[aes256]

> Then he should be tried in the UK.

As it stands, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in the UK have shown no interest in prosecuting O'Dwyer, but US authorities have.

Perhaps O'Dwyer should be begging the CPS to prosecute him...

[mixmax]

so if an American did something that was illegal in Pakistan and the US had no interest in prosecuting you'd find it natural that an American citizen should be extradited to Pakistan and prosecuted there?

That's basically your argument.

[aes256]

As reitzensteinm pointed out, I'm not expressing my own opinion either way.

I'm simply pointing out that, under the current extradition treaty between the UK and US, O'Dwyer doesn't have a leg to stand on. Those in disagreement with the course of proceedings need to work to change the system (e.g. removing the offence of facilitating copyright infringement, if you disagree with the principle of people being prosecuted for simply linking to infringing material) rather than seeking an exception for a particular case.

I think the point you were trying to elicit with your Pakistan example is that US citizens should not be extradited to Pakistan to face charges there for things that do not constitute criminal offences in the US. This is taken care of by the 'double criminality' clauses that most countries include in their extradition treaties.

O'Dwyer is in the somewhat unique position that, although it has been ruled that the allegations against him, if true, constitute criminal offences in both the UK and US, the former has shown no interest in prosecuting, but the latter has, so he is facing extradition...

[reitzensteinm]

You missed the GP post (which was also his). He said:

"At this point it's more a case of challenging [...] the absurdity of extraditing a young man to be tried in a foreign court under a foreign jurisdiction for such an offence."

Discussing the law and its implications as it stands should not be taken for implicit support or approval, but it seems to be far too often around here.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Edit: I took out the obtuse bit, since mixmax said he didn't see it. (I can't reply to him yet).

[mixmax]

maybe you're right - I didn't catch that.

Apologies to aes256 if I misread his comment.

[jahewson]

No, the act has to be illegal in the UK too in order for the UK to extradite one of its citizens. e.g. you can't be extradited from the UK for insulting a Thai monarch.

[ashconnor]

The CPS has the discretion to prosecute a case if they deem it within the public interest, so how is this case not now within the public interest? Even if it is only to halt the extradition process.

[mmaunder]

That's actually an interesting suggestion. It would force the UK to take a position on the issue and if he's found not guilty, it would be very clear the UK and USA are at odds on the matter.