I dont think the russians need to hand over that spy!?

Question

if we want that russian spy then we should send back all them russians thats the russians want. other wise that is double standards and isnt fair on them. They got a valid arguement

Answer 1

Yes, good point, but did the Russians they want kill on Russian soil?
If no, there is no valid argument!

They are harbouring a suspected murder and using a constitution that they themselves abuse to suit themselves!

Answer 2

No, Putin doesn't have a valid argument.

Putin's regime is wanting his political opponents living in exile in Britain extradited back to Russia so that he could shut them up.

Putin wanted Litvinenko extradited because he was speaking out about the bad deeds of Putin's regime - murdering journalists, for example.

We want Lugovoi to stand trial for an actual murder - an assassination he carried out with orders from the Kremlin.

So the two extradition requests are different altogether.

So what would be a hypothetical British example which WOULD be double standards, to explain to you the difference?

Just supposing, oh I don't know, someone like George Galloway MP, instead of just being banned from the Commons for 18 days, well supposing the UK government wanted to lock George Galloway away for life - and not let him speak to the media from his jail cell either. Wanted to lock him away to shut him up for ever.

Suppose George Galloway fled to Russia, to escape life imprisonment - and suppose then, Gordon Brown demanded George Galloway's extradition back to Britain to stand trial and get him jailed for life, and suppose THAT was refused by Putin, and we complained. THAT WOULD BE DOUBLE STANDARDS.

Silencing a political opponent is different from bringing a murderer to justice. So it isn't double standards really.

Answer 3

You are quite right to some degree. But the difference is that we want their spy for a murder that he is suspected of committing, whilst the Russians want their citizens back just to shut them up by jailing them for no apparent reason

Answer 4

Why should send them Russians for Russians? Shouldn't you Send English for Russians?
We are supposed to be civilized nations. When there is a charge like this with as much evidence as there is, a nation should send him for trial. I don't like the idea of the Russian government sending hit men over to kill people they do not like in other countries. That seems like an act of war to me.

Answer 5

The problem lies in that we cannot because of the Human Rights act send anyone to Russia to face charges because Russia is not known for its fair trials, and Humane treatment of prisoners.

What it is known for is "selective application of the law" "human rights abuses" and people misteriously "dissapearing" never to return, this is why Britain cannot extradite anyone to Russia.

Russia regularly flaunts its own constitution, and many recent acts by the govt have defied those of a democratic institution.

Answer 6

Yes; let us allow any nation to send an assassin carrying dangerous radioactive material, which risks the health of thousands, tens of thousands of innocent British civilians... so they can kill just one man.

Perfect sense.

Answer 7

i really don't understand to which spy you refer. espionage is part of the game...we have them ,they have them, but if you referring to the assassins who killed with plutonium, then that is a different matter. that is criminal and criminals should be extradited to stand trail for their crimes. last i heard, murder is still a crime.

my statements are predicated on the assumption that is to whom you are referring.

Answer 8

Espionage is a game. Never be fooled by deception.

Answer 9

russia is on a right side . why would any country hand its citizin to any other country

Answer 10

i agree goverment here are two faced