EVERY Extradition Treaty Means The Same Thing: We Trust Your System, and You Trust Ours.

[Fred Sanders]

Otherwise why bother with them?
________________

RONALD REAGAN.

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Washington, April 10, 1984.

The PRESIDENT,

The White House.

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty on Extradition between the
United States of America and Italy, signed at Rome on October 13, 1983. I recommend that
the Treaty be transmitted to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification.

The Treaty follows generally the form and content of extradition treaties recently concluded
by this Government.

Article 1 obligates each State to extradite to the other, in accordance with the terms of the
Treaty, any persons charged with or convicted of an extraditable offense by the requesting
State. (Extradition [*3] shall also be granted, Article 2 explains, for attempts to commit,
participation in the commission of, and conspiracy to commit extraditable offenses.)

Article 2 permits extradition for any offense punishable under the laws of both States by
imprisonment for more than one year. Instead of listing each offense for which extradition
may be granted, as was United States practice until recently, this Treaty adopts the modern
practice of permitting extradition for any crime punishable under the laws of both contracting
Parties for a minimum period. This obviates the need to renegotiate or supplement the Treaty
should both States pass laws covering new types of criminal activity, such as computer-
related crimes.

Article 2 also follows the practice of recent United States extradition treaties in indicating
that the dual criminality standard should be interpreted liberally in order to effectuate the
intent of the Parties that fugitives be brought to justice.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Why does this mean so much to you?

[Electric Monk]

4. Knox knox. Who's there? Amanda. Amanda who?

[DURHAM D]

9. Perhaps this will help.

http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/the-amanda-knox-haters-society-how-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/#ixzz2s67KsOmP

The Amanda Knox Haters Society: How They Learned to Hate Me Too

Viewpoint: The author of a book on the young American accused of murder in Perugia recalls her adventures with the “guilters”

If you have taken a dive down into the Amanda Knox rabbit hole, you will discover a couple of persistent acronyms. The first is PMF. That would be the Perugia Murder File, operated by a Seattle housewife and former French translator who is dedicated to the guilt of Amanda Knox. The other acronym you will encounter is TJMK, which stands for “True Justice For Meredith Kercher”—the young British woman murdered in this case–and is run by a New Jersey-based Englishman who claims that at one time he consulted at the United Nations.

ETA: I see the OP already has 2 edits. Do you think he/she can match their prior record of 22?

[Fred Sanders]

14. Being so concerned about my edits seems to confound your ability to look at the evidence.

[DURHAM D]

15. I am not "concerned" Fred. I think you are funny.

[Cooley Hurd]

22. I'm going to echo cali's response to you...

Creepy. VERY creepy.

[pnwmom]

47. He joined DU last month and this is his third anti-Amanda OP in three or four days.

He was locked the first time he posted extensively from a hate site. I've been glad to see that DU'ers for the most part aren't falling for the lies.

[MineralMan]

2. You seem very attached to this case. Is there some sort of

personal link between you and the Amanda Knox case?

You don't have to answer, but the question seems appropriate.

[pnwmom]

51. It's pretty funny that he thinks he'll appeal to us by citing RAYGUN.

This guy joined DU last month and this is his third anti-Amanda OP in a few days. His sources are hate sites. These guys are all over the web; I guess the only surprise is that it took this long for one of them to set up shop on DU.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Because I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of media.

[Fumesucker]

6. So where do you stand on Clapper lying to Congress? n/t

[MineralMan]

8. And the law will take its due course, as usual.

Whether Amanda Knox is extradited or not does not depend on personal opinions. There will be hearings, if Italy asks for extradition. It will be decided, based on those hearings.

Again, why is this so important to you?

[sked14]

16. Too bad the rule of law wasn't followed in this case huh?

Let's see here, a corrupt interrogation by police, a corrupt prosecutor under indictment at the time, an appeals court who, correctly, acquitted her, and then, another trial that falsely convicted her.
Yeah, that's the rule of law your defending.

[pnwmom]

52. +1. n/r

[Bonx]

17. That's hilarious considering she was convicted in the Euro press

based on lies & terrible crime scene investigation by the Italian police/prosecutors.

[Adrahil]

35. And yet this "conviction" was all about the Euro media.

The "evidence" in this case against Knox is incredibly weak. The directed verdict, oh I mean"appeal" is based almost entirely on public outrage fueled by anti-Americanism. You'll forgive me if I think you concern about the rule of law is entirely misplaced.

[pnwmom]

48. Italy hasn't been following its own law, so there goes that argument.

Italy is supposed to be deciding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, just as here, but instead the high court ruled that they should consider the "totality" of the evidence regardless of how flawed the evidence is.

