UK prosecutors may seek extradition for Americans for inflammatory speech

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

..... for every one of you, who prefers to cower before assailants, there are 100 UK citizens who would cherish having the right to bear arms.

First of all: I've never cowered from anything or anyone in my life let alone a would be 'assailant'.
Secondly: You know this how?

a reply to: yuppa

Maybe the IRA was right.

What the #ing hell has the IRA got to do with the topic of this conversation?
How were they 'right'?

a reply to: Freeborn

BEcause they saw how bad it could possibly get if a jack wagon got in office.

a reply to: yuppa

Their argument with the British government and their terrorist activities had absolutely nothing to do with what you are alleging.

It's stated goals were to bring about a united socialist Ireland.
They weren't 'fighting' for freedom of speech or anything remotely like that.

I could go into great detail, as I dare say could others, but it would derail the thread - start a thread on it and I'll gladly contribute.
But I assure you, the IRA has no relevance whatsoever to this topic - its an absurd reach.

a reply to: Athetos

Ahhhh.... but Starmers Government have already said they will uphold and won't challenge ICC arrest warrant request for Netanyahu if he comes to UK.
BBC link
Rainbows
Jane

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

And as to having the right to bear arms, for every one of you, who prefers to cower before assailants, there are 100 UK citizens who would cherish having the right to bear arms.

That's a load of balls - we can own tanks, Uzis, semi-automatics, rifles, shotguns etc it's just hardly anyone does as it's seen as weird and pointless unless its for farming or culling deer/boar.

I live in the countryside and there's five shooting ranges within a couple of miles; it's mainly handguns that are banned following a school shooting in the late 90s and there's been hardly any shootings since.

originally posted by: bastion

I live in the countryside and there's five shooting ranges within a couple of miles; it's mainly handguns that are banned following a school shooting in the late 90s and there's been hardly any shootings since.

been any stabbings?

a reply to: network dude

Lots.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Come at me bro.

I spat my tea out..lol... i would not dream of it old chap

All the best

Yes yes we should arrest you all ! (not really) but if i disagree i might go to jail for 2 years, that is whats happening right now.

All the best

The only extradition treaty the UK has with the US only goes one way, from the UK to the States

Nothings going to happen

originally posted by: EvanH
The only extradition treaty the UK has with the US only goes one way, from the UK to the States

Nothings going to happen

Do not be so sure.
When Kamala Harris is President she will be all to happy to extradite people who are not on her side so they can be put in prison.
That is how marxists operate.
Do not think for a second your constitution will protect you.

All hell is going to break loose when Kamala is elected.
Marxists will have control of the US, UK and France and the EU as a whole as allies.
There will be no hiding.

One of the first victims will be Elon Musk.
He will be wiped out and jailed.
Obviously, Trump will be jailed - and maybe a few in his family like Trump Jr.

A little history

Eighty years ago, on July 30, 1937, secret NVKD order number 00447 was signed. This day is widely considered the start of the “Great Terror,” a period of political repressions lasting into 1938 during which no less than 1.7 million people were arrested, more than 700,000 of whom were executed. Soviet secret police targeted “enemies of the people,” “counterrevolutionaries,” “wreckers,” and their friends and relatives. To mark the anniversary of this human catastrophe, Meduza asked historian Sergey Bondarenko, who works with the civil rights society “Memorial,” to answer some of the most basic, embarrassingly ignorant questions about the Stalinist repressions between 1937 and 1938.

What exactly happened in 1937?
During the summer of 1937, a whole series of repressive campaigns by the state got underway. Today, we know this period as the start of the “Great Terror.” Coined by British historian Robert Conquest in the 1960s, the term only gained currency in Russia after Perestroika. NKVD order number 00447 launched the so-called “kulak operation,” leading to the arrests of peasants, priests, former nobles, and individuals suspected of ties to the anti-Bolshevik counterrevolutionaries or various opposition political parties. Almost in parallel with this effort, police carried out a campaign against different ethnic minorities, arresting Germans, Poles, Latvians, and many others. A purge of the army began with the arrests of several major military commanders. Thousands of people found themselves in prison camps, charged with having ties to enemies of the people. These individuals were known as “members of the families of traitors to the Motherland.”

Why did the Soviet government think this was necessary? Why did it happen precisely when it did?
The middle of 1937 marked a drastic surge in the Soviet state’s terror campaign, but the groundwork and planning for this effort was years in the making. One starting point often cited is December 1, 1934, the day the Bolsheviks’ top man in Leningrad, Sergey Kirov, was shot and killed. To this day, Joseph Stalin’s role in the murder hasn’t been explained definitively. In the years after Kirov’s death, the number of arrests in the USSR spiked, and officials in Moscow started holding show trials against former Bolshevik leaders, like the “Trial of the Twenty-One,” which resulted in a massive purge of the nation’s security elite, including Nikolai Yezhov replacing Genrikh Yagoda as NKVD commissar. Reports appearing in the Soviet press during this era are filled with stories about the necessity of escalating the government’s repressions.New prison camps were opening to hold future “enemies,” and the state was busy forming special commissions to review their criminal cases.

