# Death penalty and extradition



## Papalote

Hello, everyone,

I believe my post follows the thinking here, but if it should go in a new thread, please feel free to change it.

This is a news story that appeared today in the Montreal Gazette:

http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=83b98434-b309-4a00-8159-e912250daf74&k=9676

Canada has no death penalty, and  ¨life sentence¨ carries a conviction of 25 years maximum, sometimes without parole, but they are usually paroled before compelting the time. Arkansas carries the death sentence. Timothy Wallace has been charged with murdering his ex-wife and her 29-year old son and then fleeing to Calgary, Alberta, while awaiting trial. (An interesting question would be, was he free to wander around while being accused of putting 4 bullets into his ex-wife and 2 in her son??? Something seems wrong here.) By the way, he has plead not guilty.

Wallace has already been ordered out of Canada, but our Federal Government has asked the USA for assurance that Wallace will be spared the death penalty if returned.

It seems to me to be a perfect example of ¨people¨for the death penalty facing those who are against. In this instance, who is right?

Hasta,

Papalote


----------



## .   1

Papalote said:


> It seems to me to be a perfect example of ¨people¨for the death penalty facing those who are against. In this instance, who is right?


Canada is correct.
Capital punishment should not be considered in crimes of passion.

Robert


----------



## emma42

Would a kind Mod perhaps remove the last three posts (including this one) to a new thread?  Perhaps entitled "Extradition to countries with the death penalty"?  Or perhaps this is not off-topic?

As I understand it, countries which do not have the death penalty will not extradite persons to countries which have it.  I presume Canada has an expedition treaty of some sort with the USA?


----------



## maxiogee

. said:


> Canada is correct.
> Capital punishment should not be considered in crimes of passion.
> 
> Robert



erratum 

Capital punishment should not be considered!


----------



## Lemminkäinen

emma42 said:


> As I understand it, countries which do not have the death penalty will not extradite persons to countries which have it.  I presume Canada has an expedition treaty of some sort with the USA?



I'd be interested in knowing how the Canadian situation is, too.

Here, the law basically says that if a person is at risk of death penalty or torture, they may not be extradited:



> § 7. Extradition can not happen if it will result in a conflict with basic humanitarian concerns, especially because of the person in question's age, state of health or other personal conditions


----------



## ireney

I found this agreement on extradition between the EU and the USA. It says, in article 13,  that if the crime is punishable by death in the country requesting the extradition but not on the requested country then 



> the requested State may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the requesting State, on condition that the death penalty if imposed shall not be carried out. If the requesting State accepts extradition subject to conditions pursuant to this Article, it shall comply with the conditions. If the requesting State does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied.



I've read an article or two while searching (articles are in Greek) that seem unhappy about the "may be denied" part of this article and request that the denial will become absolute.

Interesting. On the face of it I must say that I agree with those guys saying that "may" should be replaced by "will".


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> erratum
> 
> Capital punishment should not be considered!


Please excuse me.
mea culpa.

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

Let's take Ireney's post, substituting "will" for "may", and apply it to this Canada/US case.  Suppose, for whatever reasons, the US "does not accept the conditions" of the diplomatic agreement.  What then does Canada do with the accused murderer?

No charges have, as yet, been brought by Canadian authorities in regard to the accusation of Murder on non-Canadian territory by a non-Canadian citizen.  
If Canada expels the accused, does the accused have the right to choose to go to another country with a similar legal arrangement with the US?  Can he choose to go to a country with no extradition treaty?


With sincere respect for the Canadian position on the death penalty, might Canada end up, unintentionally, aiding and abetting the efforts of the accused to avoid all justice?

-If the accused goes to a country with the same agreement, or something equivalent, the person will not be tried. They might be expelled to a third country, and the process could be repeated yet again.
-If the accused goes to a country with no extradition treaty, they escape trial and any degree of punishment.
-If the accused is sent to a country that has no similar restriction, they may be sent to the US for trial, thus subverting the intention of Canadian law.

A fine mess, isn't it?


----------



## .   1

cuchuflete said:


> With sincere respect for the Canadian position on the death penalty, might Canada end up, unintentionally, aiding and abetting the efforts of the accused to avoid all justice?


I do not think that Canada will mind.  I suspect that Canuks enjoy cocking a snoot at their southern neighbours.
This is a case where a State does not agree with the law of another State and therefore is flouting the law.
Murder is murder everywhere but execution is not acceptable everywhere.  If Canada agreed that America's laws were just the hoodlum would be on a bus heading south before you could say, "Clang, watch your fingers."