And Italy encourages jurors during the long trials to watch media reports, discuss the case with family and friends, and to bring back everything they hear to the jury room. That isn't the rule of law. It IS the rule of media.

[suffragette]

89. Umm. Reagan? Trust? Rule of law? Those don't go together at all.

From his early days spreading propaganda against true universal health care (single payer) to Iran Contra and on and on, trust and rule of law are pretty much the opposite of his actions.

Now, deceit - that would fit much better.

[smokey nj]

5. If you're going to quote a president, you should spell his name correctly.

[Cha]

39. Oh, I guess I'll have to jump in

here for this one.. yeah, really should spell the name right. Or at least spell it this way.

"raygun."

[freshwest]

71. No, it's RonnieRaygunRotInHell. Just thought I'd clear that one up.

[Cha]

72. thanks!

fresh

[Whisp]

7. do you have something against attractive women that are sexually active?

[Fred Sanders]

10. No more than against attractive men that are sexually active.

[Whisp]

11. something really bothersome about your obsession

[Ikonoklast]

105. Are they "sex fiends", too?

You know, what you called Amanda Knox based on a total fabrication?

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. Sorry, I don't want to see Amanda Knox sacrificed on the altar of legalism.

Sometimes, the law is an ass. In this case, the Italian justice system has created a perverse and unjust result. I would support my government if it fought any extradition attempt tooth and nail.

There is the law, and there is justice. They aren't always congruent.

[cpwm17]

18. Exactly

Any soulless bureaucrat that sends an innocent American citizen to a foreign nation to be gobbled up by their "justice" system should lose their job, or worse.

US taxpayers pay US Government officials to serves US interests.

[Nye Bevan]

20. They don't have to "fight it tooth and nail". They can simply disregard the treaty.

It's not like Italy is going to send troops to attempt to capture Knox. Of course, following this course means that the treaty is essentially meaningless and might as well be ripped up.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. You'll find that no extradition treaty says 'you ask, we deliver' and that cases of trials without

the presence of the accused merit very special attention. The nation being asked has to be convinced it is a just conviction. They do not have to agree instantly. There is a process which has not even been started yet. Until a formal and complete request is made, there is nothing to regard or to disregard.

[Nye Bevan]

28. There's nothing in the treaty about being "convinced it's a just conviction".

See for yourself:

http://www.mcnabbassociates.com/Italy%20International%20Extradition%20Treaty%20with%20the%20United%20States.pdf

Also, I'm not sure that someone deserves bonus points for deliberately staying away from their own trial.

[Fred Sanders]

29. Being objective about the application of extradition law seems to beyond too many, now they mock...

in place of reason.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. Article 10 requires

"a summary of the facts of the case, of the relevant evidence and of the conclusions reached, providing a reasonable basis to believe that the person sought committed the offense for which extradition is requested"

The nation being requested of course decides if there is reasonable basis to believe the person committed the offense. This is a hole you could drive a Fiat through. 'We find there is insufficient basis to conclude she is guilty'.
We have extradition treaties with countries such as Nigeria, so the tile of the OP is simply not correct. Trust has nothing to do with it. Due process on the other hand does.
So first thing is that the Italian magistrate needs to request extradition following the forms and protocols of the treaty agreement. They have not yet done so. Then the US would review and act as the US sees fit.

[Nye Bevan]

41. That provision applies only to "a person who has not yet been convicted". Read it. (nt)

[Adrahil]

36. Nope, they don't have to disregard anything.

They can simply deny the request based on the opinion of the USA that double-jeopardy attaches, which sure seems to be the case. The Italian high court essentially directed a verdict. Ther is no justice in that.

[Nye Bevan]

42. You've never heard of someone being retried in the USA, following an overturned conviction,

and then the person being found guilty again upon being retried? It is not at all uncommon and does not at all violate "double jeopardy".

[Adrahil]

43. Please post a cite.

In the USA, you cannot be retried for the same crime. If you can show otherwise, please do.

[Nye Bevan]

44. OK, that took seconds. "Man who murdered girlfriend found guilty again after retrial".

The trick is to Google the following: retried "found guilty again" -knox because without the "-knox" the results are dominated by the Knox case.

Man who murdered girlfriend found guilty again after retrial

SYRACUSE -- 39 year-old James Guilford, the Syracuse man who was accused of killing his girlfriend in 2007, has been convicted again for the murder after his original conviction from 2008 was tossed out.

Guilford was found guilty on Tuesday for killing Sharon Nugent and disposing of her body. Nugent's body has never been found.

