Free Gary McKinnon

This situation is totally OUTRAGEOUS !
These guys are going to spend 2 YEARS in detention, awaiting trial, when no Court in the world has convicted them of any offence, and when the extraditing country has shown no reasonable cause?

What has happened to "Innocent until proven guilty" ?
What has happened to Habeas Corpus ?

This farce must be stopped right NOW.

Or do we now have a Stalinist government in the UK which is willing to allow a foreign government to imprison its citizens without trial ?

I understand that the US has not signed their part of the Extradition Act 2003? How is it possible that those who are faced with an order under this Act can be effected. It is surely a breach of their Human Rights under not only European Law but British Law also. This government has an inadequate understanding of law in this respect and also the mood of this nation who are totally against such a misuse of an Act of Law designed for terrorists acts against the international community.

This is unacceptable - what is the Labour Government doing to rectify this?

Lock 'em up I say.

Surely it is time - in the next couple of days - that anyone (especially companies) banking with NatWest or RBS informed their bank that they intend to withdraw their custom from these banks if they take no action to right this obvious inequity. That might make RBS reconsider their position and either come clean by taking action against the three in the UK courts or confirm that these two institutions do not consider the transaction was at an undervalue.

At the weekend the Attorney General came under fire after refusing to intervene in the case.

Lord Goldsmith said there was "no basis" for reconsidering the Serious Fraud Office's decision not to intervene in the case so that the men could stand trial in the UK instead.
---------------------------
Kindly allow me, your Lordship, to correct you on a VERY basic point of law :-

When only ONE party to a contract - the extradition treaty - has ratified it, it is NOT binding on either party.

No contract is binding until it has been signed by both parties.

The USA has NOT ratified it. So the "contract" does NOT EXIST.

And, to me, that is a BLOODY GOOD reason for "reconsidering the Serious Fraud Office's decision not to intervene in the case so that the men could stand trial in the UK instead."

In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a better one.

So come on - how about it ?

Because one really does begin to wonder exactly what is going on here. It is starting to look highly sus.

Just wanted to send my support. This decision seems wrong, unfair and unjust - and I wish you, your family and colleagues the very best of luck.

Not sure what all the details are, but this all stinks...!!!!

I say send them and lets see what they have to say.. After the Coulbeck death, they may be safer in a US prison anyway!

Ken Lay dies, Coulbeck killed..?? Something doesn't make sense. These guys need to face the music.

They have to be accountable to the THOUSANDS of people who's lives were ruined by thier greed (and they live in the US).

We're winning guys ! I raised this issue on Adam Boluton's Sky News blog, and the response was totally supportive of the NatWest 3.

Latest report from Sky News:-

"The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has now spoken to the US authorities who have told him that in normal circumstances "bail will not be opposed".

It's not yet clear whether this will mean the 3 can come home pending trial. They all are legally resisting their extradition, under US law this means they are technically classed as "fugitives" and so would normally be denied bail. Nonetheless pressure seems to be telling on the government and Sir Ming can claim a palpable hit.

The core of this argument is that the government insists that rules governing extradition from the US or UK is now "broadly" or "roughly" equivalent. Opposition legal experts dispute this. It's getting nasty. Everyone calls David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby "the NatWest 3" - except the government. In the Lords last night and the Commons today Minister Baroness Scotland and Mike O'Brien tried to dub them "the Enron 3".

NatWest is the familiar British High Street Bank for which the men worked in England. Enron, is the biggest fraud in American history - associated with billionaire excess - in which the 3 are said to have become involved in their professional capacity acting at NatWest. One Labour backbencher even suggested that the NatWest 3 campaign was financed "by billionaires who have profitted from the fraud". But some of the biggest hitters in the Conservative Party - Kenneth Clarke, Norman Tebbit and Douglas Hogg - have angrily challenged the use of the term "Enron 3" as an attempted smear. "

So, looks like no question of languishing in a jail for 2 years awaiting trial.
Bail clearly WILL be conceded.

Now we need to concentrate on getting the trial in the UK, where the alleged offences were committed.

Keep the pressure on at every comment outlet available to you.

Remember ... it might be YOU they are coming for one day !

How dare the UK government treat its own citizens with utter contempt.This legislation is meant to be used to prevent terrorism not to be used in this manner!Tony Blair is history as long as I BREATHE IN MY BODY I will no longer vote for Labour.This extradition is wrong,wrong,wrong!!

I am unhappy with this case
and would like the '3' tried
in this country,stressing
that the burden of proof
required for conviction
should not be comprised in
any way,no short cuts to
keep Mr.Bush happy.The
American way is not our way.

"(and they live in the US)."
---------------------------

Who told you THAT ?

(In any case, it is immaterial; they are British citizens and their alleged crime was committed in the UK.)

With all that money they made from their 'transactions' why are people bleating about them having a hard time if given bail. They won't be able to afford their lawyers? Two lots of greedy people then. Enjoy your trip guys.

