy and being in the wrong place at the wrong time warrants decades behind bars. But good for you that you plan on avoiding that.

[cpwm17]

26. That's obscene

Our citizenship should mean something.

Any US Government official that sends an American citizen to a foreign nation to face an unjust punishment is evil, and should lose their job.

[quinnox]

30. I don't think American citizens are above those in other countries

Why are we so special? I don't agree with that.

[sked14]

32. Nobody here is saying we're special,

what's being said here is that Amanda was unjustly convicted on zero evidence prosecuted by a corrupt prosecutor, there is no reason for her to return to Italy and risk spending decades in prison for a crime that there is no evidence that she was involved in.

[cpwm17]

36. We're not any more special than any other people on this earth

but an American citizen on American soil should be special to American officials.

A foreign official asking for an American citizen that is on American soil is less special than the US citizen and his/her innocence. Dragging an American citizen (really anyone for that matter) from American soil to face an unjust sentence on foreign soil is evil.

[Contrary1]

27. "I would never put myself in that situation to begin with"

I don't understand your point with that statement.

A lot of innocent people never put themselves into a situation, but were placed into it by others.

I have no idea if this woman is guilty or not, but if she isn't, was simply being the victim's roommate enough of a "situation" for her to risk imprisonment for the next 20+ years?

[vanlassie]

66. The poster who "would never put themselves in that situation"

is apparently ignoring our multiple requests for an explanation for HOW they would insure that they would not ever find themselves in such a sitution. "It could never happen to ME" is the typical form if denial that allows one to believe that they are somehow superior to others. Lovely.

[cali]

64. oh fucking please.

[Adrahil]

69. Ummmm.....

She should prove she's innocent? Have you actually read the facts of the case? The "evidence" used to convict her is all firms tactical and paper thin! This was a politically motivated directed verdict. No way I'd go back if I were her.

I don't know she's innocent, but the prosecution case is made up of reasonable doubt.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

86. "I would never put myself in that situation to begin with"

Being a tourist?

[Whisp]

18. at least she didn't go to Russia.

[quinnox]

23. that has nothing to do with anything, you are mixing apples with oranges

[pnwmom]

80. Would you choose to face a foreign justice system that had already falsely convicted you for murder?

And then, in an appeals trial, ruled that there was "no evidence" against you and that you were "innocent"?

And then "annulled" that appeals court ruling and directed another appeals court to try you again?

And then had a second appeals court try you with new evidence, a new motive, and a new theory of the crime?

The hell you would.

(You're not nuts.)

[WeekendWarrior]

108. Oh, give me a friggin' break

She's not hiding out in America. She LIVES here. She's an American. And why on earth would any American want to return to a country whose legal system has completely screwed her over?

Your reply astonishes me.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

94. Why do you think she comes from an upper class background?

What have you seen or heard, that makes you think she's upper class?

[Downtown Hound]

3. Whatever. Italy has refused to extradite criminals to the U.S. before because they were candidates

for the death penalty. If they can do it on moral grounds, why can't we?

http://www.gambling911.com/gambling-news/why-extradite-amanda-knox-italy-refused-extradition-anhang-%E2%80%98black-widow%E2%80%99-wife-092013.h

"There is precedent for Italy refusing to extradite wanted murderers back to the US on the basis of national policy.

As Gambling911.com has previously reported, Italy refused to extradite Vazquez Rijos on the basis that the wanted American fugitive could be a prime candidate for the death penalty if returned to the United States.

A U.S. grand jury charged Vazquez in 2008 with offering a man $3 million to kill her husband, online gambling entrepreneur and real estate tycoon Adam Anhang, in broad delight on a busy San Juan, Puerto Rico intersection. Anhang was brutally stabbed nearly two dozen times.

While living in Italy, Vazquez Rijos even gave birth to another man’s twins. But she was captured back in June while in transit at Madrid’s international airport."

Oh and, unlike Amanda Knox, there is little doubt as to Vazquez's guilt.

[Nye Bevan]

38. Article 9 of the extradition treaty allows for extradition to be refused if the death penalty

may be imposed.

[morningfog]

4. I doubt Italy will change its current policy.

[kcr]

5. Right, because this would be a first.

Do you think we always honor extradition requests?

[Nye Bevan]

10. If it's a valid extradition request according to the extradition treaty, then yes.

Otherwise there is no point in having a treaty.

[Downtown Hound]

12. Italy has violated the treaty before

Why is it okay for them to do it and not us?