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

Do we have anyone familiar with Canadian law who can explain the grounds on which Wallace is currently jailed in Canada?



> Timothy Wallace remained in custody until next month after a detention review in Calgary yesterday.
> Lawyer Gregory Dunn said he will likely push for his release at a Feb. 1 hearing if a reply is not back from the U.S. by that time.
> Hearing adjudicator Paul Kyba agreed not to release Wallace, citing fears the former U.S. soldier facing a double-murder charge may not show up for next month's hearing.


source


----------



## .   1

Ouch.
A former soldier kills with State sponsored skills.
Canada does indeed have a problem.

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

. said:


> I do not think that Canada will mind.  I suspect that Canuks enjoy cocking a snoot at their southern neighbours.
> This is a case where a State does not agree with the law of another State and therefore is flouting the law.
> Murder is murder everywhere but execution is not acceptable everywhere.  If Canada agreed that America's laws were just the hoodlum would be on a bus heading south before you could say, "Clang, watch your fingers."
> 
> Robert



I can comfortably agree with all you have said, but this does potentially create an interesting dilemma for Canada.  I've already outlined some possible scenarios above.  But what if Canada does not expel Mr. Wallace? Do Canadians feel at ease about harboring an accused murderer in their midst if they release him and do not deport him?  That might be a bit of a price to pay for successfully "cocking a snoot".


----------



## Hockey13

cuchuflete said:


> I can comfortably agree with all you have said, but this does potentially create an interesting dilemma for Canada. I've already outlined some possible scenarios above. But what if Canada does not expel Mr. Wallace? Do Canadians feel at ease about harboring an accused murderer in their midst if they release him and do not deport him? That might be a bit of a price to pay for successfully "cocking a snoot".


 
Yeh, that's what is interesting about it. To save a foreigner's life they possibly put others at risk. Maybe it is worth it to make the point, but it seems rather impractical.


----------



## cuchuflete

Moving away from theory for a moment, if he were released in Canada, what do you think the odds are that a diligent bail-bondsman would...errrrmmm..."escort" him home, given that he has jumped bail in the sum of a cool half mil?


----------



## caballoschica

I agree with all that's been said.  I found this in the original article given.
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=83b98434-b309-4a00-8159-e912250daf74&k=9676 


> Canada *will not deport or extradite individuals who face the death penalty,* following a Supreme Court ruling six years ago that found the punishment violates the Charter of Rights.
> Gregory Dunn, Wallace's Calgary lawyer, said he* expects the U.S. to waive the death penalty.*
> ''I appreciate that the authorities are indicating they are going to consult with the families, because that's the right thing to do. But at the end of the day, I just don't see the U.S. not playing ball on this,'' Dunn said.



The US should honor Canada's request if they want any punishment, I think.  And I think they will.  They won't let someone go, just because they want to get the death penalty.  Even in death penalty trials, there is the option of sentencing the person to life in prison without parole instead.  The jury might opt for life in prison, even if the death penalty was an option.


----------



## Thomsen

Miorally, both sides are "right" because morals are not "wrong".  Practically, the US will probably have to give.  The Canadian government is forbidden from extraditing him, but he can't be left in legal limbo.  

Wouldn't not extraditing create an incentive for people accused of dangerous crimes to flee to Canada?  

Anyway, what is to prevent the US from giving assurances and then doing whatever they want when they get the man?  That's what I see as really being most likely.  It's not like the government appears to be opposed to lying...


----------



## caballoschica

Thomsen said:


> Miorally, both sides are "right" because morals are not "wrong".  Practically, the US will probably have to give.  The Canadian government is forbidden from extraditing him, but he can't be left in legal limbo.


yep, I agree. Morals aren't right or wrong.  


> Wouldn't not extraditing create an incentive for people accused of dangerous crimes to flee to Canada?


Definitely. 


> Anyway, what is to prevent the US from giving assurances and then doing whatever they want when they get the man?  That's what I see as really being most likely.  It's not like the government appears to be opposed to lying...


I snorted, not out of the hilarity or absurdity of your statement, but by the fact that it is so true....


----------



## Hockey13

Thomsen said:


> Wouldn't not extraditing create an incentive for people accused of dangerous crimes to flee to Canada?


 
Don't they do that now anyway? Canada or Mexico, right?