Right. Surely there are several factors to consider, both from a moral point of view, and from a legal point of view? First & foremost, if the extradition treaty to which we all refer was not signed, there is no obligation by either party to adhere to it. If I am offered a contract & do not sign it, I have not entered into that agreement & am not bound by any of its terms. (Oh I'm sorry, if ONE was not offered a contract and ONE does not sign it, blah, blah, blah!) That should be the end of that! To address another issue raised, namely that of the responsibility of the 3 (who have not been found guilty, may I remind you!) then yes, they do indeed have a degree of responsibility, regardless of the fact that they are UK residents and were when their alleged crimes were committed. They were participating in an international business matter & surely there has to be some sort of international jurisdiction for their actions, otherwise geography could very well remove culpability from any criminal. In this day and age, with modern technology, it is no longer necessary for business to be conducted in such close proximity as it has been in the past. While I recognise that legal matters are not proceeding with the speed and efficiency of technological progression, there must be more of an effort made to put in place controls which safeguard against exactly this type of situation. As for the comment that the people affected reside in the US, I would point out that the immediate effect is strongest there, but also that there have been several consequences of this entire situation, including the introduction of new regulatory controls for certain businesses, which are impacting people worlwide. (Case in point the Sarbanes-Oxley implementation.)

Article to be published in my local press this week. (for information)
Roger Gale MP

By the time that you read this it is likely that the "Natwest Three" will have been taken, literally in chains, from this country to the United States and will be incarcerated in an American gaol with no evidence having been produced against them.

Should we be concerned about the fate of a few of what some have no doubt described as "fat cat bankers"? Yes, I rather think we should.

The Extradition Act 2003 was passed by the present government of the United Kingdom in response to pressure from an American President and in the emotional aftermath of "9/11". It was designed to facilitate the movement and trial of suspected terrorists and it was intended to be reciprocal.

It is worth remembering, perhaps, while considering this act of supine political surrender, that not once in the entire duration of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland did any US administration facilitate the extradition of those suspected of actively or passively supporting the IRA. Indeed, the American political system is in such thrall to the Irish Republican Lobby that no serious attempt was made, even, to prevent the collecting tins that provided the money to buy IRA weapons from being rattled around the East Coast states.

Prime Minister Blair again mis-led the House of Commons when he suggested that the Americans had signed up to this two-way deal: they have not, and they will not because, again of domestic political pressures.

I have no better way of knowing than the next man whether or not these innocent (yes - in this country - until proven guilty) men have committed any crimes against a curiously silent NatWest bank or the Enron corporation of America but I do know that they are not accused of terrorist offences and I do know that if they have committed crimes then those crimes were committed in the United Kingdom and they should stand trial here.

We are told that in this electronic age the FBI considers its remit as worldwide. That is not a position that a democratic parliament of the United Kingdom should accept and we should, immediately, introduce and ram through a one-clause bill to repeal the extradition act.

And we should do it before the House rises for the summer recess.

@ Steve - Gary McKinnon does not have any money, and there is no legal aid to pay for US lawyers. He too is affected by the same dubious Extradition Act 2003, which was passed, despite the UK-US Treaty not having been ratified.

The legal process involving extradition is, in itself, a huge punishment, even if you are found not guilty.

Surely it is likley that the apparent suicide of the NatWest banker witness Neil Coulbeck (i.e. not even one of the accused) was partly as a result of the pressure of the invesigation ?

I wonder how Winston Churchill would have reacted to this so-called investigation by the Americans. Whether they are guilty or not, it's up to us, the British, to use our justice system over this matter

@ fg. Who is talking about the 'hacker' Gary? I thought this thread was about those poor 'ole bankers. You know, the ones who made millions out of a 'deal'. And now they claim they have no money. The extradition process may seem like a 'huge punishment' but due process has taken its course, the courts, not the Government, have spoken. The apologists keep banging on about 'justice' but that just means their sort of justice.
You are just speculating about the suicide case, if you have any hard evidence to support your theory then lets see it.

@ Steve - this thread is about the possible effect of the NatWest 3 extradition case on the Gary McKinnon extradition case (that is what this website is all about)

You seemed to be gloating about the potentially huge legal costs in the USA.

The courts have no discretion under the Extradition Act to demand actual Evidence, which can be challenged by the defence, and which may not, in fact differ very much from the secret information which is supplied to the Home Office and the Crown Prosecution Service.

That is not "justice".

Are you claiming that the alleged suicide of the man who authorised the sale of the disputed assets to the NatWest 3,
could not possibly have been influenced by the intense investigation from the USA ? It seems like reasonable speculation for people to suggest that there could well be a link, both here on this blog, and also in many sections of the mainstream press and media.

@ fg. You forgot to mention BaaBaa and the effect on him too. This thread seems to be about anyone who seems frightened of justice.

I'm not gloating about anything. I am saying that these 3 made huge amounts of money, possibly fraudulently, and they and their solicitors are claiming they will not have the funds to present their case. They are even suggesting that all the evidence, documents etc, is in the UK and they will not have access to it as they are in the USA. Have they not heard of e-mail, fax, photocopy?

You miss the point about 'justice'. The application for the extradition was made through the UK courts, apealled many times through the courts and the UK COURTS still found against them so off they go. What is NOT justice about that? It has gone its course through the UK courts. That IS justice. If the courts had found FOR them, would you and your ilk be bitching then. That is what I meant about 'their sort of justice' i.e. when the courts find in their favour. The decision has gone against them so it MUST be wrong!

