Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to an interesting development found in the news, the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.Curious it all is but then here are the details as here
synopsed from the Daily Mail, found specifically at........
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005079/Student-TV-file-sharer-facing-extradition-U-S-arrest-running-site-providing-pirated-films-TV-shows.html?ITO=1490
Student TV file sharer facing extradition to U.S. after arrest for 'running site providing links to pirated films and TV shows'
Undergraduate faces U.S. trial for copyright offences
By Daily Mail Reporter
Facing extradition: Student Richard O'Dwyer ran the TVShack website
A British university student faces being extradited to the United States for hosting a website which provided links to downloadable pirated films and TV shows.Undergraduate Richard O'Dwyer, a student at Sheffield Hallam University, was arrested late last month and is accused of criminal copyright infringement by U.S authorities.The 23-year-old could now be extradited to America to face trial there............Mr O'Dwyer, who lives in student accommodation in Sheffield city centre, was first visited by U.S. officials last year when he ran the site TVShack.The website, which he has since shut down, provided links to other sites where users could download pirated films and TV shows like The Hangover and Lost.The student appeared before Westminster Magistrates Court this week for a preliminary hearing into the planned extradition, which he is strongly contesting.Still studying: Mr O'Dwyer is currently reading computer science at Sheffield Hallam University ,Jailed: The 23-year-old was made to stay overnight at Wandsworth Prison until his family could answer the £3,000 bail.His mother, Julia O'Dwyer, from Chesterfield, said the case was 'beyond belief' and the possibility of extradition was 'madness.'.................She said: 'The first we knew about it was this visit from the police and the American officials in November.....
'But then in May he had to spend the night in Wandsworth Prison as the court was too slow for us to sort out his passport and bail.'Mr O'Dwyer spend the night in jail and was only released after his mother paid a £3,000 bail fee...........Mrs O'Dwyer, a nurse, added: 'Richard clearly has a talent for web design but was foolish in not understanding the implications of copyright.'Yet to try to haul him off to America for trial while he’s midway through his university studies is so utterly disproportionate it defies belief.'...................The UK's 2003 extradition agreement with the USA, is thought to be at the centre of the latest row.The law currently contains no proviion for 'forum', a legal term referring to judges being allowed to consider whether a case is heard in the UK or abroad.Mr O'Dwyer's family have argued that since the student has not been to America since he was a child and he did not have any copyright material on his website, the case should be heard in the UK.His barrister, Ben Cooper, told the preliminary hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court on Tuesday: 'The computer server was not based in the U.S. at all.'Mr O'Dwyer did not have copyright material on his website; he simply provided a link.
(Squirrel's note: The site is a search engine locating whatever etc. and providing download links to the sites which do house the whatever material,it does not site, nor house the material itself,quite similarly as I have provided the link herein to the Daily Mail which holds the informational material on the case in question.)
'The contention is that the correct forum for this trial is here in Britain, where he was at all times.'
Legal fight: Mr O'Dwyers lawyers argued that the student should not be extradited the the U.S. as his site was not hosted no American servers.The student's legal team will argue that he should not face extradition as the site he ran was not hosted on U.S. servers.U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seized the web address TVShack.net last July. Mr O’Dwyer moved it to TVShack.cc, but that was also seized later last year.Julia O'Dwyer said her son shut down the site after being contacted by police.
Here ends the Daily Mail synopsed article.
The is also yet more informationally to be found at.....
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/725/288/TVShack_Brit_Richard_O_Dwyer_Facing_Extradition_To_U.S._Over_Copyright_Infringement.html
TVShack Brit Richard O’Dwyer Facing Extradition To U.S. Over Copyright Infringement
Originally published on WebTVWire.com - a TV Technology
blog.(http://www.webtvwire.com/tvshack-brit-richard-odwyer-facing-extradition-to-u-s-over-copyright-infringement/)
Lock and ChainRichard O’Dwyer is facing going to prison in the United States for being the man behind the TVShack website. But the case against him and the extradition proceedings being sought are questionable.TVShack was a website linking to files hosted elsewhere on the Web which enabled the streaming on movies and television shows. Copyrighted movies and television shows which neither TVShack or the sites it linked to had permission to stream.The guy, a 23-year-old student by the name of Richard O’Dwyer, was arrested last November and is now facing charges of conspiracy to commit copyright infringement and criminal infringement of copyright. Although O’Dwyer didn’t charge people to use the site he made money from advertisements on the site.The U.S. wants O’Dwyer tried in its court system, and if this happens he could face five years in prison.
