At last I get to be a guest of our colonial overlords!

[InsaneApache]

Cheers guys.:thumbsdown:

Can you do your mates a favour? (note the 'u')

and write to your senators.

I seem to remember something around 1812 about this sort of thing. The War of 'Jenkins Ears' nonwithstanding!*


AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece

I always knew 'shrub' was an idiot, what the hell is going on here?

*Now that's a real reason for a war. :laugh4:

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well maybe if you had done something so your capital didn't turn into Londonistan, we wouldn't need to be doing this. Think of it as putting your elderly parents into a nursing home - "There, there, let me take care of the evil terrorists. You just sit here and enjoy your pudding."

:wink2:

Crazed Rabbit
*note; this post is in jest.

[Boyar Son]

Favour?

umm...did you use spell check?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Favour?

umm...did you use spell check?

Well he's actually correct, in fact you could even say he is more right than you are because back in the 19th century the USA decided to "simplify" the spelling of American English and remove the "u" from words like "colour," "favour," "honour" and probably many more.

BTW I think it's kinda silly that the administration is doing this as you guys are pretty much our only strong allies at the moment and are supporting all the craziness that our government has been getting up to these days.

[woad&fangs]

Bush just wants us all to experience the joys of owning our very own Brit. He wants every American to experience the thrill that he gets from having Tony Blair as his own personal ****. I for one applaud the president in giving the benefits of Bourgosie society to everyone.

[Boyar Son]

Well he's actually correct, in fact you could even say he is more right than you are because back in the 19th century the USA decided to "simplify" the spelling of American English and remove the "u" from words like "colour," "favour," "honour" and probably many more.


so if I spoke (or spake) old english...means I'm even more right than anyone?

:laugh4:

[Uesugi Kenshin]

so if I spoke (or spake) old english...means I'm even more right than anyone?

:laugh4:

Nah then you're a wizened old relic from the dusty past who probably doesn't understand typewriters, much less computers, and you probably talk of Wyrd all the time, and last but not least whenever you go outside you have to fight off sea-monsters, dragons and other assorted beasts of nature. ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

so if I spoke (or spake) old english...means I'm even more right than anyone?

:laugh4:

No, you're not speaking Old (Actually it would be Early Modern) English, in many ways your English is even more divorced from it's roots than ours is.

Having said that, the American "sulfur" is original while the British "sulphur" is a Grecisation of the English enacted by the Victorians.

[KukriKhan]

Can you do your mates a favour? (note the 'u')

and write to your senators.


Boxer 'n Feinstein have email from me.

Until UK agents can snatch Americans wanted in Britain off the streets of Chicago too, we'd better not practice this procedure - particularly with allies and countries with extradition treaties.

Besides, I think the lawyer in the article has mis-read Taylor v. Taintor, the bounty-hunting law, and subsequent decisions.

[IrishArmenian]

I think the Brits are primarily being charged as potential terrorists as they took the American language, overused U's, underused Z's and over time, their offshoot became nearly its own language, inexplicable to those who can speak 'American'.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Of course, it's not just "terrorists" (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article3215758.ece) that the new imperium demands. Although it is terrorists that it with-holds.

OTOH, it must suck to be on the wrong end of the kind of quasi-legal shafting the Old Empire used to hand out when it was Top Nation (TM). I'm not saying it's right, just mildly amusing.

'Extradited at a moment's notice': is it time to be afraid of doing business in America?

As the 'NatWest Three' strike a plea bargain, Tessa Thorniley looks at a law that seems loaded against UK citizens accused of white-collar crime

Published: 02 December 2007

Britain's "iniquitous" extradition arrangements with the US are back in the spotlight after three UK bankers pleaded guilty to wire fraud as part of a deal with American prosecutors aimed at slashing their prison terms.

The decision by the trio – Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew, known as the NatWest Three – to strike a plea-bargain comes after a lengthy and controversial legal battle that has left the British Government facing accusations that it is failing to protect its own citizens and is exposing them to a justice system, in the US, that does not achieve justice in every case.

