Peruvian - U.S. extradition treaty

[freemehul]

Should article 4 section 2 c be changed? What are your thoughts on this?

[Rockie Cantais]

What I have to look it up? Link pls! LOL

[freemehul]

http://www.oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/usa/index.html

http://www.oas.org/juridico/MLA/en/t...xt-usa-per.pdf

[freemehul]

As customary in extradition treaties, Article IV(2) provides that
extradition shall not be granted if the offense for which extradition
is requested constitutes a political offense. It also specifies the following
specific categories of offenses that are not to be considered
political offenses: (a) a murder or other violent crime against a
Head of State of one of the Contracting States, or a member of a
Head of State’s family; (b) genocide, as described in the Convention
on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, done
at Paris on December 9, 1948; (c) an offense for which both Contracting
States have the obligation pursuant to a multilateral international
agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the
case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution,
including but not limited to illicit drug trafficking and related offenses,
as described in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, done at
Vienna on December 20, 1988; and offenses related to terrorism, as
set forth in multilateral international agreements to which both
Contracting States are parties (e.g., the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on December
16, 1970); and (d) an attempt or conspiracy to commit, or
association or participation in the commission of, any of the foregoing
offenses.

[VT2]

We need more peruvian cocaine.

[freemehul]

Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read that treaty it can be abused by a good lawyer to get certain unwanted elements free from jail, including but not limited to drug dealers.

Is this the reason why the FBI can't get Joran van der Sloot convicted and extradited for extortion? There are rumors something or some people is/are stopping that. CIA perhaps?

btw the last time this treaty was amended was during the Bush (Junior) presidency.

[raviy]

Now I'm not a lawyer, but the way I read that treaty it can be abused by a good lawyer to get certain unwanted elements free from jail, including but not limited to drug dealers.

Is this the reason why the FBI can't get Joran van der Sloot convicted and extradited for extortion? There are rumors something or some people is/are stopping that. CIA perhaps?

btw the last time this treaty was amended was during the Bush (Junior) presidency.

I'm confused. You're saying that A2ss2(c) should be changed? ss2(c) contains one of the exceptions to the definition of "political offense" to be considered therein. So are you saying that it's too easy for extradition to be granted or too difficult? Because the section you're pointing at makes it easier.

Also, the difference between a good lawyer and a mediocre lawyer is generally the ability to present substantial and relevant evidence as to determine questions of fact. There should be few questions of the law, unless your judges are incompetent, and even then, an appeal would grant access to more capable judges. Trying to define your client's offense as a political offense has always been a defense against extradition, and I see nothing in the section you have quoted that would affect the outcome of any determination of extradition.

[freemehul]

I'm sorry "your judges"?

I think you indeed are too confused!


I'm saying it IS NOT too hard to get him extradited from Peru to U.S., but it IS too hard to get him convicted in the U.S. Fact or no fact, if there is any probably cause that the extradition is invalid, then he'll walk free after 25 years in jail in Peru.

Personally I'd rather see him spend an extra 20 years in an american jail for extortion after those 25 years, but maybe the Columbians can also get him convicted.

[raviy]

I'm sorry "your judges"?

I think you indeed are too confused!


I'm saying it IS NOT too hard to get him extradited from Peru to U.S., but it IS too hard to get him convicted in the U.S. Fact or no fact, if there is any probably cause that the extradition is invalid, then he'll walk free after 25 years in jail in Peru.

Personally I'd rather see him spend an extra 20 years in an american jail for extortion after those 25 years, but maybe the Columbians can also get him convicted.

The "your judges" was referring to any judge who handles any case anywhere.

I fail to see where the treaty you're referring to has any mention of the requirements of a conviction.

[freemehul]

oh that's what you meant with "your judges"

well that treaty mentions causes for an invalid extradition

"(c) an offense for which both Contracting
States have the obligation pursuant to a multilateral international
agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the
case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution,
including but not limited to illicit drug trafficking and related offenses,
as described in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, done at
Vienna on December 20, 1988; and offenses related to terrorism, as
set forth in multilateral international agreements to which both
Contracting States are parties (e.g., the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on December
16, 1970); and"

the way I read it, a lawyer will only have to give a probable cause that he falls under the sections mentioned

now that part is meant to be in there to protect intelligence ops and their cooperatives right? it says including but not limited to drug traffickers. what if they're arms dealers?

[raviy]

oh that's what you meant with "your judges"

well that treaty mentions causes for an invalid extradition

"(c) an offense for which both Contracting
States have the obligation pursuant to a multilateral international
agreement to extradite the person sought or to submit the
case to their competent authorities for decision as to prosecution,
including but not limited to illicit drug trafficking and related offenses,
as described in the United Nations Convention Against Illicit
Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, done at
Vienna on December 20, 1988; and offenses related to terrorism, as
set forth in multilateral international agreements to which both
Contracting States are parties (e.g., the Convention for the Suppression
of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, done at The Hague on December
16, 1970); and"

the way I read it, a lawyer will only have to give a probable cause that he falls under the sections mentioned

now that part is meant to be in there to protect intelligence ops and their cooperatives right? it says including but not limited to drug traffickers. what if they're arms dealers?

Uhm... If evidence is adduced that the alleged crime falls under that section, it will NOT be deemed to be a political offense. As such the accused would NOT be precluded from being considered for extradition.

I think you got confused with all the negatives we lawyer types like to use.

[freemehul]

you and your double negatives ;)

[raviy]

We do that a lot. That's why legislation is mostly incomprehensible to the layperson.