The Legal Questions
There is an interesting legal debate to be had here for various reasons.
Firstly, O’Dwyer is a British citizen who was present in the U.K. all the while he was running TVShack.
Secondly, the TVShack server wasn’t based in the U.S.
Thirdly, TVShack merely linked to copyrighted material rather than hosting it.You could argue that the first two points don’t matter because the Internet is worldwide and the content being infringed upon was owned by companies mainly based in the States. But the third point is important.
It has consistently been shown that in Europe it isn’t illegal to link to copyrighted material or those who are hosting it.
In the U.S. things are a little more muddied. So whether O’Dwyer is tried in the U.K. or the U.S. could make a vast difference to his defense.
Conclusions
I cannot fathom how extraditing O’Dwyer makes any sort of sense. So I hope the case against him is heard in a British court of law. (Britain’s extradition treaty with the U.S. is already under review in light of the Gary McKinnon case, but that will not be concluded in time to help O’Dwyer.)
and here ends the Daily Mail/Webtvwire.com communal informational.
Well this pretty much states the case rather against the extradition of a student, one Richard Dwyer,a British subject,British citizen, British passport holding Briton, to the United States on violating the laws and dictates of the United States laws while living in Britain.He is in no way shape nor form and American citizen, therefor he is subject only to the laws of the UK while in the UK, and American laws whilst in America, yet he has never been to America, nor doing what
he did, and/or does, in America.His internet server isn't based in the United States, and there have been cases tried where the argument that said server etc wasn't within the sol called offended country has held true,legally true, according to the justice systems,and, most importantly, he was running what is a search engine, he did not himself host on his servers any
illegal material of any kind whatsoever, violating NOT British,nor America, nor anybody else's laws at all.He ran a search engine, which happened to point to and locate material sought,or indexed to be found,much as, face it, Google,Bing,Yahoo and any other search engine does. Indeed, I myself, as in above, pointed to and referenced existing sites of the Daily Mail, and
Webtvwire.com,in similar fashion as would/did/does, any particular search engine. In all things everything the Mr. O'Dwyer did is open,above board, and not against the law,not even yet American law else Google,Bing, Yahoo et all of their search engines are also in violation,yet they aren't,nor are they prosecuted,persecuted. The British law is also free and clear,yet Mr. O'Dwyer is subject to a massive amount, not of inconvenience,prejudicial behaviour, but also direct harassment,abuse, and judicial impropriety, costing him personal monies in defense against same. Obviously on failure, as it should fail, of the extradition processes,he should be monetarily compensated for all expenses and inconveniences and even yet receive additional monies to compensate him for the improper occurrence. Who should pay? Well, that is between the British government and the American government,in the very least the British government should compensate him, and thence attempt to recover said expenses for the improper judicial proceedings from the American government, rather than force him to directly sue the American government himself in Britain,for the conduct it directed against an obviously judicially innocent Briton,British subject, passport holding British citizen.
