General Discussion

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

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

Reply to rug (Reply #98)

Sun Feb 2, 2014, 06:54 PM

Feb 2014

an extradition without a conviction or an indictment?

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

107 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EVERY Extradition Treaty Means The Same Thing: We Trust Your System, and You Trust Ours. [View all] Fred Sanders Feb 2014 OP

Why does this mean so much to you? Cooley Hurd Feb 2014 #1

Knox knox. Who's there? Amanda. Amanda who? Electric Monk Feb 2014 #4

Perhaps this will help. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #9

Being so concerned about my edits seems to confound your ability to look at the evidence. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #14

I am not "concerned" Fred. I think you are funny. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #15

I'm going to echo cali's response to you... Cooley Hurd Feb 2014 #22

He joined DU last month and this is his third anti-Amanda OP in three or four days. pnwmom Feb 2014 #47

You seem very attached to this case. Is there some sort of MineralMan Feb 2014 #2

It's pretty funny that he thinks he'll appeal to us by citing RAYGUN. pnwmom Feb 2014 #51

Because I believe in the rule of law, not the rule of media. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #3

So where do you stand on Clapper lying to Congress? n/t Fumesucker Feb 2014 #6

And the law will take its due course, as usual. MineralMan Feb 2014 #8

Too bad the rule of law wasn't followed in this case huh? sked14 Feb 2014 #16

+1. n/r pnwmom Feb 2014 #52

That's hilarious considering she was convicted in the Euro press Bonx Feb 2014 #17

And yet this "conviction" was all about the Euro media. Adrahil Feb 2014 #35

Italy hasn't been following its own law, so there goes that argument. pnwmom Feb 2014 #48

Umm. Reagan? Trust? Rule of law? Those don't go together at all. suffragette Feb 2014 #89

If you're going to quote a president, you should spell his name correctly. smokey nj Feb 2014 #5

Oh, I guess I'll have to jump in Cha Feb 2014 #39

No, it's RonnieRaygunRotInHell. Just thought I'd clear that one up. freshwest Feb 2014 #71

thanks! Cha Feb 2014 #72

do you have something against attractive women that are sexually active? Whisp Feb 2014 #7

No more than against attractive men that are sexually active. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #10

something really bothersome about your obsession Whisp Feb 2014 #11

Are they "sex fiends", too? Ikonoklast Feb 2014 #105

Sorry, I don't want to see Amanda Knox sacrificed on the altar of legalism. Comrade Grumpy Feb 2014 #12

Exactly cpwm17 Feb 2014 #18

They don't have to "fight it tooth and nail". They can simply disregard the treaty. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #20

You'll find that no extradition treaty says 'you ask, we deliver' and that cases of trials without Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #26

There's nothing in the treaty about being "convinced it's a just conviction". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #28

Being objective about the application of extradition law seems to beyond too many, now they mock... Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #29

Article 10 requires Bluenorthwest Feb 2014 #34

That provision applies only to "a person who has not yet been convicted". Read it. (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #41

Nope, they don't have to disregard anything. Adrahil Feb 2014 #36

You've never heard of someone being retried in the USA, following an overturned conviction, Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #42

Please post a cite. Adrahil Feb 2014 #43

OK, that took seconds. "Man who murdered girlfriend found guilty again after retrial". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #44

There's a key difference. Adrahil Feb 2014 #45

You said "in the USA, you cannot be retried for the same crime". Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #46

Well, I'll accept that criticism, but.... Adrahil Feb 2014 #49

No, it's been disregarded before in particular cases. It will be followed when it makes sense. pnwmom Feb 2014 #50

Which is EXACTLY why, when Italy requested the extradition lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #13

Under the NATO charter, he was courtmartialed in the US (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #19

but was not extradited to Italy lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #21

The courts ruled that the NATO charter overrode the extradition treaty. Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #23

but you agree that there is precedent to ignore the extradition request. lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #24

If there is another treaty that happens to apply in this case, Nye Bevan Feb 2014 #27

She was denied a multitude of Constitutional protections. Adrahil Feb 2014 #37

There was never a request made, it was requested by the prosecutors and refused by the Minister. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #55

different case... please reread my post - n/t lapfog_1 Feb 2014 #66

Italian prosecutors wanted the four Marines to stand trial in Italy but an Italian court recognized Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #68