> Anyway, what is to prevent the US from giving assurances and then doing whatever they want when they get the man? That's what I see as really being most likely. It's not like the government appears to be opposed to lying...


 
Because we want a diplomatic future with countries. It's one thing to lie to your own people, but doing so to foreign governments about specific deals made between two nations is rather rare from peaceful countries, especially neighbors. If the US were to do something like that, expect harsh stares to follow for years.


----------



## Papalote

cuchuflete said:


> I can comfortably agree with all you have said, but this does potentially create an interesting dilemma for Canada. I've already outlined some possible scenarios above. But what if Canada does not expel Mr. Wallace? Do Canadians feel at ease about harboring an accused murderer in their midst if they release him and do not deport him? That might be a bit of a price to pay for successfully "cocking a snoot".


 

Hello,

I have been doing an on-line search regarding our extradition laws. There used to exist a _Fugitive Offenders Act_ (1882), (which dealt with extradition between Commonwealth countries), but it was merged with the _Extradition Act_ (1877), which governs extradition to and from all other countries with which Canada has an extradition treaty, in June 1999 in the new _Extradition Act_. 

Here is a link, http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1999/extrle.html

In short, after all the legalese, is that the fugitive's human rights safeguards will be respected. Last section in this link. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/news/nr/1998/extrt.html

I`m no further into finding an answer on what will happen if Arkansas does not accept Canada's request.

What I can say, is that right now, Canadians are a more than frustrated at Bush and his attitiude towards us, but as a whole, we still very much like and befriend Americans. Besides, there is no way, no excuse that Canadians will use to flaunt justice. Just because we are against the death penalty doesn`t mean that we want to have this guy taking advantage of our system and go away unpunished. We are for justice, against the death penalty.

We also have to consider the cost to us. He is using our tax money to be defended, fed and housed. That money should be better used for other community needs.

What I would like to see as an outcome of this, is for the Canadian government to set more stringent regulations on who is allowed into Canada. Just as Bush's government is doing to Candians going into the States. I am still bewildered on how an alleged murdered managed bail and was left to wander free in the States and managed to cross the border.

I'll keep y'all posted on what happens.

Hasata +,

Papalote


----------



## TRG

This is one of my arguments for abandoning capital punishment in the US. It interfers with carrying out justice in the case of a criminal fleeing to a non-capital punishment country from one that has it.


----------



## Thomsen

Hockey13 said:


> Don't they do that now anyway? Canada or Mexico, right?
> 
> Because we want a diplomatic future with countries. It's one thing to lie to your own people, but doing so to foreign governments about specific deals made between two nations is rather rare from peaceful countries, especially neighbors. If the US were to do something like that, expect harsh stares to follow for years.


 

Hockey, I agree with you in principle more than you know.  But frankly I have not seen so much as a thread of evidence that our government _really_ cares about relations diplomatic or otherwise with the rest of the world.  I think deals are quite frequently broken, however, I think it is often the case that countries would rather seem to be in harmony than expose these events.  Harsh stares already abound.  Our relationship with Great Britian considered to be traditionally one of our strongest is the most strained it has been in decades.  (If you want, I can find some citations for that later.)


----------



## Victoria32

Papalote said:


> Hello, everyone,
> 
> I believe my post follows the thinking here, but if it should go in a new thread, please feel free to change it.
> 
> This is a news story that appeared today in the Montreal Gazette:
> 
> http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=83b98434-b309-4a00-8159-e912250daf74&k=9676
> 
> Canada has no death penalty, and  ¨life sentence¨ carries a conviction of 25 years maximum, sometimes without parole, but they are usually paroled before compelting the time. Arkansas carries the death sentence. Timothy Wallace has been charged with murdering his ex-wife and her 29-year old son and then fleeing to Calgary, Alberta, while awaiting trial. (An interesting question would be, was he free to wander around while being accused of putting 4 bullets into his ex-wife and 2 in her son??? Something seems wrong here.) By the way, he has plead not guilty.
> 
> Wallace has already been ordered out of Canada, but our Federal Government has asked the USA for assurance that Wallace will be spared the death penalty if returned.
> 
> It seems to me to be a perfect example of ¨people¨for the death penalty facing those who are against. In this instance, who is right?
> 
> Hasta,
> 
> Papalote


The Canadian government is right. I remember watching an American TV show sometime in the last few years, where the 'cops' were rejoicing at how they had tricked the Canadian authorities into returning a woman and then charging her with a death penalty offence. I was disgusted - I have a problem of thinking of the USA as barbaric because they have the death penalty. (At least Americans tell me it is a problem...  )
I am in no doubt that the show reflects reality at least some of the time. 
If Canada opposes the death penalty, then it must "stick to its guns" and refuse to extradite those who will face death. 

