General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEVERY Extradition Treaty Means The Same Thing: We Trust Your System, and You Trust Ours.
Otherwise why bother with them?
________________
RONALD REAGAN.
LETTER OF SUBMITTAL
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, April 10, 1984.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House.
THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty on Extradition between the
United States of America and Italy, signed at Rome on October 13, 1983. I recommend that
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification.
The Treaty follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded
by this Government.
Article 1 obligates each State to extradite to the other, in accordance with the terms of the
Treaty, any persons charged with or convicted of an extraditable offense by the requesting
State. (Extradition [*3] shall also be granted, Article 2 explains, for attempts to commit,
participation in the commission of, and conspiracy to commit extraditable offenses.)
Article 2 permits extradition for any offense punishable under the laws of both States by
imprisonment for more than one year. Instead of listing each offense for which extradition
may be granted, as was United States practice until recently, this Treaty adopts the modern
practice of permitting extradition for any crime punishable under the laws of both contracting
Parties for a minimum period. This obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty
should both States pass laws covering new types of criminal activity, such as computer-
related crimes.
Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)The Amanda Knox Haters Society: How They Learned to Hate Me Too
Viewpoint: The author of a book on the young American accused of murder in Perugia recalls her adventures with the guilters
ETA: I see the OP already has 2 edits. Do you think he/she can match their prior record of 22?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Creepy. VERY creepy.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)He was locked the first time he posted extensively from a hate site. I've been glad to see that DU'ers for the most part aren't falling for the lies.
MineralMan
(146,286 posts)personal link between you and the Amanda Knox case?
You don't have to answer, but the question seems appropriate.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)This guy joined DU last month and this is his third anti-Amanda OP in a few days. His sources are hate sites. These guys are all over the web; I guess the only surprise is that it took this long for one of them to set up shop on DU.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Fumesucker
(45,851 posts)MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Whether Amanda Knox is extradited or not does not depend on personal opinions. There will be hearings, if Italy asks for extradition. It will be decided, based on those hearings.
Again, why is this so important to you?
sked14
(579 posts)Let's see here, a corrupt interrogation by police, a corrupt prosecutor under indictment at the time, an appeals court who, correctly, acquitted her, and then, another trial that falsely convicted her.
Yeah, that's the rule of law your defending.
Bonx
(2,053 posts)based on lies & terrible crime scene investigation by the Italian police/prosecutors.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The "evidence" in this case against Knox is incredibly weak. The directed verdict, oh I mean"appeal" is based almost entirely on public outrage fueled by anti-Americanism. You'll forgive me if I think you concern about the rule of law is entirely misplaced.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)Italy is supposed to be deciding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, just as here, but instead the high court ruled that they should consider the "totality" of the evidence regardless of how flawed the evidence is.
And Italy encourages jurors during the long trials to watch media reports, discuss the case with family and friends, and to bring back everything they hear to the jury room. That isn't the rule of law. It IS the rule of media.
suffragette
(12,232 posts)From his early days spreading propaganda against true universal health care (single payer) to Iran Contra and on and on, trust and rule of law are pretty much the opposite of his actions.
Now, deceit - that would fit much better.
smokey nj
(43,853 posts)Cha
(297,154 posts)here for this one.. yeah, really should spell the name right. Or at least spell it this way.
"raygun."
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)You know, what you called Amanda Knox based on a total fabrication?
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Sometimes, the law is an ass. In this case, the Italian justice system has created a perverse and unjust result. I would support my government if it fought any extradition attempt tooth and nail.
There is the law, and there is justice. They aren't always congruent.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)Any soulless bureaucrat that sends an innocent American citizen to a foreign nation to be gobbled up by their "justice" system should lose their job, or worse.
US taxpayers pay US Government officials to serves US interests.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)It's not like Italy is going to send troops to attempt to capture Knox. Of course, following this course means that the treaty is essentially meaningless and might as well be ripped up.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the presence of the accused merit very special attention. The nation being asked has to be convinced it is a just conviction. They do not have to agree instantly. There is a process which has not even been started yet. Until a formal and complete request is made, there is nothing to regard or to disregard.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)See for yourself:
http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf
Also, I'm not sure that someone deserves bonus points for deliberately staying away from their own trial.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)in place of reason.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested"
The nation being requested of course decides if there is reasonable basis to believe the person committed the offense. This is a hole you could drive a Fiat through. 'We find there is insufficient basis to conclude she is guilty'.
We have extradition treaties with countries such as Nigeria, so the tile of the OP is simply not correct. Trust has nothing to do with it. Due process on the other hand does.
