to the United States. First of all, they haven't even bothered to sign the agreement themselves so they don't have to send anybody to us for trial but we have to dend whoevever they request. Secondly, it takes a tabloid newspaper to make public a vital piece of video evidence with regards to the death of a british soldier in Iraq (available at the Sun website). The Americans think that they are untouchable so we, as a nation should not be sending suspects over there in a matter of weeks when they may not even get a fair trial.
2007-02-05 21:12:40 · 4 answers · asked by deadguns1 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Heck, I'm American, but it sounds to me like you make a good argument. Fair is fair. If we entered into an agreement, we should be held accountable for pulling our weight or explaining why we want to change the agreement.
Friends don't let friends be international bullies.
2007-02-05 21:33:06 · answer #1 · answered by Vaughn 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think it's a little worse than you say. The extradition arrangements were rushed in following the so-called 'war on terror' being declared, with the view to extradite 'evil-doers' quickly. Yet the only person who so far has been extradited was a banker involved with Enron! A perfect example of why we need to be careful with these so-called 'anti-terrorist' laws...
2007-02-05 22:22:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It certainly is.Why should we be playing second fiddle to the USA?We are a country in our own rite,its just that we are not too big for our boots like our Bully Boy "allies"??
2007-02-05 21:47:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes we should stop extradition.We do not agree with there laws.
2007-02-07 22:22:04 · answer #4 · answered by Ollie 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