For the record, when I refer to capricious laws, I'm discussing from the viewpoint of people outside the US who, even though they may be doing things legally in their country, are suddenly at the whim of the US government.
Certainly, O'Dwyer should be subject to UK laws. I have no problem with his arrest. I have a problem with his extradition, which, given he could be prosecuted at home, one can only guess is happening because the penalties are so much more severe in the US. Why take an ounce of flesh when you can get a pound...and show the world which government is really in charge.
The UK signed a treaty with the US and something like 50 other countries that requires them to extradite under these circumstances. Because the law broken exists both in the foreign country and domestically, and because the evidence behind the crime is clear, there isn't even a fig leaf of a justification for not extraditing; to not extradite, they would have to break their own extradition treaty.
Frankly, I think the core of this argument is that you and I disagree about the legitimacy of the underlying law. There's nothing wrong with that disagreement. You're entitled to the opinion that criminal charges for commercial violation of copyright are wrong, idiotic, &c. But what I'm commenting about has nothing to do with the actual law; I'm just saying, this doesn't appear to be a process abuse.
Fun fact: we had an argument about the US "bullying" the UK over extradition about a year ago, in the McKinnon case. At issue: a "controversial" renegotiation of the extradition treaty between the US and UK that lowered the evidentiary standard for extradition to the US. A few minute's Google research showed the bullying was exactly in the opposite direction --- that prior to the treaty renegotiation, the evidentiary standard for extradition to the US was extreme and far stricter than that of extradition to the UK.
Additional fun fact: O'Dwyer has superior due process protections in the US than he does in the UK.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but O'Dwyer can't be tried in a military court, and neither O'Dwyer nor Manning can be coerced into testifying against themselves (unlike in the UK system, which does penalize defendants for not testifying).
This is one of those arguments like "yeah well tell that to the people at Gitmo" that seems like it must have much more moral force to the person making the argument than to anyone hearing it. The US government is not systematically depriving fraud suspects of due process rights.
> The US government is not systematically depriving fraud suspects of due process rights.
No, only in cases where someone having those rights would be a nuisance to the US government.
Manning has been tortured by your government for a long time now, purely because they wanted to make an example out of him. Is that alright?
Basically, if you don't have due process rights whenever the US government unilaterally decides that you don't, then what exactly do the rights matter? Are they even rights anymore?
Certainly, O'Dwyer should be subject to UK laws. I have no problem with his arrest. I have a problem with his extradition, which, given he could be prosecuted at home, one can only guess is happening because the penalties are so much more severe in the US. Why take an ounce of flesh when you can get a pound...and show the world which government is really in charge.