I am not the one claiming anything about the suicide case. You are doing the claiming and speculating. Here is some speculation for you. He was unhappy with his sex life so he topped himself. There you go, but then again, I know as much (or as little) about the FACTS as you do.

I hope the 3 enjoy the hospitality of the Texas authorities.

Steve,
if you don't want anyone mentioned here to be free, then what are you doing on a Free Gary website?
You haven't got a clue about the real facts, or you pretend not to have.

The High Courts didn't decide on all the facts. (Far from it)
The High Court "oddly" turned decisions in the Nat West 3 case over to the Home Secretary; because the top legal minds in the High Court were obviously uncomfortable about making decisions, which would cause them extreme embarrassement.

A great deal of pressure is obviously being put on our law makers and on many of our politicians but thank God the majority in the House of Lords and in the House of commons voted against this excuse for a treaty which the American government is too afraid to sign, in case they have to hand over some real terrorists.

We will not be Americas Patsies. We are not an American state.
No matter how much you'd like us to be.

Tony Blairs government won't last much longer because they have sold out their own citizens and Brits don't like that.

Jan

@ Steve - your disparaging reference to Babar Ahmad speaks volumes.

Why do you appear to value US "justice" over British justice ?

If any of the people which this website has been supporting were to be tried in British courts, something which they are all willing to face, would you still be demanding that they be extradited to the USA ?

Your point about email and fax etc. is irrelevant when it comes to the appearance and cross-examination of witnesses. In the NatWest 3 case, most of the potential witnesses, both for the prosecution and for the defence, are obviously in the UK.

None of them can be forced to testify in the USA, they would have to go voluntarily, which not all of them could afford to do.

A link to a website dedicated to help to Free Chantal; an English woman who has been locked up in an American prison for years and for what?

Is this an example of American Justice?

http://www.freechantal.com/frames/index.htm.

First of all those 3 have not yet found guilty. But if they are guilty they have destroyed the life of many people. Nevertheless I am extremely angry that the British government does nothing to protect their own citizens from another country. In Austria, where I come from this is one of the basic rights. Austria would never ever "sell" one of its citizens. regards and good luck in fighting this awfull extradition

@ fg. Yeah, the BaaBaa thing must have a typo.

(sigh) I don't value US justice over British justice. Let me go through this again. It must be my fault for not explaining clearly, I can't believe you are this thick. An application for extradition was made by the US. The defendants, in this case, the NatWest 3, but you could apply it to McKinnon amd Mr Ahmad,decided to take it to the Briitish Courts in front of a British judge, to get the extradition order(s) thrown out. Now, if they did not think they were going to get 'justice' through the British courts why did they go through that process. If the orders had been thrown out (a (British) judge could have put a stop to it in, what was it,2003, or any of the (many) appeals, by saying it was illegal etc or against their human rights (by the way, did any of them use the old 'it will infringe my hgumna rights' scam, that usually gets them off. If they did and a British judge still let them be extradidted then, my God, they really are in trouble)imagine the scene. There they would be, stood infront of the courts with arms raised saying they got 'justice' and isn't the court system wonderfull. But it didn't happen, so they never got their version of justice and they resort to the last refuge of the scoundrel, it 'political' or they won't get a 'fair' trial. Do you see where we are now? They have had British justice, they had hearings against extradition but because they lost they did'nt get their justice. If you and them have such a low opinion of the British justice system no wonder the US won't ratify the treaty.

I don't think my reference to e-mail etc is irrelevant. Have you not hear of video link. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but it is not impossible.

I'll tell you what. Get back to me when this is all over and if they are (all) acquitted I will be the first to give a grovelling apology for being wrong and as I'm sure they will all be pleading poverty (until the book deal is done)I will be the first to chip in 5p for the hardship fund. How's that? But that is the difference between me and you and your kind. If they do get off, I will see it as due process. If they are found guilty you will never accept that verdict because it was 'political' or they did not get a 'fair' trial.

I see you have taken a leaf out of my book and not speculated anymore about the suicide case until we know more FACTS about it. Well done.

Anthony Blair and his government should be in shackles. To have passed a bill allowing the extradition to the USA without a reciprocal agreement just shows what a bad unthought out bill it was. Typical of this government with it's large majority rushing things through without proper consideration even though the pitfalls were pointed out at the time. The Labour members voted like sheep and now we are seeing what can happen if the US Government so wish. Now Mr Blair has more blood on his hands.

@ David. I am on a free Gary site for a couple of reasons. One I was 'curious', you know, just like Gary. There was a lack of password protection or any security on this site so I thought I would have a poke around, you know, just like Gary. I was trying to find evidence of 'supressed' injustice, you know, just like Gary. And, just like Gary, I'm off to America now. But unlike Gary, I'm not being extradited because I have not done anything wrong.

