British parliament members urge Obama to halt hacking suspect’s US extradition

[Independent voter]

Asperger's has been done away with in the US, it might still exist in Britain. It's all autism over here now.

[Deleted]

This week, culture minister Matt Hancock and more than 100 fellow MPs (Members of Parliament) have signed a letter calling on president Barack Obama to block Lauri Love's extradition to the US to face trial over the alleged hacking of the US missile defence agency, the FBI, and America's central bank.

Why are they doing this?
I was under the impression that the UK parliament was sovereign?
They could just tell their own courts not to grant the extradition request.

[Deleted]

They probably wouldn't,

They do in like 50 different cases for the rest of Europe.

[Kalis]

Why are they doing this?
I was under the impression that the UK parliament was sovereign?
They could just tell their own courts not to grant the extradition request.

The Government can block any extradition request - they have done so in the past - random MPs can't. Or are you suggesting that 100 out of 650 MPs should be able to block a court decision?

[Deleted]

Because in your non-professional opinion you feel it's bad because well other people say the book is bad, so I guess everything in the book is a big problem.

No the DSM is bad, because it includes things that are not actually disorders.

[Kalis]

They do in like 50 different cases for the rest of Europe.

What has that got to do with the UK?

[Deleted]

The Government can block any extradition request - they have done so in the past - random MPs can't. Or are you suggesting that 100 out of 650 MPs should be able to block a court decision?

I was mocking brexiters.
They should be up in arms about their vaunted parliament having to beg a foreign leader to get their wish across.
And they could stay it in five seconds, just pass a bill instructing the courts not to grant the request, or forbid the government from executing it.

- - - Updated - - -

What has that got to do with the UK?

You assumed they wouldn't refuse an extradition request, and as i pointed out, there are dozens of outstanding warrants they refuse to honor.
The absence of them refusing a request should not be interpreted as absence of refusal, is what i'm saying.

[Mehrunes]

So far about all you've got is "BOOK BAD." It's funny because prior to DSM V Asperger's was regarded as separate from autism. Even acknowledging it as high functioning autism is a result of DSM V. You're using the viewpoint of DSM V (as does ICD 10 in this case), while still quibbling over the specific label used. I'm well aware of the criticisms of DSM V, but in acknowledging Asperger's is on the autism scale you're basically arguing against something you've adopted on this issue. It'd be one thing if you wanted to argue they were completely different, as they were considered to be in the past, but all you're doing is whining about the name, which is pretty much a nonissue.

How exactly does ICD-10 use the viewpoint of DSM V here?

[Kalis]

I was mocking brexiters.

Except there is a problem with your reasoning, notably...

They should be up in arms about their vaunted parliament having to beg a foreign leader to get their wish across.

Parliament is not having to beg anyone, it is some MPs doing so, not Parliament. MPs ask for all sorts of random shit, they don't get their way unless they have a majority and/or can get the PM on side to use the whip.

And they could stay it in five seconds, just pass a bill instructing the courts not to grant the request, or forbid the government from executing it.

Parliament could indeed stop it, but 100 MPs do not represent a majority in Parliament, nor do they have the right to forbid the Government from doing anything. There are 650 MPs, 100 is not a majority.

[Deleted]

Britain should not extradite citizens until the US ratifies their end of the treaty.

Would anyone like to guess how many US citizens have been extradited to the uk, in total, ever?

[Kalis]

You assumed they wouldn't refuse an extradition request, and as i pointed out, there are dozens of outstanding warrants they refuse to honor.
The absence of them refusing a request should not be interpreted as absence of refusal, is what i'm saying.

No, I am saying in a reverse case they would not refuse, not that they would never refuse. Britain has refused extradition requests from the US, it happens from time to time.

Sometimes we allegedly encourage the US to put in an extradition request *cough*Abu Hamza*cough*

[Independent voter]

Why are they doing this?
I was under the impression that the UK parliament was sovereign?
They could just tell their own courts not to grant the extradition request.