Vicky


----------



## cuchuflete

Papalote,
Thanks for the research.

This piece is interesting: 





> Canada is a party to 49 bilateral extradition treaties with foreign states and eight multilateral conventions which contain "extradite or prosecute" provisions. Current legislation makes it difficult for Canada to comply with those international obligations.


I am guessing that 'extradite or prosecute" implies that if Canada does not agree to an extradition request from another country, it has some legal provision to prosecute the accused.

More muddled questions: What if the US were to seek extradition, not in regard to the murder charge, but on a charge related to jumping bail?  It is probably a criminal act in Arkansas to fail to show up for a hearing.  I wonder if that kind of charge, for return of a fugitive, would allow for an extradition request.  Of course Canadian authorities would look at the underlying charge, and presumably make the same stipulations about the death penalty, but....

The 1999 Canadian Extradition law contains this:

Restriction
      (2) For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(c), conduct that constitutes an offence mentioned in a multilateral extradition agreement for which Canada, as a party, is obliged to extradite the person *or submit the matter to its appropriate authority for prosecution* does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character. The following conduct also does not constitute a political offence or an offence of a political character:       (a) murder or manslaughter;

http://198.103.98.49/en/frame/cs/E-23.01//20070111/en?command=search&caller=SI&fragment=extradition%20not%20granted&search_type=all&day=11&month=1&year=2007&search_domain=cs&showall=L&statuteyear=all&lengthannual=50&length=50



That makes it appear that should Canada not extradite the accused, it is legally required to prosecute the accused.


----------



## ireney

As I said, I haven't thought things through all that much but here's what has me confused :

On one hand, cuchuflette's points are valid; I do the punishable by death crime and if I manage to flee to a country with such laws as Canada (or EU with the "will" in place of "may") I am free just as long as the country where I committed the crime doesn't agree to not executing me. 
While I am against the death penalty, I'm also against people not being punished for a crime they have committed or being tried for a crime they are accused of committing.

On the other hand, if you are against the death penalty you cannot very well say "I am not going to extradite anyone who may get the death penalty unless the country asking for the extradition  agrees not to execute that person if found guilty" because then the country requesting the extradition will only have to refuse to accept the condition of not inflicting the death penalty.


----------



## Hockey13

Thomsen said:


> Hockey, I agree with you in principle more than you know. But frankly I have not seen so much as a thread of evidence that our government _really_ cares about relations diplomatic or otherwise with the rest of the world. I think deals are quite frequently broken, however, I think it is often the case that countries would rather seem to be in harmony than expose these events. Harsh stares already abound. Our relationship with Great Britian considered to be traditionally one of our strongest is the most strained it has been in decades. (If you want, I can find some citations for that later.)


 
Good point, Thomsen. However, I wonder if something as small-time as this would ever garner a deal-breaking on the part of the U.S. It seems like kind of a small gain to be made for such a huge reaction that would be sure to come from other countries. Also, it puts at risk all future extraditions to the U.S., extraditions that we require to advance the...ahem..."war on terror."


----------



## TRG

The death penalty has been with us forever. Many countries still use it. It seems to me that if you are going to have diplomatic relations with a country the you should do them the courtesy of respecting their internal affairs and when you are in possession of one of their citizens charged with a crime, you should hand them over. If the country's laws and punishments are so barbaric that you cannot stand to do this, then you should not grant them any diplomatic status. I cannot overstate the extent to which I am unimpressed with the sanctimonious moral imperialists who would like to impose their values on everyone else.


----------



## cuchuflete

TRG said:


> The death penalty has been with us forever. Many countries still use it. It seems to me that if you are going to have diplomatic relations with a country the you should do them the courtesy of respecting their internal affairs and when you are in possession of one of their citizens charged with a crime, you should hand them over. If the country's laws and punishments are so barbaric that you cannot stand to do this, then you should not grant them any diplomatic status. I cannot overstate the extent to which I am unimpressed with the sanctimonious moral imperialists who would like to impose their values on everyone else.



Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly.