[Nye Bevan]

42. Again, Article 9 of the treaty explicitly allows extradition to be refused

if the death penalty is possible.

[kcr]

13. Right, but that's what's being debated, isn't it?

So your contention that everyone can just run off to Italy if she doesn't go doesn't hold water. Sometimes they're not valid and we don't send them.

[sked14]

16. The key word here is "valid".

Considering the sham trial, the numerous differing motives, the total lack of evidence against her, the corruptness of the 1st prosecutor, IE, being under indictment for falsifying and withholding evidence on other cases while prosecuting this case, I would say that this is a valid reason to tell Italy to go pound sand up their ass and refuse the extradition request.

[NutmegYankee]

19. Italy has refused to extridite fugitives facing the death penalty in the USA.

If they can make judgements about our justice system, we can make them about theirs.

I haven't thought highly of their pathetic courts ever since the seismologists were charged and convicted of murder because they failed to predict what cannot be predicted.

[Nye Bevan]

47. Article 9 of the treaty explicitly allows for that.

If a suspect faces the death penalty, Italy has the perfect right, according to the treaty, to refuse extradition. And I wholeheartedly support this clause, BTW.

[Spider Jerusalem]

74. Every country that doesn't have the death penalty does that.

Because capital punishment is viewed as backwards and barbaric. It's written into extradition treaties. No country will extradite to the US for capital crimes without written assurances that the death penalty will not be sought. For comparison here's the relevant article from the US/UK extradition treaty:

When the offense for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the Requesting State and is not punishable by death under the laws in the Requested State, the executive authority in the Requested State may refuse extradition unless the Requesting State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out.

[Violet_Crumble]

76. Exactly. Here's one case where it's happened and some Alabama AG was pissed off...

Alabama's attorney-general has blamed Australia's extradition laws for his inability to seek the death penalty for a man jailed in Queensland over his wife's death.

<snip>

But Mr King described Queensland's position on the death penalty as "a refusal to honour your commitment to the citizens of the State of Alabama".

As a result he says he was forced to reduce the maximum penalty for any charges laid against Watson to life without parole.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-29/australias-extradition-laws-stopping-death-penalty/886762

Mr King obviously wasn't aware that if the extradition had taken place without the death penalty being taken off the table, Australia would have been violating an international human rights treaty it's a party to. Though it says something for the strength of the extradition process that the US at least in that case will remove the death penalty as an option and not put it back on the table as a 'Fuck You!' when the person is extradited...

[Comrade Grumpy]

21. Does her actual guilt or innocence matter to you?

[Nye Bevan]

39. The point of an extradition treaty is that extradition takes place upon a valid request.

There is nothing in the treaty that states that the extraditing country makes its own assessment of the guilt or otherwise of the subject of the request.

[sked14]

41. Once again, the key word is valid,

which, IMO, this would not be a valid request considering this trial was a sham led by a corrupt prosecutor.

[Nye Bevan]

43. Most guilty people would claim the same thing about their trial and their prosecutor.

If extradition can be refused because the convicted person claims that their trial was a "sham", there is really no point in having a treaty.

[sked14]

51. It's fact that the prosecutor was under indictment at the time for

falsifying and withholding evidence from other cases and did spend time in prison for corruption.
You don't think that would have an effect on her trial?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-prosecutor-giuliano-mignini-back-in-court-as-a-defendant/

This guy should have been excluded from her trial, do you think this would've happened int an American court?

[Nye Bevan]

56. Again, the whole point of an extradition treaty

is so the extraditing country does not need to have someone pore over every detail of the trial and the case against the person, and look for excuses not to extradite. If you think that this should take place in every extradition proceeding, again, there is really no point in having a treaty. Just let requests be made and decided on a case-by-case basis.

[sked14]

62. "Just let requests be made and decided on a case-by-case basis"

I can agree with that, it's a whole lot fairer than what's in place now.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. If things were that simple, Roman Polanski would be in prison...

Signing an extradition treaty means that extradition is a norm, not a blanket rule. Countries with treaties can and do refuse extradition for all sorts of reasons.

And I have no problem with the US government (or any other government) considering the extradition of one of its own citizens on a case by case basis.

[kcr]

52. Well, all requests are automatically valid then using that logic

No point in even allowing the question. Of course they're going to say it's invalid, they're guilty, duh! I wonder how it is then that sometimes they're deemed invalid?

[The Straight Story]

49. So if some country convicts, says a president of the US, you think

We will say 'well, that's valid, here ya go!'?