Guilford's original conviction was thrown out by the state Court of Appeals in June 2013 after his 49-hour interrogation by Syracuse police was determined a violation of his rights. Guilford did not sleep during the interview and then waited in a cell for eight more hours before confessing in the presence of his lawyer.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=994352#.Uu2ojrSAmaI

[Adrahil]

45. There's a key difference.

Tossing the verdict was based upon the use of tainted evidence that was NOT used in the retrial. It was a procedural decision, not one based on the merits. In the Knox case, they used all the original "evidence" including the crappy evidence. This was not a procedural ruling, as in the case you cite, but a judgment on the merits, which would not fly in US Courts. I thought that was obvious.

[Nye Bevan]

46. You said "in the USA, you cannot be retried for the same crime".

That is patently false, as I have just shown, your attempt to move the goalposts notwithstanding.

[Adrahil]

49. Well, I'll accept that criticism, but....

In the case you cited, the entire trial was invalidated due to the use of tainted evidence. That is not the case in the Knox case. Can you honestly say that Knox got a fair shake in that shambles of a "legal" system? Even if you believe she is guilty, the "process" is full of all kinds of WTF. And before you ask, yeah, I think we should tear up the extradition treaty. Their process is like something from the Salem witch trials!

[pnwmom]

50. No, it's been disregarded before in particular cases. It will be followed when it makes sense.

But if we have to tear it up, so be it.

[lapfog_1]

13. Which is EXACTLY why, when Italy requested the extradition

of US Marine Corps Captain Richard Ashby for causing the deaths of 20 people in a accident involving his hot dogging his jet aircraft and a collision with a ski gondola cable, we sent his ass to Italy to "face the music" of Italian justice.

oh wait... we didn't do that? Ooops.

[Nye Bevan]

19. Under the NATO charter, he was courtmartialed in the US (nt)

[lapfog_1]

21. but was not extradited to Italy

he never faced Italian justice.

And Italy (even as a Nato member) requested it.

[Nye Bevan]

23. The courts ruled that the NATO charter overrode the extradition treaty.

I don't think this is an issue in the Knox case.

[lapfog_1]

24. but you agree that there is precedent to ignore the extradition request.

A court here might rule on some other issue that extradition requests under the treaty could be denied.

[Nye Bevan]

27. If there is another treaty that happens to apply in this case,

and explicitly precludes the application of the extradition treaty, then certainly, yes.

[Adrahil]

37. She was denied a multitude of Constitutional protections.

We would be irresponsible to extradite her, IMO.

[Fred Sanders]

55. There was never a request made, it was requested by the prosecutors and refused by the Minister.

The Italian government originally denied having played any role in the abduction. However Italian prosecutors Armando Spataro and Ferdinand Enrico Pomarici indicted 26 CIA agents, including the Rome station chief and head of CIA in Italy until 2003, Jeffrey W. Castelli, and Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady, as well as SISMI head General Nicolò Pollari, his second Marco Mancini and station chiefs Raffaele Ditroia, Luciano Di Gregori and Giuseppe Ciorra.[4] Referring to the Italian military intelligence agency, the Italian press has talked of a "CIA-SISMI concerted operation." The prosecutors sent extradition requests for the indicted American citizens to the Italian Ministry of Justice, then headed by Roberto Castelli, for onward transmission to Washington. However Castelli refused to forward the demand for extradition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Omar_case

[lapfog_1]

66. different case... please reread my post - n/t

[Fred Sanders]

68. Italian prosecutors wanted the four Marines to stand trial in Italy but an Italian court recognized

that as a military officer NATO treaties gave jurisdiction to America, so not any legal parallel.
I acknowledge I misinterpreted your post, but many have also got the facts of what I posted wrong as to America refusing to extradite the CIA people; many, including TV talking heads, have it wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable_car_disaster_%281998%29

[tkmorris]

25. Fred I feel for ya, I really do, but you gotta let it go

It's not healthy. She's just not that into you.

[pnwmom]

53. At least three anti-Amanda OP's in the last few days. He's on a roll.

[11 Bravo]

30. This has now moved into the realm of pathology.

Have you ever considered the possibility that she really was sick on Prom Night and wasn't just blowing you off?

[freshwest]

75. ...

[tandot]

31. She would have NEVER EVER been found guilty under our justice system

after reading this article:

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

I am absolutely certain of it.

[WillowTree]

32. Ob·ses·sion [uhb-sesh-uhn]

1. The domination of one's thoughts or feelings by a persistent idea, image, desire, etc.

[hobbit709]

33. I refer you and your obsession to this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4426674

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. why is this so important to warrant 2 separate threads about it?

[DURHAM D]

40. Actually Fred has started three OPs on this subject.

Two yesterday and one today.