1. Canadians create laws that suit Canadians.
2. These have conflicts with laws of another nation.
3. Canadians do not attempt to impose Canadian law on the other nation, and do apply it to persons on Canadian
soil.
4. A person from another nation thus accuses Canadians of being "sanctimonious moral imperialists".

My conclusion: The accuser has, by his or her accusation, acted as a sanctimonious moral imperialist.

The pot calling the kettle black is not an extraditable offense on either side of the border, or
the accuser would be headed for jail.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> I cannot overstate the extent to which I am unimpressed with the sanctimonious moral imperialists who would like to impose their values on everyone else.


Nor can I.

.,,


----------



## TRG

cuchuflete said:


> Let's see if I'm understanding this correctly.
> 
> 1. Canadians create laws that suit Canadians.
> 2. These have conflicts with laws of another nation.
> 3. Canadians do not attempt to impose Canadian law on the other nation, and do apply it to persons on Canadian
> soil.
> 4. A person from another nation thus accuses Canadians of being "sanctimonious moral imperialists".
> 
> My conclusion: The accuser has, by his or her accusation, acted as a sanctimonious moral imperialist.
> 
> The pot calling the kettle black is not an extraditable offense on either side of the border, or
> the accuser would be headed for jail.


 
It would seem that if Canadians refuse to extradite a common criminal based on death penalty concerns then they are clearly attempting to impose their law on the other nation. And my SMI comment was not aimed at Canadians, but at those who supported the idea that Canada or any nation should not extradite if the possibility of capital punishment exists. I have no doubt there are many Canadians who agree with me about this so I have no reason to insult Canadians. This is a quote from a previous post on this thread, "_I have a problem of thinking of the USA as barbaric because they have the death penalty_." It is towards this type of thinking that my comment was addressed. And I repeat, I do not take this position because I favor the death penalty. I would prefer we didn't have it so this discussion would be unnecessary. But, I suppose it would then be replaced by other concerns since, I am told, the sanctimonious never sleep. 

I'm adding a personal anecdote here which I hope you will permit. I recently had a conversation with my younger brother who was drafted during the Viet Nam war. He went into the army and entered basic training but he said that when he got out of basic training if his orders were to go to Viet Nam he had decided to flee to Canada. I was surprised to hear this, but didn't say anything. Many American fled to Canada to avoid the draft, but leaving an active military unit during time of war is desertion for which the maximum penalty is death. I suspect he did not know this. Turns out his orders were for Germany, so he never had to make that difficult decision. By the way, his telling me this did not change the way I feel about my brother one iota.


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> It would seem that if Canadians refuse to extradite a common criminal based on death penalty concerns then they are clearly attempting to impose their law on the other nation.


A) The person is not usually a criminal in Canada.
B) It is common international practice that extradition is only carried out where there are safeguards about the physical wellbeing of the person being sought - so don't just blame Canada.
C) Having one's own standards, and sticking to them, is not 'imposing them' on others - either as an individual or as a nation. If my moral standards make someone else feel so uncomfortable as to make them think I am imposing them on them, then it is they who have a problem, not I.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> Many American fled to Canada to avoid the draft, but leaving an active military unit during time of war is desertion for which the maximum penalty is death. I suspect he did not know this.


It is highly unlikely that the American Military Machine allowed your brother to remain ignorant of this draconian law.
Your brother made an informed decision.  He was ready to give up his rights as an American citizen and leave his homeland.
I agree with him as I would agree with anybody else who decided that their life was more valuable to them for life than to be used as cannon fodder by a politician who wants to prove that he has the largest jockstrap.
This is a perfect example of the uselessness of execution as a deterrent.
Your brother was coldly willing to face the prospect of execution because he believed that he would never be caught.  This sounds like the attitude of capital criminals.  They are aware that the death penalty exists but they do not believe that it will apply to them.

Robert


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> A) The person is not usually a criminal in Canada.


The circumstance we are talking about is someone who has gone to Canada or any other country to avoid prosecution which must be the case unless they can show some ligitimate reason for their being in Canada. Can you go to Canada and take up residence whenever you feel like it? If not then Canada should expel any fleeing felon.


> B) It is common international practice that extradition is only carried out where there are safeguards about the physical wellbeing of the person being sought - so don't just blame Canada.


I'm certainly not picking on Canada, it's just the example we're discussing. The one really complicating issue is political assylum, but it's the proverbial slippery slope.



