To not understand what Laurie Love's Aspergers has to do with his extradition

[Olympiathequeen]

Not an autism bashing thread please.

But he is a political activist. He knew what he was doing and that it was wrong.

If 10 year olds who know the difference between right and wrong can be held criminally responsible why can't he?

He caused damage and expense to the US government so he should pay for it like anyone else.

He may be a suicide risk but so are many people in jail.

Surely his Aspergers is irrelevant?

hope you go put your new found snorkelling skills to the test Katy

Ooh I can snorkel? Awesome!

Well I'm autistic and I hold down a ft well paying job, am married and have a family, have a degree...what's that, not all autistic people can do that? Shut uuuuuupppp!

I presume his dad being a vicar would be able to sort some emotional and practical support in the US

It's brilliant isn't it!

All those people out there not realising that my DS has just ensure the entire population of people with and can snorkel.

I'm going to teach him to ice skate now just to fuck with you.

That should be 'with asd '
My joy at the whole world snorkelling confused my typing.

I can't snorkel. Clearly the psychologist who diagnosed me got it wrong

There are charlatans out there CloudPerson

I personally know several people with autism and if they claim not to snorkel it's usually so they get special treatment. I know it's not PC to say that but some just pretend to drown.

I didn't think I could snorkel because I've never been persuaded that I should try breathing underwater. Now thanks to Paggers I know I can. Hurrah!

Hurrah

Yes fish I'm sure his vicar Dad would be able to help him through a ridiculously long sentence, in a strange country, in a strange environment, with no moral support, and a ludicrously strict prison system. But yeah, it'll all be okay because his Dad can pray for him

Jesus wept. pardon the pun

Ahh crap dd just got the highest rate of DLA.

They are going to be so annoyed when I tell them she can actually snorkel now.

TheUnworthy send her on an intensive snorkelling course asap. It'll all be fine

DS gets high rate DLA and low rate mobility and he is very good at snorkelling. Which is useful because lifeguards always think he's drowning if we go swimming without a snorkel because of the flailing and guppy face.

You can get an all in one mask and snorkel from Decathlon which is utterly brilliant

put countless people at risk

This is what they said about Chelsea Manning despite offering no evidence in support. Ms Manning is doing 35 years. AFAIK the US is offering no evidence in support of their extradition bid in this case.

www.theguardian.com/law/2016/nov/14/amber-rudd-approves-lauri-love-extradition-to-us-on-hacking-charges

His lawyers have compared his case to MacKinnon. Personally I think they are both vety different types of cases. MacKinnon was looking for prof of aliens. Whereas it is alleged that Laurie is a political activist, and his hacking was part of a wider political campaign.

Brasty The cases are different but in terms of extradition they are the same - both with ASD, both with severe depression, both suicide risks. Remember, whether or not to extradite doesn't concern the actual charges, but whether or not extradition would be incompatible with their human rights.

Gutted, yes sorry, legally you are right. I supported MacKinnon not being extradited. But I did support that because of the moral case of what he was being charged for, rather than the legal case.

What is going to happen to human rights once we have left Europe? I assume the UN convention will still apply but not the EU human rights. If this case is still ongoing after we have exited Europe is it more likely that Laurie will be extradited?

I don't know Six I try not to think about that. I do have desperate fantasies though that Finland would step in (he has Finnish citizenship too) but that's about as likely as the Queen suddenly deciding to get involved!

I wanted to know a bit more about extraditions to the US and found some infor in the UK embassy website
uk.usembassy.gov/our-relationship/policy-history/the-u-s-uk-extradition-treaty/frequently-asked-questions-on-the-us-uk-extradition-relationship/

It seems that it is just as easy to request an extradition from the US to the UK as vice Versa and to date the US have not blocked any UK extradition requests whereas the UK have blocked 10 requests from the US (since the new treaty was introduced).
That answers a lot of questions and concerns that I had as it seems from what I have read (and independent reports confirm) that the standard of proof required is more or less the same for extradition in either direction (US and UK), although it is very scanty as it is just 'probable'.
Having read a bit I do think the UK takes extradition requests quite seriously and doesn't just agree to what the US wants.
I still don't really understand much about cyber crime and why Laurie is considered to have committed a crime in the US rather than the UK when he was on British soil when he carried out his acts.
I suppose human rights are very important in cases like Lauries and leaving the EU is something that I can only imagine will be hugely damaging to current human rights protection.

It is exceptionally unlikely that we will withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights - being a signatory is a prerequisite for joining the EU but it is not part of the EU. Lots of non EU countries are signatories to the ECHR.

We might repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 which is domestic law but that will not affect our obligations under the ECHR.

Wow that US Embassy explanation is ridiculous! Not a good idea to trust the US's word on whether a treaty that benefits them is unbalanced.

Take a look at these www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-16041824
Important part The 2003 Act effectively made it easier for the US to seek the extradition of someone from the UK because the US would no longer need to provide a "prima facie" case to British courts - proving your case on the face of available evidence
The burden of proof on the US is that they need an indictment from a Grand Jury - the evidence and what goes on in that indictment is kept secret. So in essence, all the US needs to provide is allegations whereas the UK needs to provide enough evidence - A critical test set out in the treaty is that the British request must include "such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offence for which extradition is requested."
This requirement does not apply to requests submitted by the US to the UK

This explains in more detail www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

Also the successful extradition from the US are not for crimes committed while on US soil, but crimes committed in the UK, after which the suspect left the UK and returned to the US before a case could be brought (that is cases up until the end of 2011, the US Embassy states that more extraditions have taken place since then but no details of what they were, but does state that they cannot tell whether they were all US citizens but indeed they were citizens of a variety of countries so there's a good chance a lot of them were UK citizens who fled to the US after committing crimes)

Wow that US Embassy explanation is ridiculous! Not a good idea to trust the US's word on whether a treaty that benefits them is unbalanced

It isn't the US embassy explanation. It is the UK embassy explanation. On the UK embassy website.