There are many theories that try to explain why the Great Terror started when it did. In addition to explanations focusing on the internal logic of how the situation developed (Nikolai Yezhov took command of the NKVD in September 1936, and spent a year preparing the agency to carry out the mass purges), historians often rightly point out that the foreign policy situation played an enormous role: the course of the war in Spain, where the Communists were defeated by Franco’s army, the rise of Nazi Germany, and the next world war everyone could feel coming. Against this background, the USSR succumbed to spy mania. The first candidates in the search for domestic enemies turned out to be “former people”: “rich” peasants, priests, socialist-revolutionaries, and everyone they knew — their families, friends, and colleagues.

Another no less important reason for the Great Terror was the very system of rule that had developed in the Soviet Union in the 20 years since the time of the revolution. Without any civil or political freedoms, in the absence of a free press or real elections for government office, terror became the primary means of carrying out any social transformation. Violence became familiar, and repressions may have scared people,but the public came to see them as a part of everyday life.In this respect, 1937 stands out simply by virtue of its sheer scale and intensity. The country had already endured the Red Terror, collectivization and dekulakization, and the industrialization-engineered famines of the early 1930s in Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and the Volga region. In this sense, the Great Terror was just another unique event in an already existing chain of similar occurrences.

We don;t learn from history and think that things so awful could not happen again, but it's naivety to think that Marxists do not want total control by any means necessary.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Do not be so sure.
When Kamala Harris is President she will be all to happy to extradite people who are not on her side so they can be put in prison.
That is how marxists operate.
Do not think for a second your constitution will protect you.

I don't think that behaviour is limited in anyway to those who claim to be Marxists, I think it applies to any government that operates double-standards and exists within layers of corruption.

Take the US's historical and also very recent record of torture, denial of due process and basic human rights, and their employment of Non-US black sites to carry out those abuses. These tortures took place over a number of governments, Republican, Democrat. Rinse and repeat.

No one seems to really mind, everyone got paid off, and presumably no one involved is going to get extradited to answer for these human rights abuses.

The constitution, if utilised, as Musk well knows (or at least he pays good money to those that do) will protect you, unless you are denied due process. He's not going anywhere that he doesn't want to go. Within limits, no one is entirely immune from the law, but he is largely immune from any consequences.

If you are going to extradite someone, rather than kidnap them, you cannot deny them due process unless the country that you are agreeing to the extradition with, also denies them due process because extradition is part and parcel of due process.

So they can be pretty sure I assure you.

a reply to: UKTruth

You are right but the ones that come here proving they hate freedom don't seem to care if we repeat a horrible history. I pray for their very souls sake they are AI and not a human. Karma is richly overdue for those types.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

Extraordinary rendition was (is, don't think the US has stopped using it yet) an evil policy and a lot of those kidnapped and tortured for years were later found to have done nothing wrong. There's black sites in the US and UK too, they just do it all in shipping containers declared territory of allied countries that allow torture so anything that happens inside it is perfectly legal.

My uncle was illegally jailed in the UK in the Arms to Iraq scandal after the Tory government shredded all documents showing they trained him in how to avoid customs checks and was working on behalf of MI6 at the time. The US were incredibly close to extraditing him post Gulf War I until a very brave judge revealed the CIA had ordered the arms shipments/Project Babylon.

He refused extradition as there was no way he was going to get a fair trial and would get the death penalty as the US was trying to cover up the fact they gave Iraq biological and chemical agents and trained Iraqi scientist how to make nukes.

originally posted by: bastion
My uncle was illegally jailed in the UK in the Arms to Iraq scandal after the Tory government shredded all documents showing they trained him in how to avoid customs checks and was working on behalf of MI6 at the time. The US were incredibly close to extraditing him post Gulf War I until a very brave judge revealed the CIA had ordered the arms shipments/Project Babylon.

When you say he was illegally jailed, do you mean he was denied due process? Because his behaviour appears to have been criminal - avoiding customs checks, undeclared arms deals - receiving training in criminality I wasn't aware exempted you from the consequences of utilising that training.

He would have been able to appeal against any extradition on the grounds of the death penalty surely? I realise that there are impediments to justice, often and frequently, I am just not sure I understand what was illegal about his imprisonment.

I can understand him being low in the pecking order and taking the fall, being the dupe but he did commit the crimes he was accused of, from what you're telling me. What therefore was illegal about the imprisonment? What was brave about the judge's actions in particular?

Cheers

a reply to: yuppa

No, they were wrong, same with the UDA.

Hence the innocent people that got blown apart on all sides down to their nefarious antics.

originally posted by: BrucellaOrchitis

originally posted by: UKTruth
Do not be so sure.
When Kamala Harris is President she will be all to happy to extradite people who are not on her side so they can be put in prison.
That is how marxists operate.
Do not think for a second your constitution will protect you.