[Nye Bevan]

58. If it's a country with which we have an extradition treaty, then yes,

that's pretty much how it works. The point of the treaty is that Italy is agreeing to trust our justice system and we are agreeing to trust theirs. Should Connecticut be able to refuse the extradition of a black guy to Louisiana because someone in CT suspects that he is the victim of a redneck racist prosecutor?

[Hippo_Tron]

73. Umm, yes they should refuse...

Should Connecticut be able to refuse the extradition of a black guy to Louisiana because someone in CT suspects that he is the victim of a redneck racist prosecutor?

Before the 1960's I would say that would absolutely be the morally correct thing to do, if Connecticut had good reason to believe the person was innocent. In 2014, we have an entity to deal with those problems called the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department that could intervene if there was reason to believe that a defendant was the victim of a racist prosecutor. There's no such entity on the international stage.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Right, because Italy totally wants OUR fugitives hanging around in their country...

Extradition is (usually) a relatively simple matter when you're talking about extraditing someone back to their home country. When you're talking about extraditing one of your own citizens elsewhere, it's a totally different ballgame politically, unless the evidence is just so overwhelming that everyone knows the the person in question is guilty.

The fact of the matter is that Amanda Knox can never set foot in Italy again (without serving a lengthy prison sentence), so she's been removed from Italian society. If we're willing to assume that she's not a murderer and let her walk free in the US, then we're the ones assuming that risk, not the Italians.

If the shoe were on the other foot (and I firmly believed the defendant was guilty) I'd say, if you want a murderer walking around on your streets, you can have one.

[mainer]

28. First Italy needs to come and get THESE fugitives:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italy-orders-cia-agent-arrests/

[Savannahmann]

46. I guess you've never heard of Robert Lady

Let me help you out Amigo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Seldon_Lady

2009 Conviction[edit]

On November 4, 2009, Italian Judge Oscar Magi convicted Lady, along with 22 other accused CIA employees, of kidnapping, handing down an eight-year sentence. The New York Times called this decision a "land mark ruling" and an "enormous symbolic victory" for Italian prosecutors because it "was the first ever to contest the United States practice of rendition, in which terrorism suspects are captured in one country and taken for questioning in another, presumably one more open to coercive interrogation techniques."[10]

On July 18 2013, according to the Italian Justice Ministry, Lady was arrested in Panama.[11][12] He was released the next day.[13]

He hasn't been extradited despite being convicted in an Italian Court. Is this a travesty of Justice too? I'm just wondering, because if we extradite Knox, how do we justify not extraditing Lady and the rest of the CIA kidnapping team?

[Nye Bevan]

54. As far as I know, Italy has not requested the extradition of this person from the United States.

Do you have a link to the contrary?

[Savannahmann]

68. Several actually.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/robert-seldon-lady-arrested-panama_n_3618062.html

He was refused entry into Costa Rica and returned to Panama due to an Interpol Arrest warrant and extradition order. While Italy was gathering the documents, the United States spirited him out of Panama before the official paperwork could arrive.

Any questions?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/18/the-story-of-how-a-milan-cia-station-chief-became-a-fugitive-now-caught-in-panama/

[Nye Bevan]

75. I don't see anything in those links where Italy requested his extradition from the US. (nt)

[Savannahmann]

77. So he was refused entry in Costa Rica and detained in Panama because?

Perhaps he had left his CIA company T-Shirt in a hotel in Panama City?

There is an Interpol warrant for him. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/20/world/americas/panama-former-spy-returns-to-us.html?_r=0

A former Central Intelligence Agency officer who was detained in Panama on Thursday in connection with a criminal conviction in Italy was released and flew to the United States on Friday, American officials said. Italy’s justice minister, Anna Maria Cancellieri, protested, saying in a statement that Italy’s request for the extradition of the former C.I.A. officer, Robert Seldon Lady, based on an Interpol warrant, “has been disregarded without plausible explanations.” Mr. Lady is a former chief of the agency’s station in Milan, and one of 26 agency employees and contractors charged in the 2003 abduction in Milan of a radical Muslim cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar. The cleric was taken to Egypt, where, he said, he was tortured, and the case fueled a public debate over the American practice of

But hey, you want me to hold your hand on this. Fine. I can do that, but the more you demand, then the more asinine one of us looks.