Extradition treaties work both ways, we send British criminals to Britain and they send US criminals to the US.

[Flarelaine]

As an autistic person, this is what pisses me off about this whole situation, just because this guy has high-functioning autism, doesn't mean he should get a lighter sentence or not be held accountable for his actions.

This.

I'm in the same boat myself.

If he was fit enough for the crime, he's fit enough for the punishment.

[Deleted]

Except there is a problem with your reasoning, notably...

Not really.
Mostly because Mockery is not mean to be 'reason'.

Parliament is not having to beg anyone, it is some MPs doing so, not Parliament. MPs ask for all sorts of random shit, they don't get their way unless they have a majority and/or can get the PM on side to use the whip.

yes, you are right, they should form a single issue party to end the extradition treaty.
They could call it the FUKP.

Parliament could indeed stop it, but 100 MPs do not represent a majority in Parliament, nor do they have the right to forbid the Government from doing anything. There are 650 MPs, 100 is not a majority.

Have they introduced a bill? - Have they done fuck all?
They have the power in their own hand to change this - But instead they beg their overlord friend the US not to ask them to do something they have the power to refuse.

[Kalis]

Extradition treaties work both ways, we send British criminals to Britain and they send US criminals to the US.

The problem is that US keeps asking for British criminals to be sent to the US, whereas we want you to keep your criminals.

The major issue is the internet, UK citizens are committing crimes in the UK against UK companies, but because one aspect of the crime went through a US server, company, or whatever, the US is claiming it falls under their jurisdiction.

The US is following the letter of the treaty, not the spirit these things are intended in - though having said that, it was a Blair-era treaty, so what he wanted may have been exactly this.

- - - Updated - - -

Not really.
Mostly because Mockery is not mean to be 'reason'.

There is a problem, because you can't tell the difference between 'some MPs' and 'Parliament', so your mockery makes no sense.

Have they introduced a bill? - Have they done fuck all?
They have the power in their own hand to change this - But instead they beg their overlord friend the US not to ask them to do something they have the power to refuse.

And once again, 100 MPs do not have the power to refuse it, so you are categorically wrong in claiming that, hence why your attempt at mockery fell flat.

Theresa May can order the Home Secretary to refuse it (that is the evidence of sovereignty of Westminster you have failed to grasp), she hasn't done so.

[Independent voter]

The problem is that US keeps asking for British criminals to be sent to the US, whereas we want you to keep your criminals.

The major issue is the internet, UK citizens are committing crimes in the UK against UK companies, but because one aspect of the crime went through a US server, company, or whatever, the US is claiming it falls under their jurisdiction.

The US is following the letter of the treaty, not the spirit these things are intended in - though having said that, it was a Blair-era treaty, so what he wanted may have been exactly this.

From the information available, between January 2004 and 30 March 2012, there have been seven known US citizens extradited from the US to the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...ted-in-US.html

All their crimes were committed in Britain though.

[Kalis]

All their crimes were committed in Britain though.

Which is how it should be.

You should not be subject to prosecution in the UK under UK law if you have never left Bumfucksville, Ohio, nor the UK equivalent.

[Captain Proton]

Which is how it should be.

You should not be subject to prosecution in the UK under UK law if you have never left Bumfucksville, Ohio, nor the UK equivalent.

If we lived in a world without the internet, sure.

[Kalis]

If we lived in a world without the internet, sure.

What you may have done might not be illegal where you live, so should you be prosecuted for insulting Allah in Kentucky, because it is forbidden in Saudi Arabia, just because you posted on a Saudi-based forum?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

The major issue is the internet, UK citizens are committing crimes in the UK against UK companies, but because one aspect of the crime went through a US server, company, or whatever, the US is claiming it falls under their jurisdiction.

I thought in this case, the hacker in question attacked the US, not UK companies.