But here's much yet more to this. What must also now be considered is the ridiculous Extradition Treaty between Britain, and America, as it was arranged by one Tony Blair, a rather smarmy,negligent, and obviously easily influence politician of dubious nature, who at the time of the treaty negotiation, was the Labor Prime Minister Of Britain,sad and sorry to say.What is occurring already, in advance of this,though this is a prime example of the inequality,inequity,iniquity involved in the treaty such that this incident is and has been allowed to have occurred in the first instance,there is a movement to demand the treaty. Let us here study matter with respect to this yet further..here consider at..
http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/1933719-repeal-us-uk-extradition-treaty-ban-extradition?ref=title
Repeal US-UK Extradition Treaty, & Ban Extradition without Contestable Prima Facie Evidence
The US-UK extradition treaty (signed secretly under Queen's prerogative) and the Extradition Act (2003) effectively remove all protection from UK citizens against unjust extradition. Despite being denounced as an anathema to justice by Liberty, the ACLU and eminent legal consensus in the UK, and despite a series of resulting high-profile injustices, the Treaty & the Act are currently undergoing very expensive 'review' by the government to decide whether this blatantly unfair legislation is fair or not. The law as it stands means that anyone can be extradited to the USA and the recently publicized brutality of its prison system without a shred of contestable evidence - you don't need to have committed a crime to be extradited.
here ends the epistle from 38degrees.uservoice.com
The government is not there to allow foreigners to play with the lives of Britons, nor disrupt them in any way.........who will pay for the lawyers, the defense against the accusation false, and or improper,will the US government pay, and how much will it pay?Is it just,no.Is it justice?No. Not in either case at all.Can the US government be allowed to apply it's laws against Britons in Britain?No, it should not be so. If the lad had committed a crime in Britain, then he would be tried in Britain against British laws, but it seems this cannot be so, hence he has not.But then why allow him to be extradited to the US to face trial since they believe their laws were violated by a
lad in Britain who is not subjected to them while in Britain? Curious is it not, but that is what it amounts to. The disruption to his life is massive, they will not even yet try him in the UK for what they claim to be violation of their laws,while he's in the UK and a UK citizen to boot...quite literally as that is what is occurring to him, what the British government,itself in view of extradition being in their domain, allowing. The lad has no judicial problems in the UK with UK laws else he'd be tried in the UK against those laws.......no correct? Clearly there is much amiss here.....much injustice, inequity,iniquity,inequality, judicial and governmental impropriety, and it is the UK government allowing it.Quite clearly this must not come about.
Criticism of the treaty abounds in the United Kingdom on the basis that it is both unfair and unjust to UK citizens on the basis that the requirements needed to extradite a UK citizen to the United States are far easier to meet than those needed in order to extradite a United States citizen to the United Kingdom.This imbalance has come about as a result of two completely
separate issues which have combined to create what is largely regarded by informed commentators as one of the most one-sided, politically manipulative and unjust pieces of British legislation ever to make its way onto the Statute Book of the British Parliament.
So let us ponder here what has been said at
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=213253338695914
It is perhaps no coincidence therefore that the Extradition Act of 2003 was steered through Parliament by the same man who introduced the now notorious IPP sentence, former Home Secretary, David Blunkett.At the time this act of Parliament was introduced, both Tony Blair and Blunkett were keen to ingratiate themselves with the administration of the then US President,
George W. Bush. As it happens, they were both wasting their time for history shows that in the end, Bush didn’t care for either of them.One should not be tempted however to think that this criticism of the extradition treaty between the United States and the UK is anything new. It most certainly is not.
Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in the Extradition Act 2003. Considered by some to be one-sided because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offenses committed against US law, even though the alleged offense may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (for example the
NatWest Three) and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa.
Among other provisions in Part 2 of the Act: Extradition to category 2 territories (non-European Arrest warrant territories) removed the requirement on the USA to provide prima facie evidence in extraditions from the UK, requiring instead only reasonable suspicion.This was necessary to redress the previous imbalance against the USA under the 1870 Act, as the UK did not have to provide the more onerous prima facie evidence to extradite from the USA. The requirement for the UK is to show probable cause – and although not exactly the same as reasonable suspicion, they are more equal than the 1870 Act and are about as equal as can be, given the differences in the two legal systems and without violating the US Constitution. .There is also concern at the loss of entitlement of UK citizens to legal aid for maintaining an adequate defense to criminal
charges once they are extradited to US jurisdiction where costs are largely met by the defendant’s private means. This has been a cause of controversy in cases where it has been perceived that the UK has suitable legislation for prosecuting offenses domestically.The manner of its implementation also caused concern because of alleged secrecy and minimal parliamentary scrutiny, a trait some believe to be associated with much of the legislation introduced by David Blunkett.