[Nye Bevan]

79. Your bolded section refers to extradition from Panama, not the US (nt)

[Savannahmann]

82. Lady was in Panama when the Interpol warrant was discovered

The US hustled him out of Panama. We pulled a dozen strings from the puppet government. I know this is hard for you to follow, but the United States Government is refusing the extradite Lady, who was convicted by an Italian Court, and we are not allowing any other nation to extradite him either.

So under what legal authority would the United States have the right to snatch him out of Panama before he could be handed over to the Italians? Under what Legal Authority does the united states not hand him over? There is a legal Interpol warrant which is not the point of the debate, despite your effort to make the existence of the Interpol warrant the question. Why haven't we handed him over?

The only reason we might not have is because we're the bullies who thumb our noses at international law. Unless you have another explanation?

The Italian Justice Minister was certainly miffed about it. But what does she know?

[Nye Bevan]

83. So why hasn't Italy requested to extradite this person from the US?

Assuming that he is currently in the US?

[Savannahmann]

84. They Have

I know this is hard for you to understand. But they have. Which is why there is an Interpol warrant out for him.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/20/italy-continue-efforts-toward-justice-cia-abuses

I keep giving you more links, and you keep pretending that the truth is somehow just outside the realm of understanding. Robert Lady and 23 others were tried, and convicted. A warrant has been issued for the return of Robert Lady to Italy. The United States is ignoring the Warrant, and the Extradition, and taking action to make sure that nobody else holds him.

Italy issued an international arrest warrant for Lady in December 2012, due to the length of his sentence. Though sentenced to nine years, Lady would only serve six years in prison due to automatic reductions under Italian sentencing guidelines.

http://www.salon.com/2013/07/29/u_s_chased_down_snowden_but_let_cia_operative_robert_seldon_lady_disappear_partner/

Recently, Lady proved a one-day wonder. After years in absentia — poof! — he reappeared out of nowhere on the border between Panama and Costa Rica, and made the news when Panamanian officials took him into custody on an Interpol warrant. The CIA’s station chief in Milan back in 2003, he had achieved brief notoriety for overseeing a la dolce vita version of extraordinary rendition as part of Washington’s Global War on Terror. His colleagues kidnapped Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, a radical Muslim cleric and terror suspect, off the streets of Milan, and rendered him via U.S. airbases in Italy and Germany to the torture chambers of Hosni Mubarak’s Egypt. Lady evidently rode shotgun on that transfer.

His Agency associates proved to be the crew that couldn’t spook straight. They left behind such a traceable trail of five-star-hotel and restaurant bills, charges on false credit cards, and unencrypted cell phone calls that the Italian government tracked them down, identified them, and charged 23 of them, Lady included, with kidnapping.

Lady fled Italy, leaving behind a multimillion-dollar villa near Turin meant for his retirement. (It was later confiscated and sold to make restitution payments to Nasr.) Convicted in absentia in 2009, Lady received a nine-year sentence (later reduced to six). He had by then essentially vanished after admitting to an Italian newspaper, “Of course it was an illegal operation. But that’s our job. We’re at war against terrorism.”

I don't know how many more links you'll need before you come to the conclusion, inescapable conclusion, that the United States is hiding this guy and refusing to turn him over. I've got no idea how much more you need before you come to that realization. Extradition isn't something that we would never ignore under any circumstances which makes our outrage at Russia holding onto Snowden and refusing to turn him over that much more hollow.

But keep on pretending that the truth is there is some sort of technicality, and that's why we haven't turned Lady over. And why we spirited him out of Panama, and why we refuse to even discuss the issue. Because much like your apparent attitude, if you ignore the evidence long enough, perhaps it will go away.

[Nye Bevan]

87. For starters, there is no such thing as an "Interpol Warrant".

Perhaps you are thinking of an Interpol Notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpol_notice

issued to seek the location of a person, with a view to eventually seeking extradition.

But Italy has not requested the extradition of Robert Lady from the US.

[Nye Bevan]

88. "... the Italian government still has issued no extradition requests to the United States."

Berlusconi's successor, Romano Prodi, has thus far seemed more amenable to the judicial investigations, although is proceeding guardedly. Despite prosecutors' numerous requests, the Italian government still has issued no extradition requests to the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

[riderinthestorm]

89. Actually its not just one person, there's 23 people total they've refused to extradite

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/09/amanda-knox-i-ll-be-a-fugitive-if-they-convict-me.html

In 2102, the United States refused to return 22 CIA agents and an Air Force captain who had been convicted in the extraordinary rendition of an Egyptian cleric on suspicion of terrorism. The Americans were never handed over.