To date, the furore has centred on the Extradition Act 2003, with lawyers, opposition politicians and members of the business elite decrying it as one-sided because Britain has lower hurdles to extradition than the US and is able to send alleged white-collar criminals abroad without showing evidence.

Despite a legal battle in the House of Lords and European Court of Human Rights, the NatWest Three – ex-employees at Greenwich NatWest, the investment banking arm – were extradited to the US last year.

They were indicted in 2002, after the collapse of Enron, for their part in a fraudulent deal with links to the Houston-based energy-trading group.

Now, however, the case is fizzing with fresh controversy over the deal struck with the US authorities – not least because lawyers expect Britain to make plea-bargaining a feature of the legal system in the next few years.

Trish Godman, the mother of Gary Mulgrew, said last week that her son was "coerced" into pleading guilty.

The trio were facing 35 years or more in a US jail and crippling legal bills. After pleading guilty to one count of wire fraud each, they are now expected to spend three years in prison, with the prospect of serving most of the time in the UK.

It is a point regularly cited that 96 per cent of those charged with a federal offence in the US plead guilty before trial.

Luke Tolaini, an associate director at legal firm Clifford Chance and chairman of the CBI's working group on extradition, says that faced with America's draconian sentencing policy – which is particularly harsh on white-collar crime – "it was inevitable the three would strike a deal".

In the meantime, there are several other high-profile extradition cases, including Ian Norris, the former chief executive of engineering company Morgan Crucible, accused of price-fixing, and Jeremy Crook, former vice-president of Peregrine Systems, facing charges over alleged accounting irregularities. These cases have heightened concerns and led to a major campaign to push through amendments to the Extradition Act 2003.

The CBI claims the treaty enabling the US to extradite UK citizens without having to provide "prima facie" evidence is iniquitous. Rod Armitage, head of company affairs at the business group, says that inequalities need to be addressed: "Under the old extradition act, the UK requirement had been lower than the one the US applied. Now it's the other way round."

He adds that under the existing arrangement, American citizens are guaranteed minimum rights under the US constitution and some evidence-based information (relating to probable cause) must be provided to the US courts before a citizen can be extradited. "This doesn't happen in the UK. A US citizen gets a hearing; a British one does not".

British businesses, he continues, are particularly concerned about the arrangement as "people can be extradited at a moment's notice for quite technical crimes".

"An email sent from the UK via a US internet server would be considered to be within American jurisdiction. Depending on the content of the email, that could be wire fraud."

Tolaini points out that the propensity of US prosecutors to "come and get" foreigners accused of white-collar crimes, is a further cause for concern.

An extradition lawyer who asks not to be named says: "A US federal prosecutor is a political appointment; it's about how many scalps they can claim."

Although some argue that the Act was largely conceived to help in the fight against global terrorism, others argue that the Government was well aware of the implications for white-collar crime from the outset.

Since the Act was introduced in 2004, many more UK citizens have been extradited to the US than have flown the other way. Out of 97 requests by the US, 52 have been granted; the UK has made 26 requests and 17 US citizens have been sent here. The Home Office claims this proves that the Act is working fairly. "Around the same percentage of requests have been met both ways," says a spokesman.

Lawyers, though, point out that not a single IRA suspect has so far faced extradition to the UK, suggesting that the judicial process is being used selectively and politically.

A possible amendment to the Act had been conceded by the Government last year that might have helped businessmen accused of white-collar crime overseas. The change, tabled by opposition MPs, would have allowed the Home Secretary to refuse an extradition request if a "significant part of the conduct alleged to constitute the extradition offence is conducted in the UK".

This modification, known as the "forum amendment", would have needed approval by both houses in Parliament and it was agreed that no attempt to seek approval would take place for a year. When the hiatus ended on 8 November, the Government was quick to to announce that it had no plans to introduce the forum as it would have made the Extradition Act 2003 "inconsistent not only with the US-UK treaty but also with the UK's extradition arrangements with other territories".