Fred I feel for ya, I really do, but you gotta let it go tkmorris Feb 2014 #25

At least three anti-Amanda OP's in the last few days. He's on a roll. pnwmom Feb 2014 #53

This has now moved into the realm of pathology. 11 Bravo Feb 2014 #30

... freshwest Feb 2014 #75

She would have NEVER EVER been found guilty under our justice system tandot Feb 2014 #31

Ob·ses·sion [uhb-sesh-uhn] WillowTree Feb 2014 #32

I refer you and your obsession to this. hobbit709 Feb 2014 #33

why is this so important to warrant 2 separate threads about it? La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2014 #38

Actually Fred has started three OPs on this subject. DURHAM D Feb 2014 #40

His third in a few days, actually. The first was locked. n/t pnwmom Feb 2014 #54

OMG! ARE WE DOING THIS AGAIN!?!? bravenak Feb 2014 #56

Well. Many have, the ones not drinking from the American media fountain of misinformation. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #59

Dude, you used Reagan to make your point. bravenak Feb 2014 #60

He signed the extradition treaty after confirmation from Congress, so what, I should change history? Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #61

I'm not clever? bravenak Feb 2014 #63

Three threads is obsessive? You need to find another dictionary. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #65

Yes. Three threads in two days on the same subject by a poster is Obsessive. bravenak Feb 2014 #67

Your definition seems to demand you look in the mirror.....about my three OP's. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #69

That doesn't make sense. bravenak Feb 2014 #70

!!! freshwest Feb 2014 #78

YES! Especially when it's the SAME thing Blue_Roses Feb 2014 #74

Yes. You are being scary obsessed with this story. I haven't been logged in often ScreamingMeemie Feb 2014 #82

To put all of the theories to rest I did not get turned down by Amanada, I did not kick the dog, Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #90

Scary obsessed it is then. ScreamingMeemie Feb 2014 #92

Oh, no! You did not say that to her! And I was going to defend your rights. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #77

Yeah, sure you were. How offended are you by the hateful comments about me? Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #91

I didn't agree with any of them. But now that you have decided to sneer at me, too, it freshwest Feb 2014 #94

Sir, I apologize if I offended you. Not my style. Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #95

Thank you and keep on keeping on. We're cool. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #103

It's nice to have something reliable, isn't it? I hope to see many more of these. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #76

They are fun. bravenak Feb 2014 #81

Until he dissed you, but you handled it very well. n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #83

Poor guy. bravenak Feb 2014 #84

Muahaha! Hey, are you in the Pacific Time Zone? Or something else? n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #85

Alaska Standard Time. bravenak Feb 2014 #86

I knew there was a difference, didn't know how much. When I lived in CTZ I used to get calls in the freshwest Feb 2014 #87

That's funny. bravenak Feb 2014 #88

In the future, can you please put the word "Knox" in all your thread titles? Contrary1 Feb 2014 #57

LOL ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #58

No kidding. jsr Feb 2014 #62

Obsessions ohheckyeah Feb 2014 #64

Reagan the Trustworthy? Whisp Feb 2014 #73

Gee a treaty from 30 years ago bluestateguy Feb 2014 #79

Now, now, we don't wanna be a rogue nation! (Oops...) n/t freshwest Feb 2014 #80

Article X, Section 5 rug Feb 2014 #93

This message was self-deleted by its author Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #96

No. It simply means being convicted in absentia/noncompliance is exactly the same as if you were Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #97

For purposes of a conviction, yes. For purposes of extradition, no. rug Feb 2014 #98

No need to mock. The treaty is clear, the paperwork procedure is a formaility. How do you get Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #99

Well, you can seek extradition to prosecute if you have a warrant, rug Feb 2014 #101

Agreed, but the process of the additional information is nothing more than affirmation from the Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #102

It's more than that. rug Feb 2014 #106

Agreed, the final step is approval by the State Department, then the politics begin, but I thought Fred Sanders Feb 2014 #107

oy spanone Feb 2014 #100

The State Department and John Kerry have is sign off Gothmog Feb 2014 #104