No, that's not it. I personally support the 'presumption that those suspected of crimes committed entirely or in part on UK soil should be tried domestically.'

http://davidp1.blogspot.com/2006/07/complain-again.html

Sorry, Stephen, this one really won't wash. If you want to know why, read Irwin Stelzer in last weekend's Sunday Times. He can hardly be written off as a visceral anti-American. The US is no stranger to abusive and politicised prosecutions where defendants are bludgeoned into plea-bargaining because of the threat of ruinous legal fees and very harsh sentences if they plead not guilty and are convicted. That is in essence what the Enron prosecutors are trying to do here. It isn't justice. It's an auto da fe where some relatively small fry are ritually destroyed as scapegoats while the Bushes and Clintons of this world, who all wallowed in the trough of Enron's largesse, escape scot-free.

Please don't tell me either that US criminal procedure has the same safeguards as in this country. Remember the Louise Woodward trial where information likely to prejudice a potential jury was freely circulated; and key evidence favourable to the defence was withheld. All of this in a case where a teenager was facing almost literally a lifetime in jail. I am pro-American but before they lecture us about the shortcomings of trials of Irish Terrorist suspects, perhaps they should clean their own stable first. I'm afraid that it is behaviour like this that is making the US so deeply unpopular....and I say this in sorrow, not anger.

Sorry Stephen, but you're wrong.

SInce there has been no prosecution over the events involving these three (all of which took place against an alleged British victim on British soil) there has been no crime.

What the American courts believe is neither here nor there, they have no jurisdiction here. The whole application for their extradition is a fishing expedition.

Also, since the US has failed to ratify the treaty under which they are being extradited there is no reciprocity.

It is an outrage that the UK government is still dragging its feet over these three.

Good call on the 'turnaround' of fraud trials. Compare the speed the Enron Trial was conducted with some of the snail-like activity in high profile fraud trials over here that seem to drag on for years, until the accused get let off because they either develop Alzheimers (and then miraculously recover) or start developing strss symptoms and get let off....

Certainly the Americans should honour their side of the treaty but even without it, these people would probably have been extradited - only it would have taken considerably longer. The big question is, will there be the same speed with the extradition of suspected terrorists.

These guys may be as guilty as hell for all I know.

However, for someone to be extradited (i.e. forcibly removed) from the UK and their homes, you might think that the US authorities might at least have to present a prima facie case against them. Would not the police here have to go before a court before they could remove someone's liberty for any length of time?

To extradite them when the US authorities have not presented a shred of evidence against them is unjust, just as it would be if the police here could lock people up at random (oh, I forgot, this government wanted to do that with its terrorist legislation so, presumably, it could lock up more people who have the temerity to shout "rubbish" at Labour party conferences).

I am certainly not anti-American (as a glance at my blog will show). Neither is John Lloyd, who was editor of the FT Magazine at the time John-Paul Flintoff's article was published. The www.friendsextradited.org website specifically says that it 'is not intended as a forum for anti-government or anti-American rhetoric or views.'

No, the sneer (and the smear) is from your mouth, Stephen, not from the mouths of the critics of the Government's extraordinary stance on this matter.

"I am pro-American but"

"it is behaviour like this that is making the US so deeply unpopular"

In this and so many other ways anti-Americanism is becoming the new anti-Semitism in the UK.

Anyone who had first-hand knowledge of the third-rate and brutish nature of much of the English judicial system would not be so quick to defend it.

"they have no jurisdiction here"

I hope you remember that the very next time PC Plod attempts to kidnap an Israeli general.

The Prosecuting Attorneys wanted to roll Fastow to indict Skilling and Lay; these greedy bankers were in the frame. They are however getting very different treatment from Lay or Skilling who were NOT jailed whilst preparing their defence.

I see no reason why British Citizens are inferior to US Citizens and wonder why Mr Pollard does have so little self-worth as to think they should be degraded and abused merely because they worked for NatWest and sailed close to the wind.

When the US asked to extradite Abu Hamza he was quicjkly protected by the Attorney-General and tried in England. When Anjem Choudry was tried under public order offences for the incitement demo in London he was fined £500 which seems far less than Nick Griffin was threatened with for a BBC spy camera recording a private meeting in a Keighley pub.

Sometime this government if we can call such a bundle of prejudices a government will have to stand up straight rather than slinking around the legal system to ensnare and to play favourites. This country is extraditing under an Act which overrides the fact that the Treaty itself is not in force.............it is splendid maybe Parliament can be used to enforce unilateral acceptance of other treaties.......................what a shower MPs are

'I am pro-American but...'
I hope the men are given bail, even that the US courts rapidly throw out the case.

This isn't about being pro- or anti-American. Your judicial system, after all, is based on the same principles as ours. And we admire the independence of the American courts, which means that Tony Blair 'using his influence' to help the men get bail is unlikely to have any effect.

Rick, for the comparison with Abu Hamza, see John-Paul Flintoff's 2004 article:

http://www.flintoff.org/article/175/we-wont-go

No one is denying that the American and English legal systems have common roots. Ours has plenty of faults too: notably, our grotesque libel laws which enable the rich, poweful and well-connected to evade scrutiny. None of that is relevant to this case. We are entitled to take issue with aspects of the American legal system which are unfair and oppressive in practice, whatever its roots.....and this case highlights plenty of such aspects.

HJHJ "However, for someone to be extradited (i.e. forcibly removed) from the UK and their homes, you might think that the US authorities might at least have to present a prima facie case against them. Would not the police here have to go before a court before they could remove someone's liberty for any length of time?"

Agreed, but the same system is in place for the extradtion of UK citizens to some 40 odd other countries, including Russia.

Why is opposition limited to the extradition arrangements with the US? What has the failure of the US to ratify the treaty to do with the quality of justice to be received by the NatWest3?

The Lib Dems seem to be strangely silent on the unresonableness of these extradition procedures when applied to cases relating to EU nations.

The US does NOT have jurisdiction over crimes committed in the UK.

Joshua,

why cannot someone be pro-american and still object to something that they consider unfair?

I am pro-american. I have lived there twice totalling nearly 9 years and it was great. However there is still something unpleasant about this affair. The treaty is an issue but I am also concerned that as far as I understand it no american person or entity was harmed and indeed the alleged crime was commited in the UK. I don't understand why the US has any jurisdiction here.