> C) Having one's own standards, and sticking to them, is not 'imposing them' on others - either as an individual or as a nation. If my moral standards make someone else feel so uncomfortable as to make them think I am imposing them on them, then it is they who have a problem, not I.


There comes a point where it does. It some point you are just meddling in other people's affairs.



. said:


> It is highly unlikely that the American Military Machine allowed your brother to remain ignorant of this draconian law.
> Your brother made an informed decision. He was ready to give up his rights as an American citizen and leave his homeland.
> I agree with him as I would agree with anybody else who decided that their life was more valuable to them for life than to be used as cannon fodder by a politician who wants to prove that he has the largest jockstrap.
> This is a perfect example of the uselessness of execution as a deterrent.
> Your brother was coldly willing to face the prospect of execution because he believed that he would never be caught. This sounds like the attitude of capital criminals. They are aware that the death penalty exists but they do not believe that it will apply to them.
> 
> Robert


 
A subtle but ineffectual invective. I hope you will try to do better. You sure got a lot of mileage out of my little story. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of it is on topic.


----------



## emma42

_A subtle but ineffectual invective. I hope you will try to do better. You sure got a lot of mileage out of my little story. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of it is on topic.[/quote]_

This is hardly in the spirit of cordial discussion.  There is nothing wrong with describing a country's armed forces as a "military machine".  I see no invective.  The term implies many things, including efficiency.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> A subtle but ineffectual invective. I hope you will try to do better. You sure got a lot of mileage out of my little story. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of it is on topic.


All of it is on the topic of the Death Penalty.
I doubt that my invective was subtle.  How may I do better?
You put in your little story and I responded to your little story but you have slipped past my response to your little story.  Quite neat.
Does anybody know how many Americans fled America to avoid the Vietnam War?
My suspicion is that the number would be above 1,000.
This leaves us with the situation where these young men were made fully aware of the potential penalties of Desertion yet they Deserted and faced execution.  This warning is given repeatedly during Basic Training and I would be surprised if press-ganged conscripts are not required to read and sign documents to that effect.
This is to my mind a far more stable group upon which to base some discussion of the Death Penalty than the mentally deranged hoodlums and socially inept outcasts inhabiting Death Row.


Robert


----------



## winklepicker

ireney said:


> I found this agreement on extradition between the EU and the USA. It says, in article 13, that if the crime is punishable by death in the country requesting the extradition but not on the requested country then
> 
> the requested State may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the requesting State, on condition that the death penalty if imposed shall not be carried out. If the requesting State accepts extradition subject to conditions pursuant to this Article, it shall comply with the conditions. If the requesting State does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied.


 
Forgive my cynicism, but states will always find a way to do what is politically expedient. Did I hear someone say 'extraordinary rendition'? My government makes me wish I was Greek (or Canadian - or almost anything) instead of British. I was never more ashamed.


----------



## cuchuflete

To say that Canada upholding its own law is an imposition on another nation is utterly illogical crap.
Neither Canada nor the US nor any other nation is obligated to enter into any extradition treaty, unilateral, bilateral or multilateral with any other nation.  

Nations enter into treaties for motives of mutual self-interest, and not for convenience, not out of altruism, and certainly not to support the self-styled moral righteousness of another populace.   They sign and ratify such treaties with their eyes open.   The extradition arrangements between, for example, Canada and the US were entered into with each side fully aware of the scope and limitations of the agreement.  Putting it plainly, the US knew and knows that Canada maintains the right to refuse an extradition request when the accused will be subject to a sentence of death.  The US signed the agreement with such knowledge.  The US Dept. of State and Dept. of Justice have hundreds, if not thousands, of lawyers on staff.  There are no surprises here.

Further, there is no moral issue to discuss.  Extradition treaties are legal contracts among nations.   All signatories are entitled to act in accord with all of their provisions and relevant national statutes.  "Imposition"
is a rhetorical load of bull twaddle.  If you don't like the terms and conditions of a treaty, you either don't agree to it, or you take it as a better, if limited, way to achieve your objectives than not signing it.  

Crying "imposition" is a crybaby tactic.  The US judicial system is not a victim here.  Big, bad Canada is not bullying poor little United States.  It is insisting that the US keep its word.  Period.