Indeed, the treaty is typical of the Blair government’s legislation as is the aforementioned IPP sentence which was equally controversial and which has caused enormous problems for the UK Prison Service and the Justice system as a whole and which also received very little parliamentary scrutiny. Now, just as the IPP sentence is under review, so there are of calls for an
equally robust examination of the 2003 extradition treaty.In essence, the problem with the treaty is that it does not treat UK citizens as fairly as it treats those from the United States.
One would expect under normal circumstances that the treaty would be reciprocal to both countries; that is, what applies in one country should apply in the other. The fact is however that the American constitution, which unlike the British constitution is actually written down, simply does not allow for a reciprocal arrangement of this type.Unlike the British constitution which is designed primarily to protect the organs of the state, the American Constitution is designed to protect the interests of the citizen. This fundamental difference means that American citizens cannot be pushed around and subjugated by the law in the same way that British citizens can.
There is however another element which must be considered when considering why it is that the British seem to be very much on the wrong end of this agreement and once again TheOpinionSite.org must make the point that the British government seems willing to do almost anything in order to please its American masters for fear of being criticized for not doing so.
As usual, and perhaps not surprisingly as the coalition is nominally led by a Conservative Prime Minister, the British government is more than willing to give in to the Americans to preserve the so-called “special relationship” which actually is no longer that special anyway. Ask any Prime Minister or head of state from any European country and they will tell you that they too have a “special relationship” with the United States.Despite being bad law in the first place, it seems
unlikely that the extradition treaty will be changed in any significant way, principally because to do so might upset our American cousins.
The fact that because of it some British citizens could end up spending the rest of their life in an American jail when in this country they would probably serve less than six years does not seem to be a problem for either Cameron or Clegg.When and if the 2003 Act is actually amended or changed, any modifications are likely to be insignificant and largely cosmetic. To do anything else would, as far as the British government is concerned, invite criticism that it does not take
terrorism, serious crime or other threats to the nation and the world seriously. This is of course total nonsense but the British government are quite willing to go along with it in order to save face with the Americans.The British Home Secretary, Theresa May has managed to hold up the extradition of Gary McKinnon, largely due to the public opposition to his extradition to the United States. Waiting in the wings however is another potential threat to the “special relationship”…That threat is of course the attempt by the United States government to extradite Julian Assange, the founder and leader of Wikileaks.
Although nothing official has yet been said and although Mr Assange is successfully using his lawyers to delay any extradition proceedings, it is likely that the United States administration is waiting to pounce on the Swedish authorities so that if Assange is extradited to Sweden, he can then be transferred to face charges in the United States.The cases of McKinnon and Assange have together instilled great distrust in the workings of the 2003 Extradition Treaty, at least from the point of view of the British public. Whether or not the British government is prepared to look again at the treaty however is a completely different matter.
TheOpinionSite.org believes that if the treaty is reviewed and possibly amended or modified, any changes that will be made are likely to be insignificant, largely irrelevant and unlikely to help those affected by what is accepted by most to be both an unjust and unfair piece of British legislation drawn up by a former Home Secretary whose only objective was to suck up to the US administration of the time in an attempt to benefit his own circumstances.
Here ends the epistle.
There is yet more comment at
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1308478/David-Blunketts-startling-admission-UK-US-extradition-treaty.html
David Blunkett, the Cabinet minister who signed Labor's controversial Extradition Act, admitted yesterday that he may have 'given too much away' to the Americans.'I gave too much away': David Blunkett's startling admission on UK-U.S. extradition treaty .Critics say the Act is lopsided because British citizens are not given the same legal protection as their American
counterparts.If the U.S. government wants to extradite a UK citizen it needs only to outline the alleged offense, the punishment specified by statute and provide an accurate description of the suspect.But to extradite an American from the States, Britain must prove that the wanted individual has probably committed a crime, a much harder test.......................