Alistair Graham, a partner at White & Case who is acting for Norris, is among the lawyers and opposition MPs calling for the Government to amend the Act. He is still pushing for change.

"It lies within the Government's own hands to address the widespread concerns that business has by activating the forum amendment, which it accepted during last year's debate on the Criminal Justice and Extradition Act," he says.

The shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, says the forum amendment needs to be looked at again and debated.

"I have tabled an amendment to the Crime and Justice Bill to have forum discussed to bring this issue back."

In the meantime, as one extradition lawyer puts it: "Everyone who does business in the US should be afraid of this Act."

[Boyar Son]

Nah then you're a wizened old relic from the dusty past who probably doesn't understand typewriters, much less computers, and you probably talk of Wyrd all the time, and last but not least whenever you go outside you have to fight off sea-monsters, dragons and other assorted beasts of nature. ~;)

While everyone is out buying a minivan, I'm actin' like Beowulf, see Angelina Jolie naked, kickin ass, and speek the correct version of anglo-saxon.

I'm sorry but dicussion over:laugh4:

[Justiciar]

I think the Brits are primarily being charged as potential terrorists as they took the American language, overused U's and Z's and over time, their offshoot became nearly its own language, inexplicable to those who can speak 'American'.
It's Americans who use "Z" incessently. So evidently, you're a nonce. :2thumbsup:


While everyone is out buying a minivan, I'm actin' like Beowulf, see Angelina Jolie naked, kickin ass, and speek the correct version of anglo-saxon.
You mean you're a Cockney with a vocabulary limited to the phrase "Oi ahm Bayowoolf!"? :inquisitive:

I'd be fine with this, if it were a two-way deal, as KukriKhan said. As is, it's taking the whole subordinate thing a wee bit too far.

[IrishArmenian]

No problem, Justiciar.

[Slyspy]

It's Americans who use "Z" incessently. So evidently, you're a nonce. :2thumbsup:


You mean you're a Cockney with a vocabulary limited to the phrase "Oi ahm Bayowoolf!"? :inquisitive:

I'd be fine with this, if it were a two-way deal, as KukriKhan said. As is, it's taking the whole subordinate thing a wee bit too far.

Calling someone a nonce, even if it is in jest, isn't a good thing to do since the word is extremely offensive. Try it in a pub and you may just get a beating. And to use it against a person whose first language is not English, for shame.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I can't accept kidnapping from the UK. I need to do some background reading. The avenues are all there already to extradite most criminals from the U.K. effectively, aren't they?

[Vladimir]

nonce /nɒns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[nons] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
the present, or immediate, occasion or purpose (usually used in the phrase for the nonce).
[Origin: 1150–1200; ME nones, in phrase for the nones, by faulty division of for then ones for the once (ME then dat. sing. of the1; ones once)]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
nonce (nŏns) Pronunciation Key
n. The present or particular occasion: "Her tendency to discover a touch of sadness had for the nonce disappeared" (Theodore Dreiser).


[From Middle English for the nones, for the occasion, alteration of for then anes : for, for; see for + then : neuter dative sing. of the; see the1 + ones, anes, once; see once.]

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This
nonce
abstracted from phrase for þe naness (c.1200) "for a special occasion, for a particular purpose," itself a misdivision of for þan anes "for the one," in reference to a particular occasion or purpose, the þan being from O.E. dative def. article þam. The phrase used from c.1315 as an empty filler in metrical composition. Hence, nonce-word "word coined for a special occasion," 1954.

I don't get it. :stupido2:

[Justiciar]

Turns out it's another name for a sexual deviant.


Calling someone a nonce, even if it is in jest, isn't a good thing to do since the word is extremely offensive. Try it in a pub and you may just get a beating. And to use it against a person whose first language is not English, for shame.
True enough, though I can only plead ignorance. I've never encountered it in it's "proper" context before. I've only ever been aware of it as simply a light-hearted and jokey alternative to "fool". Though if any offense was taken, I do appologise to IrishArmenian.