----------



## .   1

America's judicial system managed to let an alleged (g'day maxiogee)hoodlum escape.  If America's judicial system then caught the hoodlum they would be in a position to dictate terms but as I see it Canada is caught on the horns of a dilemma.
Canada arrested and detained this person under the terms of the Canadian judicial system and is required by Canadian law to follow the rules of the Canadian judicial system that requires, _inter alia (among other things),_ that a person convicted under the Canadian judicial system does not face the prospect of execution.
I think that Canada is being quite reasonable in not requesting a guarantee of no more than 25 years incarceration.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

TRG said:


> The circumstance we are talking about is someone who has gone to Canada or any other country to avoid prosecution which must be the case unless they can show some ligitimate reason for their being in Canada. Can you go to Canada and take up residence whenever you feel like it? If not then Canada should expel any fleeing felon.



I am well aware of the situation we are talking about. 
You see to have left out something betwee the 'to avoid prosecution' phrase the the 'show some _ligitimate_ reason' phrase - I don't see what the "which must be the case" refers to.



> I'm certainly not picking on Canada, it's just the example we're discussing. The one really complicating issue is political assylum, but it's the proverbial slippery slope.


Political asylum or 'personal health and well-being'?
I would be enraged if my country extradited someone to another country knowing that they would be executed - for whatever degree of seriousness their crime involved. It is a thing which the British government has recently been weaselling its way around - being given alleged assurances that people being sought would not be either tortured or executed.




> There comes a point where it does. It some point you are just meddling in other people's affairs.


Or looked at from the other side of the argument, there comes a point when one ceases to be involved in other people's affairs —> and that's exactly what this is.
The extradition process is a way in which the judicial process of country A becomes invovled in the judicial process of country B. By refusing to extradite people in certain circumstances country A is withdrawing itself from this participation. It is keeping one's nose out of the affairs, not putting it in!
This argument is always invoked by the righteously indignant when their nation isn't getting what it wants.





> A subtle but ineffectual invective. I hope you will try to do better. You sure got a lot of mileage out of my little story. In fact, as far as I can tell, none of it is on topic.


Well it was your little story - you raised it. Surely you didn't expect to get no response.
I was touched by the humanity you displayed in the last sentence. You almost seem to be looking for our approval for your magnanimity. Had it been my brother I'd like to think I wouldn't have even thought that last point worth making.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:


> I was touched by the humanity you displayed in the last sentence. You almost seem to be looking for our approval for your magnanimity. Had it been my brother I'd like to think I wouldn't have even thought that last point worth making.


I was also touched but in a public forum I had better not describe where or how or what resulted.

.,,


----------



## TRG

emma42 said:


> This is hardly in the spirit of cordial discussion. There is nothing wrong with describing a country's armed forces as a "military machine". I see no invective. The term implies many things, including efficiency.


 
The use of the phrase "American Military Machine" and their draconian law can hardly be taken as a compliment, but there is no need to take my impression of it; why don't you PM Robert and ask him if he was intending it to be so. Let the man speak for himself!


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> The use of the phrase "American Military Machine" and their draconian law can hardly be taken as a compliment, but there is no need to take my impression of it; why don't you PM Robert and ask him if he was intending it to be so. Let the man speak for himself!


Now I find myself in the position of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.
I had to check the thread title again to confirm that we are discussing a situation where conscripts to a very dodgy war faced death from their own military if they did not go and face to face kill or be killed.
The American Military did this. In this case the is American Military draconian in attitude?

*Drako *_n _7th century B.C. Athenian statesman and lawmaker, whose code of laws (621) prescribed death for almost every offence.
*Draconian *_adj_ *1* of or relating to Drako or his code of laws. *2 *harsh
I do not believe that to call such an organisation a 'machine' is entirely appropriate.

I was not insulting America or Americans. I was insulting the American Military Machine as being draconian.
TRG please feel free to trawl through my posts looking for any and every non compliment I include relating to America. It lets me know I have one devoted fan. Please note that I include negative comment relating to countries other than America and my favourite target seems to be Australia.

Robert


----------



## TRG

maxiogee said:


> I am well aware of the situation we are talking about.
> You see to have left out something betwee the 'to avoid prosecution' phrase the the 'show some _ligitimate_ reason' phrase - I don't see what the "which must be the case" refers to.


So you think I'm incoherent. Finally you are starting to make some sense! Let me try again. My point was that if country A is trying to extradite one of its citizens from country B and said citizen can show no legitimate reason to country B for his being there, then it is safe to assume the person is in fact there to avoid prosecution.