You are right, I don't have a clue about the real facts, I was not in court, and I suspect you wern't either. What facts I do know is there were court hearings to get the extraditions thrown out, held in British courts,and the defendants failed. The people who were in court, the legal teams AND THE JUDGE, do have a clue. The judge upheld the extraditions. He could have thrown the extradition orders out (that was the reason the defence teams took it to court, no?)but in his widom he decided not to. Do you see this fact?

I'm not interested in you rabid anti government bile, just the facts in the court. If you don't like the government, then vote them out at the next election. It's called democracy.

There is anothr reason I visired and posted to this site. If Gary (and the others) read this site and it was all comments in favour of him (them) then they might get the wrong impression and think 100% of the poeple support him (them). And that would not be true would it?

Wrong Steve;
I was in court.
The judge basically pronounced Gary guilty because of information shown to him "privately" by the US prosecutors.
"Evidence" that Gary was unable to challenge in open court because it was done behind closed doors.

Is this the Judicial system of a free and open society; seems more like America;s Judicial system is being thrust on us whether we want it or not.
The Judge was a magistrate, not even a High Court Judge and to publicly state as fact a person's guilt before a trial was never done in this country before and this has shocked many British people.

No one on this website has taken a leaf out of your book because in the main; we do believe in Human Rights and don't think Human Rights are a joke, which you obviously do.

Many, many Good and influential Americans are supporting Gary and don't want him extradited to face a trial in America, especially in Virginia and even some Virginia residents are concerned that Gary might be tried there.

We are fighting for freedom for Gary and for the British Judicial system; what are you fighting for?

Oh I forgot; you love the thought of the accused serving time in an American prison and not having their Human Rights respected.

David

This a travesty of justice.The USA have not ratified the Extradition Treaty under which the NatWest3 are being sent to America - probably in case we wish to extradite IRA terrorists (sorry, peace-loving freedom fighters)back to the UK. This Labour Government is hypocritical, prejudiced and sleaze-ridden and the Attorney General's attitude to this case is beneath contempt.

@ David. So you were in court? The fact that you were in a court just proves that Gary and the others got justice. They went through the justice system. They expected the extradition orders to be thrown out and to them this would be 'good justice'. But they failed, in a court, to get the orders thrown out and according to them this isn't justice. They (and you) seem to want it all ways. (oh, and by the way, I don't believe you were in court)

We will ignore your second paragraph because it is full of your rabid anti Americanism.

What point are you trying to make about it being a magistrates court. A magistrate could have thrown the application out. They didn't, go figure. It was still a court and if your lot had 'won' you would not be bleating now would you?

I beleive in human rights. I also beleive in humnan responsibilities. What I object to is people taking the piss and hiding behind the humman rights banner when things don't go their way or when they don't get their version of 'justice'.

Where is your evidence to substantiate your commenmt about 'many, many good and influential Americans support Gary'? I could also say many, many, many do want him extradited and many in this county do.

You carry on fighting for Gary. There have been many blogs/websites set up to 'free' or 'save' the likes of McKinnon, the NatWest 3 and Mr Ahmad, and all these people are, it seems, going to be extradited. Your not very good at this are you? From where I am standing the British justice system is doing just fine. People are going through the courts, some get off & some don't. Thats the way the system works. The poeple you apologise for have not got off, live with it. You seem to have a very poor view of the justice system. If it is as bad as you say, racked with political interference, is it any wonder the Americans won't ratify the treaty?

I don't love the though of them serving time in any prison. If they are convicted of a crime they deserve to spend time in ANY prison. As I have posted elsewhere, if all these people get off, I will be the first to humbly apologise to them for being wrong. But if they are found guilty you and your sort won't be able to accept it because you have alredy decided that they did not get a 'fair' trial or it was 'political'. Do you see the difference between us?

Oh, I forgot, apparently when the NatWest 3 touched down in America yesterday they landed at George Bush international Airport. Oh, the irony, eh!

Magistrates' Courts do not deal with any Human Rights Act / European Convention on Human Rights issues of any case. Those only get looked at in the High Court or Appeal Court or the House of Lords.

The extradition Act 2003 constrains the extradition hearings to only look at whether the extradition request has been presented correctly and to make a determination about time limits and whether extradition might result in a possible death penalty (not straight forward when dealing with the USA which does have the death penalty, but not in every State, and also has Federal and Military laws).

In Gary McKinnon's case, similar arguments about Military Tribunals will no doubt be raised as with the current High Court appeal by Babar Ahmad, where the ">High Court Judges do seem to be agreeing that there is a substantial risk of the totally unacceptabel (even to the US Supreme Court) idea of being declared "an enemy combatant".

Extradition has always been a hoop la and people who quite rightly ought to be extradited
for serious crimes escape prosecution. This is what the Natwest three were hoping to do escape prosecution.

Remember Enron ! That company where lots of people lost investments pensions savings and jobs through fraud. If the charges can be proved the three are as involved.

Firstly for most ordinary people what they did would amount to stealing or theft. I worked for a US based firm in this country and in my contract it stated that if I used any of my business knowledge for individual or competitor gain I would most certainly be fired and face prosecution.

The question is why werent these people picked up and prosecuted by Natwest for fraud.

They abused there banking position speculated and won a staggering profit probably from the pockets of those poor Enron employees.