So first thing is that the Italian magistrate needs to request extradition following the forms and protocols of the treaty agreement. They have not yet done so. Then the US would review and act as the US sees fit.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)They can simply deny the request based on the opinion of the USA that double-jeopardy attaches, which sure seems to be the case. The Italian high court essentially directed a verdict. Ther is no justice in that.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and then the person being found guilty again upon being retried? It is not at all uncommon and does not at all violate "double jeopardy".
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)In the USA, you cannot be retried for the same crime. If you can show otherwise, please do.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)The trick is to Google the following: retried "found guilty again" -knox because without the "-knox" the results are dominated by the Knox case.
Man who murdered girlfriend found guilty again after retrial
SYRACUSE -- 39 year-old James Guilford, the Syracuse man who was accused of killing his girlfriend in 2007, has been convicted again for the murder after his original conviction from 2008 was tossed out.
Guilford was found guilty on Tuesday for killing Sharon Nugent and disposing of her body. Nugent's body has never been found.
Guilford's original conviction was thrown out by the state Court of Appeals in June 2013 after his 49-hour interrogation by Syracuse police was determined a violation of his rights. Guilford did not sleep during the interview and then waited in a cell for eight more hours before confessing in the presence of his lawyer.
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=994352#.Uu2ojrSAmaI
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Tossing the verdict was based upon the use of tainted evidence that was NOT used in the retrial. It was a procedural decision, not one based on the merits. In the Knox case, they used all the original "evidence" including the crappy evidence. This was not a procedural ruling, as in the case you cite, but a judgment on the merits, which would not fly in US Courts. I thought that was obvious.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)That is patently false, as I have just shown, your attempt to move the goalposts notwithstanding.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)In the case you cited, the entire trial was invalidated due to the use of tainted evidence. That is not the case in the Knox case. Can you honestly say that Knox got a fair shake in that shambles of a "legal" system? Even if you believe she is guilty, the "process" is full of all kinds of WTF. And before you ask, yeah, I think we should tear up the extradition treaty. Their process is like something from the Salem witch trials!
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)But if we have to tear it up, so be it.
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)of US Marine Corps Captain Richard Ashby for causing the deaths of 20 people in a accident involving his hot dogging his jet aircraft and a collision with a ski gondola cable, we sent his ass to Italy to "face the music" of Italian justice.
oh wait... we didn't do that? Ooops.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)he never faced Italian justice.
And Italy (even as a Nato member) requested it.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I don't think this is an issue in the Knox case.
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)A court here might rule on some other issue that extradition requests under the treaty could be denied.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)and explicitly precludes the application of the extradition treaty, then certainly, yes.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We would be irresponsible to extradite her, IMO.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The Italian government originally denied having played any role in the abduction. However Italian prosecutors Armando Spataro and Ferdinand Enrico Pomarici indicted 26 CIA agents, including the Rome station chief and head of CIA in Italy until 2003, Jeffrey W. Castelli, and Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, as well as SISMI head General Nicolò Pollari, his second Marco Mancini and station chiefs Raffaele Ditroia, Luciano Di Gregori and Giuseppe Ciorra.[4] Referring to the Italian military intelligence agency, the Italian press has talked of a "CIA-SISMI concerted operation." The prosecutors sent extradition requests for the indicted American citizens to the Italian Ministry of Justice, then headed by Roberto Castelli, for onward transmission to Washington. However Castelli refused to forward the demand for extradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case
lapfog_1
(29,199 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)that as a military officer NATO treaties gave jurisdiction to America, so not any legal parallel.
I acknowledge I misinterpreted your post, but many have also got the facts of what I posted wrong as to America refusing to extradite the CIA people; many, including TV talking heads, have it wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_%281998%29
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)It's not healthy. She's just not that into you.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)Have you ever considered the possibility that she really was sick on Prom Night and wasn't just blowing you off?
tandot
(6,671 posts)after reading this article:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627
I am absolutely certain of it.
WillowTree
(5,325 posts)1. The domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)La Lioness Priyanka
(53,866 posts)DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Two yesterday and one today.
pnwmom
(108,976 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I was amused by this obsession yesterday, but don't you think it's getting out of hand?
It's like she stood you up for a date or something! You'll find somebody who agrees with you someday....
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)That cracked me up.
And now you are just being condescending. I deserve it, I did it to you first.
I think you should tell me who these people are who agree with you that Amanda Knox should just go turn herself in for murder because of
exclusive opportunity evidence and Knox WAS a party girl and sex fiend extraordinaire.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)By the way, you are not at all clever.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What you are doing by posting these threads one after another, showing how obsessed you are with this young woman is disgusting. That combined with the sexist post you had hidden yesterday shows us how 'clever' you are. By clever I mean something completely opposite to clever.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)ob·ses·sive adjective \äb-ˈse-siv, əb-\
: thinking about something or someone too much or in a way that is not normal : having an obsession : showing or relating to an obsession
My dictionary is working just fine, hon. Maybe you need to check yours??