[pnwmom]

54. His third in a few days, actually. The first was locked. n/t

[bravenak]

56. OMG! ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN!?!?

I was amused by this obsession yesterday, but don't you think it's getting out of hand?
It's like she stood you up for a date or something! You'll find somebody who agrees with you someday....

[Fred Sanders]

59. Well. Many have, the ones not drinking from the American media fountain of misinformation.

[bravenak]

60. Dude, you used Reagan to make your point.

That cracked me up.
And now you are just being condescending. I deserve it, I did it to you first.
I think you should tell me who these people are who agree with you that Amanda Knox should just go turn herself in for murder because of

exclusive opportunity evidence and Knox WAS a party girl and sex fiend extraordinaire.

[Fred Sanders]

61. He signed the extradition treaty after confirmation from Congress, so what, I should change history?

By the way, you are not at all clever.

[bravenak]

63. I'm not clever?

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!
What you are doing by posting these threads one after another, showing how obsessed you are with this young woman is disgusting. That combined with the sexist post you had hidden yesterday shows us how 'clever' you are. By clever I mean something completely opposite to clever.

[Fred Sanders]

65. Three threads is obsessive? You need to find another dictionary.

[bravenak]

67. Yes. Three threads in two days on the same subject by a poster is Obsessive.

ob·ses·sive adjective \äb-ˈse-siv, əb-\
: thinking about something or someone too much or in a way that is not normal : having an obsession : showing or relating to an obsession

My dictionary is working just fine, hon. Maybe you need to check yours??

[Fred Sanders]

69. Your definition seems to demand you look in the mirror.....about my three OP's.

[bravenak]

70. That doesn't make sense.

It's not fair to respond to posts by not making any sense.
You're being obsessive about Amanda Knox, I'm laughing at you for it.
You're the one posting the threads about Amanda Knox.
I'm just replying to your latest " Throw the sex fiend extraordinaire Amanda Knox" in jail thread.
Please try to keep up.

[freshwest]

78. !!!

[Blue_Roses]

74. YES! Especially when it's the SAME thing

over and over! Changing the words and sentence structure DOES NOT change the content or intent--which is very obvious.

You cannot "brow-beat" your opinion into others with the loose and precarious "facts" you've used as your sources. Biased attempt only makes you look desperate and obsessed--which many here have already pointed out. The real question is why?

[ScreamingMeemie]

82. Yes. You are being scary obsessed with this story. I haven't been logged in often

this past week... and yet, I've seen three posts of yours on this...with caps and everything.

Did Amanda Knox kick your dog?
Are you part of Meredith's family? Otherwise, I don't get it, and it's rather frightening to be honest.

[Fred Sanders]

90. To put all of the theories to rest I did not get turned down by Amanada, I did not kick the dog,

I was not refused cookies, I am not fond of "crazy Italian law" and I am not family.

Any more questions?

__________

See that, I can not even spell her name correctly.

[ScreamingMeemie]

92. Scary obsessed it is then.

[freshwest]

77. Oh, no! You did not say that to her! And I was going to defend your rights. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

91. Yeah, sure you were. How offended are you by the hateful comments about me?

[freshwest]

94. I didn't agree with any of them. But now that you have decided to sneer at me, too, it

does no credit to the high ideas of justice and law you claim to be reason for the posts.

You are not going to make any converts with your viewpoint. If people dismiss you out of hand, put them on Ignore.

I thought you had good points, going with a basic logic, so to speak but I have not been at all informed on this case. Instead I avoided giving any time to what seemed to be another celebrity case. A young woman is dead, killed in a horrible fashion, for no reason. Check my posts on your other threads.

But your getting personal with other posters isn't helpful to your cause. I support your so-called obsession as a passion for the subject, but when you start with the personal attacks, not so much.

And I don't get offended at the so-called hateful comments to you any more than I do with what I consider a sneer from you now. If a person is being an ass to you on the board, ignore them.

I'm not onboard with either side of this, but perusing the different articles, some of your sense of injustice and heat may be an overreaction as others. I don't think people should make threads about you, either.

As far as Ignoring, I have a huge list. You are not on it yet.

[Fred Sanders]

95. Sir, I apologize if I offended you. Not my style.

Your well written comments will be taken to heart.

[freshwest]

103. Thank you and keep on keeping on. We're cool. n/t

[freshwest]

76. It's nice to have something reliable, isn't it? I hope to see many more of these. n/t

[bravenak]

81. They are fun.

I'll give him that.

[freshwest]

83. Until he dissed you, but you handled it very well. n/t

[bravenak]

84. Poor guy.

He must not know bout me.