Steve (you sound awfully like body bagger to me)

If your government believe in equal rights and Justice, they would sign the "treaty" they had promised to sign but won't.

The US don't want the UK to have equal rights to enable them to extradite real terrorists who are living in America; some of whom murdered men, women and children in the UK.

The US just wants to be able to extradite anyone it feels like from the UK, regardless of the seriousness (or not)of their crime.

The House of Lords and the House of Commons would not have voted overwhelmingly to exclude America from the extradition treaty if it was so fair.

Put up or shut up; let your government sign the treaty if it's so fair.

No one on here is Anti American but you like to pretend that's our reason for standing up for Justice for UK citizens,

If the American government signed this treaty; the Americans would be up in arms and you know it.

Thank God the majority of our MP's and Lords, now seem to be against this unreciprocated treaty and refuse to be George Bush Patsies.

Three high flyers who commit serious fraud get extradited and out trot tories.
I am sure they would want to prosecute in this country because they will get a slap on the rist and television and kettle in their cell.

Mr Bermingham says hes never set foot on US soil why is he being prosecuted there. Thats the point you dont have to set foot on soil to commit crime you dont have to murder to commit crime and you dont have to be a terrorist to commit crime mr Bermingham

@ fe (I apologise for previously putting fg) You last paragraph says it all.
'There is no dispute that the legal court procedure has been followed, according to the Extradition Act 2003. That is not the same as justice being seen to have been done' We appear not to agree about the last sentence. In your opinion it is not the same as justice being seen to be done. In my opinion it is. They have been to the courts and they lost. Why can't you accept that?

@ David. Dave, Dave, Dave. I'm not body bagger (i'll explain why in a mo) He puts his case far more eloquently than I can. I thought that you were a delusional fool, now I know you are. What do you mean about 'my' government not ratifying the treaty. 'My' goverment has. I am BRITISH you imbecile. I have a BRITISH passport, I woas born BRITISH/ENGLISH and I live in Gloucestershire, which, last time I looked, was in BRITAIN. I believe 'body bagger is an American citizen so I can't be him. Where have I said that I was American? If you could read & understand my posts you would see that I am sticking up for the BRITISH legal system.

Ah, I see we finally bring in the old Irish Terrorist extradition ploy in. You keep making the case for them not being extradited back here. You keep saying the British justice system is being interfered with politicaly and people can't get a fair trail. Well done for giving America ammunition for them not to send them back. And don't think I am an apologist for the IRA. I served i N. Ireland at the height of the troubles, I saw friends and comrades being killed by these 'freedom fighters'. Where were you when I was fighting for 'justice and domocracy' were you in courts fighting for loosers 'Human Rights'?

The house of Lords and Commons DID vote for the treaty and it was passed. It is called domocracy, you know the thing you spout on about but know little of. But of course you probably know little of the House of Lords but now they seem to be on 'your' side they are the best thing since sliced bread eh?

I have put up or shut up. MY BRITISH government has signed the treaty.

See, you spoiled it again at the end with the 'political comment about GWB. It is a LEGAL argument not a POLITICAL one. Why don't you understand this?

Oh, by the way, I still don't believe you were in court.

@ body bagger. Keep up the good work.

@fe or fg. I apologise again for mixing up your 'name' I really am having trouble reading it (bad fonts?) Can you post it clearly for me (in phonetics if need be) so I can get it right. Thanks

The House of Commons and the House of Lords were conned by a government that told everyone this one sided "treaty" was made to fast track the extradition of terrorists.

Democracy is not about conning everyone in order to get them to do your bidding.

Hence the overwhelming defeat against the government last week from both the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
It is very political.

If this government had any strength, or any idea of how to negotiate a treaty; they would have ensured that America had signed the treaty so that it operated equally for both sides.
By not doing so they have made fools of themselves and have sold out the rights of British citizens.

The treaty was introduced and signed by politicians who obviously didn't know their ass from their elbow.

A treaty is hardly a treaty if it was signed only by one side and this is the whole point.

@David. So, just more anti goverment bile then. No apology for getting my nationality wrong. I apologise for calling you an imbecile. You are just a fool. Why don't you get involved with politics instead of just haunting some useless website and spouting anti goverment rehhetoric? You seem to have just as low an opinion of this countries politicians as you do of the justice system.

And my point about the legal case these poeple are trying to get through the courts and losing. Why can't you accept that the legal system does not agree with their case?

You accuse me of being someone else, why did you put 'Jan' at the bottom of one of your posts and still sign it 'David'. Have you got something to hide? I think we should be told.

By the way, I still don't think you were in court.

@ fg. It is fg 'aint it? For free Gary right? Quick of me eh ;0)

Yes justice has been done.

Whether or not you choose to believe I was in court doesn't matter to me.

You totally avoid the fact that America has not signed the so called "treaty" and this is the point.
You fail to understand that it is extremely political if we have a government that is incapable of negotiating a treaty.

It is extremely political if we have a government who informs it's politicians and it's people that the "treaty" is to be used against terrorists and then proceed to use it mainly against white collar workers who are not terrorists.