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)It's not fair to respond to posts by not making any sense.
You're being obsessive about Amanda Knox, I'm laughing at you for it.
You're the one posting the threads about Amanda Knox.
I'm just replying to your latest " Throw the sex fiend extraordinaire Amanda Knox" in jail thread.
Please try to keep up.
Blue_Roses
(12,894 posts)over and over! Changing the words and sentence structure DOES NOT change the content or intent--which is very obvious.
You cannot "brow-beat" your opinion into others with the loose and precarious "facts" you've used as your sources. Biased attempt only makes you look desperate and obsessed--which many here have already pointed out. The real question is why?
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)this past week... and yet, I've seen three posts of yours on this...with caps and everything.
Did Amanda Knox kick your dog?
Are you part of Meredith's family? Otherwise, I don't get it, and it's rather frightening to be honest.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I was not refused cookies, I am not fond of "crazy Italian law" and I am not family.
Any more questions?
__________
See that, I can not even spell her name correctly.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)You are not going to make any converts with your viewpoint. If people dismiss you out of hand, put them on Ignore.
I thought you had good points, going with a basic logic, so to speak but I have not been at all informed on this case. Instead I avoided giving any time to what seemed to be another celebrity case. A young woman is dead, killed in a horrible fashion, for no reason. Check my posts on your other threads.
But your getting personal with other posters isn't helpful to your cause. I support your so-called obsession as a passion for the subject, but when you start with the personal attacks, not so much.
And I don't get offended at the so-called hateful comments to you any more than I do with what I consider a sneer from you now. If a person is being an ass to you on the board, ignore them.
I'm not onboard with either side of this, but perusing the different articles, some of your sense of injustice and heat may be an overreaction as others. I don't think people should make threads about you, either.
As far as Ignoring, I have a huge list. You are not on it yet.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Your well written comments will be taken to heart.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)I'll give him that.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)He must not know bout me.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)One hour difference from the pacific time. It's 10:21 pm here.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)middle of the night (2-3 AM) from wrong numbers in Alaska. But I have no room to complain. I used to call the same wrong number to an elderly farmer in North Dakota when I was calling something in the CTZ on weekend mornings. I'd see the winter windchill on TWC and talk to him about it and he was quite friendly. Then I'd apologize and get off the line.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I get calls from Texas and Pennsylvania at the crack of dawn from people I know and they expect me to be all chatty at four AM.
Contrary1
(12,629 posts)Thank you. Thank you very much.
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)Did you even read what you wrote?
jsr
(7,712 posts)Well, fuck Reagan. LOL.
cause one to do odd things I think.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)are you fucking kidding us?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Well, like Bush said when he pulled us out of the 30 year old ABM treaty in 2001, "it's outdated".
BFD!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf
She was convicted this time around in absentia. It's up to Obama.
Response to rug (Reply #93)
Fred Sanders This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)present.
on·tu·ma·cy
kənˈt(y)o͞oməsē,ˈkänt(y)əməsē/
noun
Lawarchaic
noun: contumacy
1.
stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, esp. a court order or summons.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's why this section of the treaty requires procedural information.
What semester of law school are you in?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)an extradition without a conviction or an indictment?
rug
(82,333 posts)Or, as here, you can seek extradition after a conviction.
What's pertinent here is the treaty requires additional information on what procedures the defendant has available to challenge the legality of a conviction after a trial held in her absence.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)requesting State that all the requirements of the treaty have been met, which is reviewed by a federal Judge before a warrant for arrest issues in America.
rug
(82,333 posts)It's the due process the requesting state, in that state, affords to the defendant to challenge a conviction in absentia.
Its adequacy is determined by the Executive of the requested state, not the judiciary.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)we were talking legalities, not the politics of the matter.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/01/269546798/knox-case-could-put-u-s-in-an-extradition-quandry
A Decision For The State Department
When a country makes a valid extradition request, it's ultimately up to the State Department to decide whether or not to follow through.
Now, the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Italy, and politics shouldn't make a difference in the process, according to Clive Nicholls, a barrister in the U.K. who works on extradition cases and co-authored a book on the subject.
"You have a treaty, you apply it, and you are meant to do so dispassionately," Nicholls says.
That sounds pretty simple, but in reality, political considerations often call the shots.
"It certainly has happened where the secretary of state has decided not to extradite, even though there was no legal hurdle," says Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.
"In making that decision, the secretary of state doesn't even have to give any reason for doing it," he says. "Under U.S. law, he or she can just make the decision."
spanone
(135,823 posts)[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
Gothmog
(145,130 posts)One talk show speculated that the Italian government may not even request extra addiction given the weakness of the case There will be further appeals. Hopefully the sane officials in the Italian government will realize that their justice system will be on trial if the ask for extradiction
Again the case against Knox is too weak to even get into a jury in the US