[freshwest]

85. Muahaha! Hey, are you in the Pacific Time Zone? Or something else? n/t

[bravenak]

86. Alaska Standard Time.

One hour difference from the pacific time. It's 10:21 pm here.

[freshwest]

87. I knew there was a difference, didn't know how much. When I lived in CTZ I used to get calls in the

middle of the night (2-3 AM) from wrong numbers in Alaska. But I have no room to complain. I used to call the same wrong number to an elderly farmer in North Dakota when I was calling something in the CTZ on weekend mornings. I'd see the winter windchill on TWC and talk to him about it and he was quite friendly. Then I'd apologize and get off the line.

[bravenak]

88. That's funny.

I get calls from Texas and Pennsylvania at the crack of dawn from people I know and they expect me to be all chatty at four AM.

[Contrary1]

57. In the future, can you please put the word "Knox" in all your thread titles?

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[ohheckyeah]

58. LOL

EVERY Extradition Treaty Means The Same Thing: We Trust Your System, and WE Trust Yours: Pres Reagen

Did you even read what you wrote?

[jsr]

62. No kidding.

Well, fuck Reagan. LOL.

[ohheckyeah]

64. Obsessions

cause one to do odd things I think.

[Whisp]

73. Reagan the Trustworthy?

are you fucking kidding us?

[bluestateguy]

79. Gee a treaty from 30 years ago

Well, like Bush said when he pulled us out of the 30 year old ABM treaty in 2001, "it's outdated".

BFD!

[freshwest]

80. Now, now, we don't wanna be a rogue nation! (Oops...) n/t

[rug]

93. Article X, Section 5

5. If the person sought has been convicted in absentia or in contumacy, all issues relating to this aspect of the request shall be decided by the Executive Authority of the United States or the competent authorities of Italy. In such cases, the Requesting [*14] Party shall submit such documents as are described in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of this Article and a statement regarding the procedures, if any, that would be available to the person sought if he or she were extradited.

http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

She was convicted this time around in absentia. It's up to Obama.

[Fred Sanders]

97. No. It simply means being convicted in absentia/noncompliance is exactly the same as if you were

present.

on·tu·ma·cy
kənˈt(y)o͞oməsē,ˈkänt(y)əməsē/
noun
Lawarchaic
noun: contumacy

1.
stubborn refusal to obey or comply with authority, esp. a court order or summons.

[rug]

98. For purposes of a conviction, yes. For purposes of extradition, no.

That's why this section of the treaty requires procedural information.

What semester of law school are you in?

[Fred Sanders]

99. No need to mock. The treaty is clear, the paperwork procedure is a formaility. How do you get

an extradition without a conviction or an indictment?

[rug]

101. Well, you can seek extradition to prosecute if you have a warrant,

Or, as here, you can seek extradition after a conviction.

What's pertinent here is the treaty requires additional information on what procedures the defendant has available to challenge the legality of a conviction after a trial held in her absence.

[Fred Sanders]

102. Agreed, but the process of the additional information is nothing more than affirmation from the

requesting State that all the requirements of the treaty have been met, which is reviewed by a federal Judge before a warrant for arrest issues in America.

[rug]

106. It's more than that.

It's the due process the requesting state, in that state, affords to the defendant to challenge a conviction in absentia.

Its adequacy is determined by the Executive of the requested state, not the judiciary.

[Fred Sanders]

107. Agreed, the final step is approval by the State Department, then the politics begin, but I thought

we were talking legalities, not the politics of the matter.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/02/01/269546798/knox-case-could-put-u-s-in-an-extradition-quandry

A Decision For The State Department

When a country makes a valid extradition request, it's ultimately up to the State Department to decide whether or not to follow through.

Now, the U.S. has an extradition treaty with Italy, and politics shouldn't make a difference in the process, according to Clive Nicholls, a barrister in the U.K. who works on extradition cases and co-authored a book on the subject.

"You have a treaty, you apply it, and you are meant to do so dispassionately," Nicholls says.

That sounds pretty simple, but in reality, political considerations often call the shots.

"It certainly has happened where the secretary of state has decided not to extradite, even though there was no legal hurdle," says Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association.

"In making that decision, the secretary of state doesn't even have to give any reason for doing it," he says. "Under U.S. law, he or she can just make the decision."

[spanone]

100. oy

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Gothmog]

104. The State Department and John Kerry have is sign off

One talk show speculated that the Italian government may not even request extra addiction given the weakness of the case There will be further appeals. Hopefully the sane officials in the Italian government will realize that their justice system will be on trial if the ask for extradiction

Again the case against Knox is too weak to even get into a jury in the US