As you can see by the letter FG posted; even Italian Parliamentarians are standing up for Gary.
You have no argument as to why America has not signed this "treaty" so you avoid this fact.

Maybe you should write to the House of Lords and the MP's in the House of Commons and tell them that you think they made a mistake and that this isn't political.
The law has frequently been changed in the past by the protest of it's citizens and its politicians when it is considered to be wrong.

Our government has messed up on this one by using this "treaty" against people who are not terrorists and by not having it reciprocated.

Any British citizen who would wish British people, to have less rights than citizens in virtually every other country who has signed an extradition treaty with America, does not have the interests of British people at heart;
so it must be assumed that they have alterior motives.

Who knows who you really are or what your alterior motives are.

It is our absolute duty to stand up for our equal rights.

David Janson

@ David or Jan or whoever. You wern't in court were you? I not only think you are a fool but I think you are a liar too. Still, that does not matter to you does it?

No, I have not totallly avoided the fact that America has not signed the treaty. I have told you why I think poeple like you give them an excuse not to. The government negotiated the treaty but obviously not to your liking. Perhaps you could do better? But thankfully we will never find that out because you just prefer to shout from the sidelines on useless websites.

Give me one quote from a government minister of when they said it will 'only be used for extraditing terrorists'

Oh, the ITALIAN parliament. Is that supposed to impress me or make me laugh? And again, I have given my arguments as to why I think the US has not signed the treaty, because people like you keep givng them the ammo when you say the legal system is politisied. Have YOU tried asking the Americans why they havn't? I'm sure they are aware of this high profile web site.

I have the interest of British people at heart, the same as I do for the British legal system. You know, the same system the the people you are an apologist for go to when they are in trouble and when they don't get the result they want they brand it 'unfair' or political. You answer me this. If these cases had been thrown out by the courts, the people you are an apologist for would have accepted that would they not? But because they didn't 'win' that same system becomes bad. This is the crux of what I am complaining about. As I have stated before, you and your crowd want it all ways.

Give me some evidence of when the law 'has been frequently changed' in the past by protest. I'll start you off. There was the poll tax riots wern't there. Is that you next step, taking to the streets and burning London or where ever?

I have no alterior motives, I just don't like people taking the piss out of the system when they don't get their way. Let us take the example of that nice Mr Bermingham when he stood on the steps of the police station before being extradited. He has totally LOST the LEGAL argument so he goes for the political sympathy vote by playing up the undoubted unpopularity of America and the government. Well, that don't wah with me. He will get his day in court, but he is not very good at the legal side of things is he? And despite what he said he still ended up in shackles in a detention facility.

I am also standing up for rights, just not the same ones you are.

@ Steve - be careful who you call a liar or who you falsely accuse of planning violence.

"I am also standing up for rights, just not the same ones you are."

You do not appear to understand the fundamental concept of British justice - "innocent until proven guilty"

For someone who considers this website to be "useless", you seem to be spending a lot of time here.

Why not set up your own blog where you can try to persuade people to your point of view ?

If it is any good, and it allows comments, this blog will link to it.

@ fg. I have not falsely accused anyone of planning violence. I asked a question. (I note he has not replied yet.) Reread what I said.

I fully understand the concept of British justice. To be PROVEN innocent or guilty you must surley have a trial. This is the bit that seems to scare you lot. Why?

I don't spend a lot of time here, I dip in and out like I would imagine most people do. How useful would you say this site is? I think, and judging by some of your post you do as well, that Gary will be extradited. The NatWest 3 have gone and it looks like Mr Ahmad is going too. So how useful was this site? I spend time in here for a few reasons. One, I just want to put my view to this Gary lovefest that not ALL the people think he should not be extradited. It's called free speech. Are you afraid of that? Secondly, I have been short of entertainment recently and it has been VERY entertaining poking you lot with a sharp stick.

Why would I want to set up my own blog when someone has already gone to the time, trouble and expense of providing a place where I can have a say?

Answer me one question. Gary goes to court, magistrates, high, crown or whatever, and let us say the extraditon order is thrown out and he is free to go, Gary would accept that decision of the court wouldn't he? But, so far in this case, it has not been thrown out and he and you claim it is not justice. Don't you think that this attitude is just a teensy weesny bit hypicritical?

And the silence was deafening. I'll take it as a 'yes' then, you do think it's hypercritical.

Some of Garys supporters think that if a crime were committed by him it was committed in the UK. Let's try these questions out.

A loner sits at his computer in the UK and 'hacks' into a computer system in the USA and causes malicious damage. Where was the crime committed, in the UK or the USA?

A British Army Land Rover travels in Ulster on the border of the Republic of Ireland. A culvert bomb goes off under the vehicle and 2 soldiers are killed and three others seriously wounded. Later, a command wire is found leading back into the Republic from where the bomb was detonated. Where was the crime committed, in Ulster or the Republic?

A plot is hatched in Libya. A bomb is put aboard a plane in Germany. The bomb explodes and brings down the plane over Scotland. All on board are lost. Where was the crime committed, Libya, Germany or Scotland? Of course, we already know the answer to this one. Scotland. The accused were extradited from Libya, and put before a Scottish court, albeit in a neutral county, but in front of Scottish judges, prosecuted by Scottish prosecuters with even the compound guarded by Scottish police. The guilty is now serving time in a Scottish prison.