I don't think that behaviour is limited in anyway to those who claim to be Marxists, I think it applies to any government that operates double-standards and exists within layers of corruption.

Take the US's historical and also very recent record of torture, denial of due process and basic human rights, and their employment of Non-US black sites to carry out those abuses. These tortures took place over a number of governments, Republican, Democrat. Rinse and repeat.

No one seems to really mind, everyone got paid off, and presumably no one involved is going to get extradited to answer for these human rights abuses.

The constitution, if utilised, as Musk well knows (or at least he pays good money to those that do) will protect you, unless you are denied due process. He's not going anywhere that he doesn't want to go. Within limits, no one is entirely immune from the law, but he is largely immune from any consequences.

If you are going to extradite someone, rather than kidnap them, you cannot deny them due process unless the country that you are agreeing to the extradition with, also denies them due process because extradition is part and parcel of due process.

So they can be pretty sure I assure you.

I find it incredible that you think due process is a real thing.
It's already being trashed and when Kamala Harris wins it's going to be open season on dissenters.

a reply to: BrucellaOrchitis

It was the Matrix-Churchill case that helped bring down the Tory government at the time - his boss was assasinated in Belgium and the UK gov shredded documents to cover up their involvement which forced him and his subordinates to falsely plead guilty in the UK to avoid extradition and a show trial/death sentence in the US. The US falsely claimed they wouldn't put them to death in the application but the judge wasn't buying any of it.

It wasn't illegal at the time as the UK and other countres were allowing arms to Iraq as it helped weaken Iran; The government trained him in how to disguise them as oil pipes to avoid US sanctions (but the US had ordered the whole thing) and the operation was done under orders of both countries intel in order to provide information on Iraq's long term goals. The UK government/intel failed to notify customs not to stop the shipment which led to its discovery and after the gassing of the Kurds the UK said it would have to reinterpret things and retroactively punish them.

Innocent arms firm chief still imprisoned by his past

The judge took the risk of naming the CIA and MI6 Head of Joint Operations in ME who had told them to go ahead with the arms exports.

Arms-to-Iraq trial dealer `is CIA man'

originally posted by: bastion
It was the Matrix-Churchill case that helped bring down the Tory government at the time - his boss was assasinated in Belgium and the UK gov shredded documents to cover up their involvement which forced him and his subordinates to falsely plead guilty in the UK to avoid extradition and a show trial/death sentence in the US. The US falsely claimed they wouldn't put them to death in the application but the judge wasn't buying any of it.

Thanks Bastion. I vaguely recall the incident. I can appreciate that it was a complex set of circumstances and your uncle was lucky to draw a judge who was able to see that, however, did he "falsely" plead guilty. It appears as though, as charged, he did try to evade trade embargoes.

originally posted by: bastion
It wasn't illegal at the time as the UK and other countres were allowing arms to Iraq as it helped weaken Iran; The government trained him in how to disguise them as oil pipes to avoid US sanctions (but the US had ordered the whole thing) and the operation was done under orders of both countries intel in order to provide information on Iraq's long term goals.

It was illegal at the time to avoid embargoes. Your uncle may have been following "orders" but he chose to follow those orders. Amongst those laws that protect us from being tortured or taken into slavery, there is also the right to refuse orders if you believe or suspect them to constitute a criminal act. I am sure that your uncle believed himself to be acting in good faith but he still chose to violate international trade agreements. Just because he thought he would get away with it, and certainly shouldn't have taken all the responsibility for it, he did take a course of action that was to intended to avoid embargoes.

originally posted by: bastion
The UK government/intel failed to notify customs not to stop the shipment which led to its discovery and after the gassing of the Kurds the UK said it would have to reinterpret things and retroactively punish them.

The UK government trained him to use oil pipes to disguise the shipment, and yet, also was going to notify customs "not to stop the shipment". So the shipment was clearly declared falsely and was travelling under a false bill of lading. It was also concealed. These are all offences on their own and in addition to evading embargoes. And on both sides of the Atlantic so would meet extradition criteria.

I understand that your Uncle was caught out, trusted the wrong people etc etc, but he is hardly innocent. Naive perhaps?

The governments obviously were seeking to maintain plausible deniability but they wouldn't have even suggested this if there was a legitimate way of doing it. Your uncle must have realised this surely?

If they had notified customs they would have had to have had a legitimate reason to do so. They didn't and therefore couldn't without themselves committing a crime which either they weren't willing to do, or never had any intention of doing. Maybe it was a set up from beginning to end.

When you make your customs and other declarations you're entering into a legal binding agreement that the information that you are providing is correct and that you understand that it is your responsibility to ensure that your goods are accurately declared.

Was he coerced? Were they holding guns to his family's head? Or were they just offering a lot of money?

Even if the risk was misrepresented to him, he still must have known there was a risk and made a choice to take it.