[Nye Bevan]

90. "the Italian government has never asked for the Americans to be extradited"

Earlier this week, Italy’s highest court upheld the Americans’ convictions and ordered a retrial for the Italian agents. They also ordered each of the 23 Americans to pay Abu Omar €1 million and each pay his wife €500,000. Yet because the Italian government has never asked for the Americans to be extradited, it is unlikely that Abu Omar and his wife will ever receive financial compensation from the United States government.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/21/will-italy-extradite-cia-employees-for-abu-omar-kidnapping.html

(from a link in your link)

[riderinthestorm]

96. My article is more recent than that one so I presume it has more updated information

I decided to do a search of my own into whether the US has refused to extradite anyone to Italy.

I keep coming up with the CIA agents and the Air Force pilot. I will say I'm not a fan of Wikipedia that you've listed as your source. Its not allowed as a source in any real area that requires the truth - schools, universities, public reports etc

What do I think then?

I think the US and Italy have deliberated obfuscated the truth about whether there's an extradition request or not for these guys. I think its an uneasy diplomatic stand-off and one that will be blown up and exploited when/if necessary. As IChingCarpenter's thread indicates, we have a documented history with Venezuela and Bolivia as well where the US has refused extradition requests.

I'm going to guess that Amanda Knox will similarly fall into this grey diplomatic area if/when that time comes.

One thing's clear however, I'm sure its not as simple as your OP is painting this.

[cali]

63. fuck that.

[Nye Bevan]

67. Oh cali. The constant potty-mouth is a little unbecoming (nt)

[Boudica the Lyoness]

95. Potty mouth?

What is this, 1st grade?

[JVS]

78. Snowden might enjoy Italy a bit better than Russia.

[dipsydoodle]

97. True

and given that Italy is ignoring the international arrest warrant which is out for Yekaterina Samutsevich's husband chances are they wouldn't deport Snowden either. Yekaterina, now Pussy Riot, and her then husband were the ones who performed public anal sex in a museum when she was 9 months pregnant.

Aside from that it warmer it Italy.

[JoePhilly]

91. Except in the case of your Madoff analogy, we'd be trying to extradite one of our own

citizens.

Italy is not trying to extradite one of its own citizens, hiding in the US, back to their own country.

[Nye Bevan]

92. Why should citizenship matter?

If someone has been found guilty of a crime, should which country they happen to be a citizen of make a difference?

[JoePhilly]

93. So let's say Putin, via a Russian, court finds a few Americans GUILTY

of being gay, or of having broken Russian laws regarding advancing the "gay agenda" when they were at the Olympics. But he does so after they've left.

We just send them back over to Russia, right? Of course not.

Citizenship absolutely makes a difference. As does the current location of the person.

Countries are far more willing to send you one of your own countrymen (or women) back to face charges in their home country, rather than send one of their own over to face some other legal system.

[dipsydoodle]

98. The first example you mentioned couldn't even attract charges.

Ceased to be illegal in about 1994.

[JoePhilly]

99. Use the stand in law ... "Hooliganism", which is what Pussy Riot was charged with.

[dipsydoodle]

101. In the case of Pussy Riot hooliganism was appropriate.

You may find that the meaning of hooliganism and what it embraces differs in Russia from what you may be used to. Bit like "thug" having a different meaning in all other developed countries.

btw - shouldn't end sentences with prepositions.

[JoePhilly]

103. Extradite me to Grammarland.

You have to be smart enough (given the grammar a lesson) to understand the main point, which is that in some countries, the structure of their legal system permits them to find one guilty of almost anything they want.

Of course the correct response to my Russia example is that our diplomatic relationship with them, including extradition, is different than it is with Italy.

Regardless ... the US has no responsibility to immediately turn over a US citizen simply because some foreign government found them guilty.

[Nye Bevan]

105. So you would support us extraditing Russian citizens in that scenario?

Of course not, right?

[Hosnon]

100. Foreign diplomats are thankfully not petulant children.

They may be pissed, yes, but they aren't going to harbor horrible criminals because of a hard call.

A law professor from Italy said as much on NPR the other day. This will not color other extradition requests.

[Niceguy1]

102. she didnt get a fair trial

So extradition should be off the rable

[NaturalHigh]

104. I've heard Florence is nice.

I think that's where Hannibal Lecter spent several years.

[chillfactor]

106. why so much hate for this young woman

she was tried and exonerated...OUR justice system says NO double jeopardy......to whip up a second trial because someone did not agree with the first verdict? good grief....stop these disgusting posts