How can it be said that Gary committed a (alleged) crime in the UK. I await your answers with baited breath. Although I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Those ranting about the superiority of British "Justice" ( i.e. innocent until proven guilty-Ha ha)must have had your heads up your anus for the last 30 years. White collar crime (fraud)in The City has been blatant,rampant and largly ignored by the Law for decades,-chances are that a dealer who sells blue chip shares below value,buys some for themself, resigns and then shortly after makes a big killing is certainly bent-this was a multi million heist-bang em up and throw away the key-

If our government are so keen to extradite people for even non violent crimes; why don't they extradite the people who murdered Mr Menzies to Brazil.
Murdering an innocent man is so very much more serious.

I wouldn't take anything as a yes if I were you.

The silence is most likely because not many people are interested in answering you as you have no valid point or argument to make.
From your postings you ignore all the relevant points.

I speculate that you are probably a plant, or you are possibly someone with little in your life and too much time on your hands and need an outlet where someone will listen to you.

@ Mr Anderson. 'The silence is most likely because not many people are interested in answering you'
Except you of course, I'm flattered.
'as you have no valid point or argument to make'
What valid points have I not made? I have said why I think you aplogists have been hypocritical regarding the law. No rubuttal from you lot. I have asked why some of you think that Gary should be tried in the UK for the 'crime' when other cases seem to suggest that the trial should be held where the deed acutally took place. No rubuttal from you. We have gone through the FACT that our government has signed the treaty after a debate and vote in parliament You may not like it but the democratic process was followed. I have asked for evidence of an attributed quote from a government minster that the treaty would only be used for extraditing 'terrorists'. No evidence supplied by any of you. I have given my reasons why I think the US has not signed, although, like you I don't know why they actually have not. We have gone through the concept of being innocent until proven guilty. But before any innocence or guilt can be determined you need a trial. No answer to the question about why some of you are afraid of a trial for Gary. Shall I go on?
'From your postings you ignore all the relevant points'
You read my posts, again I'm flattered. It is a pitty that you did not understand them. Tell me which relevant points I have missed.
'I speculate that you are probably a plant'
Oh, you really are grasping at straws now. I'm off to Florida soon, I have to report back to my 'handler', but shhhh, don't tell anyone.
'or you are possibly someone with little in your life and too much time on your hands and need an outlet where someone will listen to you'
You make me sound like Gary, I really am insulted now.

Where do you stand in all this? Anti government, anti American or what?

How about answering the questions seeing as 'fg' and 'David' seem to have gone off the boil.

@ Jan. 'If our government are so keen to extradite people for even non violent crimes; why don't they extradite the people who murdered Mr Menzies to Brazil.
Murdering an innocent man is so very much more serious.'
Why would there be any need for an extradition? The incident happened here. Mr Menezes was killed by UK citizens in the UK. You must be another confused apologist.

The legal process has been followed, an ivestigation carried out by IPCC and a report sent to the CPS who have concluded that there is not enough evidence against the officers. Why do you people complain about, and are so scared of, the legal system. Oh, I know, the judgement did not go you way. Another hypocrite then.

You are an apologist for murderers but want non violent criminals to be locked up for years in the US.
Many governments in many countries use the law for their own ends when it suits them, everyone knows that.

The person who murdered Mr. Menezes was not tried in a court of law but should have been.

Everyone agrees that Mr Menezes was an innocent man who was held and then killed in cold blood.
The killers should be tried in a court of law.

You have little concept of morality.
Do you want us all to act like nazis and go along with immoral acts because we are afraid to challenge our government or our legal system when they are morally wrong.

Thank God for people who have the courage to stand up for Justice, rather than to always tow the official line no matter how repugnant or how immoral their decisions and actions are.

It's not alright to murder innocent citizens and to sign one sided treaties from which we gain no benefit whatsoever but sell our citizens out by giving them fewer rights than citizens in other countries.

We are not on trial, we are not in a court of law and have no need for rebuttal.
When someone's views are so alien to someone else's views, sometimes there is no point in discussing the matter with that person as it is simply a waste of time.

Your views are alien to the majority on this blog and to the majority in this country.

Free Gary

@ David - Kudos to you for flagging to us all the comparison between this case, and the continued (and rarely veiled) support by America of the IRA. Isn't it funny how sympathetic they have been to a collection of murderers committing heinous acts of terrorism, while they bellow so loudly about their political stance against these sorts of crimes, and invade - oops, I'm sorry, "protect" - other countries from just this? Ah, to be so self-righteous and always beyond reproach. To be so powerful & good, and to judge all around us with unswerving conviction.

@ Jan. Hmm, thought so, you have not addressed the issues.

'You are an apologist for murderers but want non violent criminals to be 'locked up for years in the US'
I am not an apologist for anyone, I just stick up for and support the law. I thought a criminal was a criminal regardless of the colour of his shirt collar or the type of crime. Do you agree?