The admission could make it easier for the Coalition to change the Act. Ministers will be able to point out that even its own architect is now having misgivings.Speaking to the Mail, Mr Blunkett-also called for a debate over trying people in the UK if that is where most of their crimes were committed...........'This has left British citizens especially vulnerable and the treaty is all too often being used frivolously and not for the serious crimes we were led to believe it was intended for............None must..hope the review of the one-sided Act, a focus of the Mail's Affront to British Justice campaign, will unravel the mess created by Labor.UK courts are approving 89 per cent of U.S. extradition requests. By comparison, only seven in ten requests to the Americans by the British authorities are granted, according to analysis by the Liberal Democrats.
The Daily Telegraph has also commented on the treaty......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/5912435/Home-Office-warned-six-years-ago-about-unfair-extradition-treaty.html
MPs told then Home Office minister Caroline Flint that it "could not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens" by signing the treaty.The warning came from MPs on a standing committee which was set up to examine the detail of the treaty in December 2003, days before it was due to come into force in early 2004.The treaty was created to prevent terrorism suspects dragging cases out for years, but as disclosed in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday, has only seen one terrorism suspect extradited since the September 11 attacks in 2001.However, 56 other people have been extradited to America..........David Heath, a senior Liberal Democrat MP, told the minister during a committee hearing: "The treaty is extraordinarily asymmetric. In fact, many of us feel that a Secretary of State signing a treaty under duress could
not have done a better job of failing to represent the interests of British citizens. Mr Heath complained that MPs were not given enough time to study the treaty. It was only released to MPs on 21 May 2003, nearly two months after it was signed and the day before MPs went on their Whitsun holiday.Mr Heath continued: "That text stated that the treaty was intended to
'modernise and simplify the UK's extradition arrangements with the USA'."There is modernisation and there is simplification. Minor tidying-up arrangements are sometimes proposed, but the proposals seem to change fundamentally the relationship between the UK and the US, replacing the old treaty of 1972 and the additional protocol of 1986.
"Anything that carries a sentence of more than 12 months in American or Britain now becomes an extraditable offence without a prima facie case being necessary.
"I do not think that it is a good thing. It is not a good thing when British citizens - or those in the United Kingdom and under our judicial protection-are not given a fair crack of the whip. That is an important matter."Yesterday, Mr Heath, who is now the LibDems' shadow leader of the House, told The Daily Telegraph that he was saddened he had failed to prevent the treaty becoming law.He said: "We have been proved right. But it was obvious to me and [LibDem MP] Sir
Menzies Campbell at the time. I find it upsetting that we did not get the issue out into the open at the first time of asking."
Here ends the epistle from The Daily Mail.
To continue in a moral and ethical fashion,there is the question of the Citizenship of the person in question - some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves,but you cannot hold a trial for a person breaking a foreign law in his own country where his own country see no violation of it's laws............it amounts to a British citizen speeding along legally at say 60 km while the law in America is 55km .he obviously is not violating US law in Britain, but is IF he would be in America, but yet isn't, however, Britain extraditing him to face trial in the US on exactly that charge, proven true or,thence not as the case may be.All democratic nations have the obligation to protect the rights of their citizens and uphold their national sovereignty.
According to The Independent.....