[IrishArmenian]

Calling someone a nonce, even if it is in jest, isn't a good thing to do since the word is extremely offensive. Try it in a pub and you may just get a beating. And to use it against a person whose first language is not English, for shame.
I honestly don't care. It may be offensive, but this is a damn internet forum! Still, how does not knowing the eccentricities of the English language make me a sexual deviant?
I did, however, learn a new word, albeit a word that should seldom be used if at all.

[Peasant Phill]

You just have to love the hypocrisy .

I'm quite sure the other way around wouldn't fly. Just like the U.S. doesn't recognize the International Court of Justice in Den Hague.

I sometimes wonder how many Americans are aware how democratic and just there country really is.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, it's not just "terrorists" (http://news.independent.co.uk/business/analysis_and_features/article3215758.ece) that the new imperium demands. Although it is terrorists that it with-holds.

OTOH, it must suck to be on the wrong end of the kind of quasi-legal shafting the Old Empire used to hand out when it was Top Nation (TM). I'm not saying it's right, just mildly amusing.

What!? America will allow the kidnapping of British subjects? And subject them to legal proceedings that are best described as blackmail? Without reciprocity? And America itself refused for decades to extradite terrorists wanted by the UK?

Good grief. Next you'll tell me that the UK is willing to spend its blood and tax-money for America's wars while still paying off debt from a war sixty years ago...:no:

And I'll bet that the UK also has...meh, forget about it. Mocking Britain was more fun back when Albion still had a spine.


Oh, and Bush is a nonce. :smash:

[Marshal Murat]

I'm not impressed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impressment)

This isn't evil, just revenge.

[Boyar Son]

It's Americans who use "Z" incessently. So evidently, you're a nonce. :2thumbsup:


You mean you're a Cockney with a vocabulary limited to the phrase "Oi ahm Bayowoolf!"? :inquisitive:



No. im a Cockney with a vocabulary limited to the phrase "Oi ahm Bayowoolf see Angelina Jolie naked, kickin ass, and speek the correct version of anglo-saxon

[InsaneApache]

You sound like Dick Van Dyke! :laugh4:

[ajaxfetish]

Bush just wants us all to experience the joys of owning our very own Brit. He wants every American to experience the thrill that he gets from having Tony Blair as his own personal ****. I for one applaud the president in giving the benefits of Bourgosie society to everyone.
I've long thought we in America should celebrate 'Take a Peasant Home for Dinner Day,' but as we have no peasants it would be very difficult. Do you guys have any left, and if so could we use this law to acquire some?

Oh, and on the subject of the English language, at least we in America still pronounce our postvocalic r's. You Brits had to go all non-rhotic there a couple centuries ago. Betraying your linguistic heritage, what what?

Ajax

[Justiciar]

And I'll bet that the UK also has...meh, forget about it. Mocking Britain was more fun back when Albion still had a spine.
Gallic gallantry at it's best. :laugh4:

You'll note that the word "foreign" is used in place of "British". The French are just as liable to be subject to this.

[Pannonian]

No. im a Cockney with a vocabulary limited to the phrase "Oi ahm Bayowoolf see Angelina Jolie naked, kickin ass, and speek the correct version of anglo-saxon
That's funny, I thought K Cossack was Floridan.

[Whacker]

I for one am looking forward to having my own pet(s) Big King Sankthefranks and Omanes Alexandros pending my extradition requests being filled.

Hopefully my most high Imperial government run by Saint Bush will extend this explicitly to France as well, as I am also looking forward to having a polite, well spoken frenchman (Louis the Large) as a pet.

:balloon2:

[Boyar Son]

That's funny, I thought K Cossack was Floridan.

Did you think that or did you just read my profile? ~D

Over here we hardly consider states there own "mini country" anymore ('cept maybe for Texas).

[AntiochusIII]

Hopefully my most high Imperial government run by Saint Bush will extend this explicitly to France as well, as I am also looking forward to having a polite, well spoken frenchman (Louis the Large) as a pet.That's Louis the Gravitationally Different for you. :no: