Extradition To Usa From Thailand

[nudnik]

The US signed a warrant for Osama bin Laden after 911, but Afghanistan refused to honor the extradiction.

Where do you come by this erroneous information?

Fact: Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for anything to do with 911. Now I'm sure many of you here will tell me how wrong I am but be careful. I don't say things that I am not sure of and I have an ally in the US Government who will back my assertion of this fact.

Osama Bin Laden is not wanted for anything related to 911.

If you can produce something official that links him to 911 please do so.

[fnprop]

The US is uniquely stupid among nations in that it seems to think it can enforce its laws when violated by non-citizens, even when the violation took place outside the US.

Actually, there are about 40 countries with the same asinine laws (asserting their right to apprehend and try non-citizen suspects for offenses committed outside of their territories). And a bunch of them are in the EU (Pinochet in Spain anyone?), so you can knock off the America bashing.

[LooseCannon]

Wow! I can see you have an appropriate moniker here! - I will take this as a compliment (those little yellow faces make it alright, doesn't it?)

Including a mention of bin Laden is perfectly acceptable as I see it. It certainly is within the spirit of subsequent posts, If you don't agree, so be it. You word usage sows you have a very biased view against US policies, and as someone who had to serve in Iraq, I also probably have some of those same views. But that does not mean I cannot look at things objectively.

The quest by the US government to get bin Laden to the US was a highly politicised event. The US government chose not to supply the evidence to the Taliban as required by US law. I fail to see how this falls 'within the spirit of subsequent posts' where in those examples of the extradition procedure the due process of law would have to have been followed for them to be successful.

My bias against the US government & the Bush 'War on Terror' is irrelevant & does not negate the facts (documented in the mainstream media at the time) that correct legal requirements were not followed. Much as you & I dislike the Taliban, they were still well within their rights to be shown the evidence. Other countries are not expected to bypass the correct legal procedures for extradition, so why should Afghanistan.

If you feel the need to cite an example of extradition of an individual from Afghanistan to the US, I would suggest the case of one Haji Baz Mohammad. Successfully & legally extradited (Oct 2005) to the US despite there being no existing extradition treaty between the two countries. This was done by using the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Convention allows for the a party requesting extradition from a party which does not share an extradition agreement, and yet requires one, to consider the Convention itself as a legal basis for extradition of any offense proscribed therein.

[Kerryd]

The quest by the US government to get bin Laden to the US was a highly politicised event. The US government chose not to supply the evidence to the Taliban as required by US law. I fail to see how this falls 'within the spirit of subsequent posts' where in those examples of the extradition procedure the due process of law would have to have been followed for them to be successful.

My bias against the US government & the Bush 'War on Terror' is irrelevant & does not negate the facts (documented in the mainstream media at the time) that correct legal requirements were not followed. Much as you & I dislike the Taliban, they were still well within their rights to be shown the evidence. Other countries are not expected to bypass the correct legal procedures for extradition, so why should Afghanistan.

A little Wiki background regarding UBL and GWB:

"Despite the multiple indictments listed above and multiple requests, the Taliban refused to extradict Osama Bin Laden.

It wasn't until after the bombing of Afghanistan began in October 2001 that the Taliban finally did offer to turn over Osama bin Laden to a third-party country for trial, in return for the US ending the bombing and providing evidence that Osama bin Laden was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

This offer was rejected by George W Bush stating that this was no longer negotiable with Bush responding that "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."

(of course GWB also knew that Iraq had WMDs. Hmmm how did that one work out ?)

The FBI's wanted poster still only notes UBL as being wanted for involvement in acts committed before 9/11.

Over 7 years now, and they are (reasonably) sure he is in a certain area of Pakistan bordering the Afghan border, and they haven't been able to locate him, Mullah Omar or al-Zarqawi, despite the satellite calls and audio/video tapes that have come out over those 7 years.

The "war" in Afghanistan has now gone on longer then America's involvement in both World Wars (WW I - 1916-1918, WW II - 1941-1945, 6 years).

Hard to believe on man has been able to stymie the advanced technology of the west for so long (assuming he is actually still alive, and wasn't captured and held in one of those "special" places years ago).

If they did somehow manage to capture him, would they just whisk him away ? Or, like the Serbian war criminals, would he be sent to the Hague ? Would the US want the headaches that would come with having UBL on American soil ?

Edited December 21, 2008 by Kerryd

[beechguy]

Wow! I can see you have an appropriate moniker here! - I will take this as a compliment (those little yellow faces make it alright, doesn't it?)

Including a mention of bin Laden is perfectly acceptable as I see it. It certainly is within the spirit of subsequent posts, If you don't agree, so be it. You word usage sows you have a very biased view against US policies, and as someone who had to serve in Iraq, I also probably have some of those same views. But that does not mean I cannot look at things objectively.

The quest by the US government to get bin Laden to the US was a highly politicised event. The US government chose not to supply the evidence to the Taliban as required by US law. I fail to see how this falls 'within the spirit of subsequent posts' where in those examples of the extradition procedure the due process of law would have to have been followed for them to be successful.

My bias against the US government & the Bush 'War on Terror' is irrelevant & does not negate the facts (documented in the mainstream media at the time) that correct legal requirements were not followed. Much as you & I dislike the Taliban, they were still well within their rights to be shown the evidence. Other countries are not expected to bypass the correct legal procedures for extradition, so why should Afghanistan.

If you feel the need to cite an example of extradition of an individual from Afghanistan to the US, I would suggest the case of one Haji Baz Mohammad. Successfully & legally extradited (Oct 2005) to the US despite there being no existing extradition treaty between the two countries. This was done by using the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. The Convention allows for the a party requesting extradition from a party which does not share an extradition agreement, and yet requires one, to consider the Convention itself as a legal basis for extradition of any offense proscribed therein.

I think Bush's biggest mistake was listening to Cheney and Rumsfeld, and thing's should have been handled differently. But, I don't have any confidence in the accuracy of the media to base my opinions, they are too biased.

People seem to think all of this began with Bush, and ignore the fact that our embassies were being bombed along with our barracks in Saudi and the ship in Yemen, etc. All under Bill Clinton. What did he do? Very little, so Bush inherited the problems.

[nudnik]

correct legal requirements were not followed. Much as you & I dislike the Taliban, they were still well within their rights to be shown the evidence. Other countries are not expected to bypass the correct legal procedures for extradition, so why should Afghanistan

This offer was rejected by George W Bush stating that this was no longer negotiable with Bush responding that "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty."

The FBI's wanted poster still only notes UBL as being wanted for involvement in acts committed before 9/11.

I'll give you credit for looking at the FBI website. Osama is dead and likely has been dead for years. Now why do you suppose the FBI has nothing linking Osama Bin Laden to 911? Did Bush lie? Did Congress lie? Evidence, what evidence?

Osama bin Laden had nothing to do with 9/11 - that was perpetrated by our own intelligence - CIA etc.. Bushed showed no evidence because there is no evidence. The story is made. up to provide a boogie man to the American People. Osama is wanted for killing Americans on foreign soil, not domestic killings. Osama was a CIA operative.

Typical false flag attack designed to get the American People onboard for an unpopular war.

[edwardrake]

Breaking certain 'important' federal laws: Killing a US Citzen and counterfeiting US Currency are examples, I think tampering with the smoke detector in an aircraft toilet might be another

But as Bonobo states, subject to treaty.

largely depends on whim, mood, arbitrary interpretation of law by the whatsits targeting random supects, & misc unfortunates

iow, is this your lucky day, or theirs. khao chai khap.