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sophie-kemp--and-jill-lorimer-double-standards-shame-our-treaty-with-america-1765883.html
Last year, Heritage published a study of the treaty that concluded that, extradition from Britain was too easy, it was because the Labor government of Tony Blair wanted to make it easy to extradite individuals from Britain. Blair’s government therefore created low standards for extradition and applied them to many countries, including the U.S.it is less easy to
obtain justice in the US. Disparity of sentence – excessive pressure to take a plea – use of the evidence of convicted felons in return for a reduced sentence – pre-trial incarceration – no legal aid – inhumane prison conditions – privatized prisons – official acceptance of torture (waterboarding) – a death penalty mentality. The list is endless.According to a freedom of
information request to the home office – as of June 2010 only THREE individuals with American nationality (or dual nationality ) were extradited to the UK, while TWENTY-EIGHT British citizens were extradited to the US despite the fact that the US has more than five times the population. Which means that (per capita) FIFTY TIMES AS MANY BRITS ARE EXTRADITED THAN
AMERICANS!!!British people,themselves,irregardless of the idiocy and personal smarmyness of one Tony Blair, the miscreant responsible for the inequitable extradition treaty, have a strong sense of Justice which is why this extradition is just simply wrong and the extradition treaty as it stands is a betrayal of British people.the UK-US extradition treaty has been loudly denounced for many years by civil rights groups in both the US and UK (ACLU and Liberty respectively) on the grounds that it is one-sidedly counter to the interests of justice, by virtue of the fact that it removes all safeguards from UK citizens. Never mind ‘sovereignty’, the removal of the requirement for an extraditing country to present contestable evidence for their allegations is an assault on the notion of justice itself. Even a brief perusal of the reasons given by Liberty and ACLU for objecting to the treaty makes it clear that these are not idle or erroneous objections, but have a strong and valid basis.On the face of it, it appears that the US authorities need provide little more than the name of the accused person and a brief outline of the facts of the case.It is easy to understand the commonly held view that the US can demand the surrender of a UK citizen on a whim, while its own citizens are afforded a much higher degree of protection.However for a British judge to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person sought by the US, section 71 of the Extradition Act
2003 does require "evidence that would justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a person accused of the offense". In other words, the judge is expected to apply the same standards as he or she would in respect of a person suspected of committing an offense in the UK. So there is no requirement to back up a request with any evidence. Perhaps the real issue is whether a British citizen should be extradited to stand trial in any foreign country without evidence first being presented to a British court to show there is a case to answer. The stress and expense of defending potentially unfounded criminal allegations in a foreign jurisdiction is a daunting prospect.....
(But this does not mean that the person has committed a crime in the UK applicable to UK laws, BUT a foreign government can acquire him to try it because they say he broke their law.while not being in America.)
David Cameron himself has said:
“The Extradition Act was put in place to ensure terrorists didn’t escape justice." However, not on his side of things as we can further see here.......at The Foundry.........
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=56809
Presumably too, the author is aware that Baroness Scotland herself(Patricia Scotland,Baroness Scotland of Asthal) (now disgraced,for employing an illegal immigrant) who was instrumental in negotiating the treaty, acknowledged at the time that these new extradition arrangements with the US were imbalanced, and that the bar to extradition from the UK was set very low – far lower than that in the opposite direction. As far as making extradition easier is concerned, I presume the author is aware of the somewhat immoral assurances (in letters disclosed under FOI) that B.Scotland gave to US Senator Feingold and others that the treaty would not be used to pursue suspected IRA terrorists who have sought (and found) safe harbour in the USA.
Here ends the epistle,
But to continue in this vein, and offer direct evidence,there is such a letter stating this and it can in fact be read here supporting fully the claim..............
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B5BPw-qqEV28ZDU3OTRjYTMtMzAzMi00ZTI5LWEzYTctMzg2MWI3ZDlhYjI5&hl=en
Let’s be honest here: the treaty may have been about extraditing suspected terrorists from the UK to the US (though in 7 years it hasn’t resulted in a single extradition in such circles), but it was explicitly about NOT extraditing suspected terrorists from the US to Britain.
Squirrel concludes,indeed in all fairness one must push for the present Coalition Parliament to effectively and equitably renegotiate the extradition treaty with America, and failing America's willingness to do so, to simply declare the treaty to be nullified,ended,retracted,withdrawn,non existent and then force the Americans to the table to renegotiate it such that there is equity,equality,fairness,justice for all, citizens of both countries, and also to put an end to such improprieties allowing Britons to seemingly be innocent of crime in Britain, yet be so accused of and extradited to the USA for any such trial and travails.Secret Squirrel sees the need for justice for all,especially for those in Britain, and Squirrel also says no Briton must be made subject to any foreign law in his own land.
No comments:
Post a Comment