Gary McKinnon's mother attacks US extradition bid

[IAN 2411]

The BBC link is a 404 for me.

You are obviously American so WTF is a 404???

Yes, some of the politicians talk about a 'rethink' ... but they voted against actually even reviewing it back in 2009, and when the review was eventually carried out it found precisely the opposite of what you believe.

No if you read all that has been shown you, you would know that David Blunkett reviewed it all by himself as Home Secretary. He has stated that he can't remember what he talked about....so not only was he blind...he was stupid as well. The Labour Gov had a over whelming majority, there was no way that it could ever be debated fairly. Pushed through the H of C by Labour Gov stealth, complacency comes to mind. Labour Gov giving away the British freedom just like they gave everything else away to Europe. Well they have been kicked out on their ass for raping the UK of its wealth, so please don’t quote to me that the Gov did this or that in 2009-10. In 2009-10, Blair/Brown and all of the labour cronies were far too busy filling their own pockets to worry about the man that votes, thats why they are out. Blair/Brown/Blunkett should be on trial for giving away British Sovereignty and heritage. The word Traitors comes to mind.

I don’t think it was ever debated in the H of C, because the whole treaty was brought in the back door in the first place. I’ll bet your House of Reps had a day off laughing at the UKs gullibility.

Last week, the U.S Ambassador made two separate visits to lobby MPs, leading to allegations he was using strong-arm tactics.

Why was he doing that???? was this one sided deal that good?

Be well Ian 2411

[js207]

You are obviously American so WTF is a 404???

Wrong - I'm British - a 404 is the HTTP (web) error code for 'page not found', which is the result clicking on your BBC link gave me. Nothing at all to do with nationality (although in fact Tim Berners-Lee was heavily involved in that protocol's creation - making it a British code if it has any nationality at all).

No if you read all that has been shown you, you would know that David Blunkett reviewed it all by himself as Home Secretary.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd also be aware that is not the review I was referring to, and banging on about Blunkett's physical disability as if it's somehow relevant seems rather tasteless. I'm no fan of the Labour party - and indeed voted against them in every single General Election since becoming eligible to vote, though living in an SNP seat makes that rather academic anyway - but you can't pin all of this on them.

I don’t think it was ever debated in the H of C, because the whole treaty was brought in the back door in the first place. I’ll bet your House of Reps had a day off laughing at the UKs gullibility.

It's not my House, as I point out above, and it's the US Senate which debates and approves treaties anyway. What "gullibility" do you see in requiring the same standard of proof to take a suspect from Britain to a US court as is required to take them to a UK one, anyway?

Why was he doing that???? was this one sided deal that good?

Since it allows criminals to drag extradition processes out for the better part of a decade even after confessing, and the independent review confirmed it is not "one-sided". You've also dodged my question: if still not being extradited a decade after the crime, having been through virtually every court in the land, is "too quick" for you or not enough court time, what would you want to happen before handing criminals over for trial? Do you think we should copy the French and shelter even the worst convicted paedophile scum if they happen to have a local passport?

Of course the US Ambassador would like to see this nonsense end - it's hardly good for anyone to have ignorant people spreading untruths like the false claim that the US won't extradite Americans.