'Many governments in many countries use the law for their own ends when it suits them, everyone knows that'

People who move in your fantasy circle may think that, normal people I come into contact with don't.

'The person who murdered Mr. Menezes was not tried in a court of law but should have been'
So, that is anti police we have to add to the list of things you are against. Are you an anarchist or are you a hippie still living in the 1960s? There was no trial
because no charges were brought. You really need to understand how a justice system works. If you were to take you head out of your backside you might find out.

'Everyone agrees that Mr Menezes was an innocent man who was held and then killed in cold blood'

Yes, everyone does agree he was an innocent man but I, and many other people AND the LAW think he was killed because of a tragic mistake.

'The killers should be tried in a court of law'

The legal system thinks there was not enough evidence.

'You have little concept of morality.
Do you want us all to act like nazis and go along with immoral acts because we are afraid to challenge our government or our legal system when they are morally wrong.

Thank God for people who have the courage to stand up for Justice, rather than to always tow the official line no matter how repugnant or how immoral their decisions and actions are.

It's not alright to murder innocent citizens and to sign one sided treaties from which we gain no benefit whatsoever but sell our citizens out by giving them fewer rights than citizens in other countries'

Hmm, so let me see, so you would just put people you do do not like or crimes you do not like into court because YOU think they are MORALLY wrong? And you question my morality? I side with the current system of justice, if ANYONE breaks the law and there is evidence, they ALL go before a court. If you don't like the system why don't you leave the country. You should go to Zimbabwe, you would feel at home there. Their justice system is made up as they go along and they just try people they don't like.

'It's not alright to murder innocent citizens and to sign one sided treaties from which we gain no benefit whatsoever'

Oh, I think we gain a benefit. It enables this county to get rid of, oh, lets say, hackers, fraudsters and people who support terrorism.

'We are not on trial, we are not in a court of law and have no need for rebuttal.
When someone's views are so alien to someone else's views, sometimes there is no point in discussing the matter with that person as it is simply a waste of time.'

I can't argue with that.

'Your views are alien to the majority on this blog and to the majority in this country'

Agreed, my views are alien to the majority on this blog, it would be astonishing if they weren't, but where is your evidence to support your claim that they are alien to the majorty in this country?
One last question. If Gary had not done what he did (and admitted doing) do you think he would be in this mess now?
If you don't want to disscuss the issues, I will come back after Gary is extradited and you can explain why your campaign was such a spectacular disaster and how useful this site was. Deal?

EXTRADITE GARY

The judge basically pronounced Gary guilty because of information shown to him "privately" by the US prosecutors.
"Evidence" that Gary was unable to challenge in open court because it was done behind closed doors.

This is the bit that I find rather strange about the whole thing. Why would they show it privately? Wouldn't it have to come out in open court sooner or later so then it could be used in prosecution and challenged by defense? Unless there was another motive for it?

That's the frightening part of the whole process here. The rights and wrongs of what Gary did aren't really the debate here... it's this one point and the fact that the treaty still hasn't been used for what it's supposed to have been for.

I don't see the IRA criminals in the US being put on the extradite list yet, do you? I remember growing up hearing about the latest bombs... I remember all the bomb scares.. so why hasn't this treaty been used for more important things? Oh yes that's right... the USA recognises how daft the treaty is.. I say return to the older rules. They did work, and whilst slow it was more fair to those in the process.

Just my point of view.

Umm, no judge has pronounced Gary guilty of anything. They, and the Home Secretary, have said that he has a case to answer.

What do you mean by 'the treaty has not been used for what it was supposed to have been used for'? Is this another reference to it ONLY being used for terrorist cases? If so, I ask again, where does it say that in the ACT, or what government minister or officail said 'it will only be used in terrorism cases?

The USA did not return many IRA people under the OLD system, so what is your point about the 'new' system?

The first part of this post is nearly identical to one made by 'David' on July 14 @ 1137am. Are you the same person?

Just my tuppence worth.

No, that was the quote from David's post.. dunno how to do the actual quote tag on this messageboard. So sorry if you got that wrong impression.

I've been reading off and on the comments and after reading most of them the point I made was the most puzzling of the lot. This is why I wonder at this particular case.

If evidence to extradite was given in secret, how the hell can anyone challenge it? It's not possible to challenge your extradition fairly that way. The evidence would have to come out in trial anyway so what's the point in the secrecy? Why didn't they just put all the facts on the table?

@ Angie. 'No, that was the quote from David's post.. dunno how to do the actual quote tag on this messageboard. So sorry if you got that wrong impression.'

Fair enough.

'If evidence to extradite was given in secret, how the hell can anyone challenge it? It's not possible to challenge your extradition fairly that way. The evidence would have to come out in trial anyway so what's the point in the secrecy? Why didn't they just put all the facts on the table?'

I don't know, but I will try to find out.

I have no idea whether these three men are guilty or innoicent but the way this has been handled is scandalous. The only way I can see for the average UK citizen to make any effective protest is to start a movement to boycott US goods. If enough of us refuse to purchase anything - holidays, cars, clothing, foodstuffs etc which give profit to US Companies they may start to take notice - when in doubt hit them in the pocket!