> Political asylum or 'personal health and well-being'?
> I would be enraged if my country extradited someone to another country knowing that they would be executed - for whatever degree of seriousness their crime involved. It is a thing which the British government has recently been weaselling its way around - being given alleged assurances that people being sought would not be either tortured or executed.


My point was that figuring out how to make exceptions is very tricky and can lead to the argument that any person could flee any prosecution whatsoever. I think by your standards you would allow someone under threat of capital punishment to seek political asylum. True?



> Or looked at from the other side of the argument, there comes a point when one ceases to be involved in other people's affairs —> and that's exactly what this is.
> The extradition process is a way in which the judicial process of country A becomes invovled in the judicial process of country B. By refusing to extradite people in certain circumstances country A is withdrawing itself from this participation. It is keeping one's nose out of the affairs, not putting it in!
> This argument is always invoked by the righteously indignant when their nation isn't getting what it wants.


This seems to turn the logic inside out. That's ok. We may disagree about semantics, but I think we understand one another.



> Well it was your little story - you raised it. Surely you didn't expect to get no response.
> I was touched by the humanity you displayed in the last sentence. You almost seem to be looking for our approval for your magnanimity. Had it been my brother I'd like to think I wouldn't have even thought that last point worth making.


 
What Robert did was turn my story into a tirade against the American military and evils of capital punishment. In doing so, he makes some assumptions about what my brother knew that not even I was prepared to make. I intend to ask him that question now; If he knew what the potential risk was. Fact is, capital punishment would never, IMO, be applied in such a case, but it's theoretically possibly. As for the last comment, I simply meant that I was in no way going to judge him for what he had intended to do. Nor would I anyone else. An act of conscience and civil disobedience like that must be given a certain amount of respect as long as the person is willing the pay the price.

And, regarding your signature line, j'adore Edith Piaf. 
Elle m'a apporté au forum.


----------



## emma42

TRG said:


> _The use of the phrase "American Military Machine" and their draconian law can hardly be taken as a compliment, but there is no need to take my impression of it; why don't you PM Robert and ask him if he was intending it to be so. Let the man speak for himself!_


I did. But this is not the point. I was expressing my opinion as to what he wrote, just as you were expressing yours, TRG.


----------



## TRG

. said:


> Now I find myself in the position of teaching my grandmother to suck eggs.
> I had to check the thread title again to confirm that we are discussing a situation where conscripts to a very dodgy war faced death from their own military if they did not go and face to face kill or be killed.
> The American Military did this. In this case the is American Military draconian in attitude?
> 
> *Drako *_n _7th century B.C. Athenian statesman and lawmaker, whose code of laws (621) prescribed death for almost every offence.
> *Draconian *_adj_ *1* of or relating to Drako or his code of laws. *2 *harsh
> I do not believe that to call such an organisation a 'machine' is entirely appropriate.
> 
> I was not insulting America or Americans. I was insulting the American Military Machine as being draconian.
> TRG please feel free to trawl through my posts looking for any and every non compliment I include relating to America. It lets me know I have one devoted fan. Please note that I include negative comment relating to countries other than America and my favourite target seems to be Australia.
> 
> Robert


 
Exactly what I thought, and I would have no trouble finding millions of Americans who would either take it as an insult or who would agree with you completely. I'm not really in either group, but I thought the barb at the American military was inappropriate given the subject at hand and I could think of no reason for it coming up in that fashion. So let's just forget it and Emma can do likewise, I hope.


----------



## .   1

We are discussing a military that is willing to kill its own soldiers so I think that the invective was entirely appropriate and I do not accept your implied criticism.
I am becoming bored with your over defensive attitude to American and all things American which clogs up discussion after discussion.  America is not perfect and should be able to stand up to a little scrutiny.  You are not going to make your country look any better by bleating everytime someone fails to genuflect to your ideologies.

Robert


----------



## cuchuflete

Forget country names for just a moment.  Country X has an extradition treaty with Country Z.  X has specified in that treaty conditions which must be met for it to deliver an accused person, whether or not a convicted fugitive, to the legal authorities of Z.  Z has agreed to these terms.

An accused, but untried, or convicted person flees from Z to X.  X applies the mutually agreed terms of the extradition treaty as a condition of the return of the fugitive to Z.

All parties are acting in accord with the treaty.  The rest is just PR strutting and posturing, probably on both sides.

Now that the extradition piece is clear, all parties may resume bellowing at each other about their moral superiority.   Yawn.


----------

