Sciencemadness Discussion Board - Don't read this if you don't want to be pissed off

The US call it "The long arm law" it allows the US to extend it's laws to other countries.

Team America: World Police?

Ugh.

hissingnoise - 17-11-2009 at 12:39

The US call it "The long arm law" it allows the US to extend it's laws to other countries.

Your namesake's ingraciating manner towards Obama is sickeningly reminiscent of his predecessor's to Bush, but Obama isn't Bush and he sees G.B. as he is; a 3/4s blind Scots idiot with ideas way above his station. . .
And the US, given the chance will extend its influence where it can---it's just how it works!

watson.fawkes - 17-11-2009 at 16:58

For some actual data, I found the decision of the first judge in the extradition request: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/doc1.html. The press story is from April six months back. What's the current status of the case?

The US call it "The long arm law" it allows the US to extend it's laws to other countries.

The legal term is "universal jurisdiction", and it's generally only been used for genocide and war crimes and misbehavior of similar import.

As to issues with the case itself, one question is whether the seller can be considered a "regulated person" under 21 CFR 1300.2(27) (this is in the diversion regulation). Generally such kind of definition is taken to be a subset of "U.S.A. persons". Since this is a commercial regulation, it's unlikely that they could make universal jurisdiction stick.

On the other hand, the extradition request is based something other than simply diversion violations, namely, conspiracy; see [18] in the judgement.

Vogelzang - 17-11-2009 at 17:10

Maybe its revenge for all of the America bashing on the hive.

watson.fawkes - 17-11-2009 at 17:43

This case is a total clusterfuck on a number of accounts. The US prosecution is taking place in Arizona. Naturally. More data:
2009 Aug 04: Desperate fighting against extradition judgement: Lawyers say woman would be at suicide risk if extradited to US.
2009 Jun 21: WTF? Drugs probe extradition Scot accused of sex attacks on six-year-old girl.
2007 Mar 27: There was already a US civil forfeiture proceeding.
Howes site

And definitive information on this case just isn't very forthcoming. Brian Howes, who publishes/reprints much of this stuff, doesn't seem to right much himself, so current events are a little hard to make out.

What's become clear to me, though, is that the real culprit is this bastard of a post-9/11 extradition treaty that seriously eliminated a number of basic procedural protections. However aggressive the Arizona people are (and that's plenty), it was political decisions at the top of the UK government that made this possible.

entropy51 - 17-11-2009 at 18:00

Im not pissed.
Sounds like the DEA busted a methlab and these people got ratted out. No way in hell is the US going to go thru all of this without 100% knowledge that these folks knew they where selling it to someone wanting to cook. Think of an undercover prostitution sting where you don't solicite the money they wait for the jane to set the terms then they takem down. Until I hear more on the case I can't really say I feel for them one bit. They are a chemical company and as such I am sure they know the status of RP/I2 in the US. Fireworks and animal medication...? Spare me the sob story really. They got caught and it happends when you play hard ball. But as such you must face what you know may come from it.

Have to agree with Sedit. I'm not pissed in the slightest. Red P and I2? Give me a break.

12AX7 - 17-11-2009 at 18:28

Isn't it SOP to ask the sellers for records or other assistance in where these products are going? I mean, wouldn't it be an awful lot easier and more productive to monitor their customers than to bust them in the first place?

Tim

watson.fawkes - 17-11-2009 at 19:21

Have to agree with Sedit. I'm not pissed in the slightest. Red P and I2? Give me a break.

These chemicals are legal in the UK. They are not legal to sell without registration in the US. There are plenty of things that are legal in one jurisdiction that are illegal in another. The whole reason that universal jurisdiction does not generalize (and wasn't meant to) is that otherwise people would be subject to prosecution from anywhere in the world, for just about anything that someone, somewhere didn't like. This is a kind of foundational civil right that just didn't need explicit enumerating until recently.

As far as the Arizona prosecutors, they are doing their job, admittedly with an above-average overzeal that has its own kind of noxiousness. But that's not news. The real people to be offended at are the British and Scots who signed off on this mode of extradition and who are proceeding forward with this.

I can see only three (sane) ways that someone might not be offended about this. (1) They believe that it's a good idea to restrict phosphorus and iodine sales. (2) They believe that it's a good idea that people should be subject to laws of another country. (3) They wish to blame the victim, who should have know better than to taunt powerful people. I have little respect for any of these positions.

watson.fawkes - 17-11-2009 at 19:23

Quote: Originally posted by 12AX7

I mean, wouldn't it be an awful lot easier and more productive to monitor their customers than to bust them in the first place?

It's not more productive for the prosecutors, who have a career-making incentive to bust "international drug criminals". There's definitely an incentive mismatch here, leading not only to ineffective interventions, but also to injustice.

Sedit - 17-11-2009 at 19:47

But watson you said yourself that conspiracy was the crime for which they are being prosecuted for. I have see suggestions that this was not a minor incedent but they have supplied enough to make TONs of methamphetamine (I know they over do it...but still). Conspiracy to manufacture drugs is a felony there im sure of as well so if there decision is to send the suspects to the US then who are we to judge. In the end I find it doubtful that charges stating unlawful distribution of the chemicals will hold up other then in the sence that these where there business partners in cooking tons of drugs.

[Edited on 18-11-2009 by Sedit]

JohnWW - 17-11-2009 at 21:13

The case sounds very similar in principle to that of "UFO hacker" Gary MacKinnon, who a few years ago accessed NASA computers in the U$A from his flat in London, trying to obtain proof of UFOs, and that NASA knew all about them and was trying to cover them up (e.g. by "Photoshopping" photographs before release, and threatening employees). He has never actually visited the U$A. MacKinnon claims to have have found such evidence, but that he did not actually have to "hack" in order to find it; he found that he could access the NASA computers concerned easily because they were not protected by any password, meaning that any computer internet user could readily access the information. I think he was also seeking evidence that the Office Of Naval Research (ONR) had developed secret reproduction UFOs in "Area 51" in Nevada using technology retrieved from crashed alien UFOs.

In spite of not actually having done any actual "hacking" (i.e. obtaining unauthorized access by cracking logins and passwords on secure sites or web-pages) or anything else wrong, some idiot pro$ecutor in the U$A corruptly decided that he would like to enhance his promotion prospects by charging MacKinnon with all manner of "hacking" and "spying" charges, and demanding that the Briti$h Govt. extradite him to Virginia to face charges there, and to be in custody there while awaiting trial. However, MacKinnon has remained free on bail in London so far. The case, based upon what appears to be perjured American evidence and the one-sided Fa$cist extradition treaty that the Briti$h Govt. was so stupidly hoodwinked by the Bu$h régime into signing with the U$A (using the "war/whore on drugs" and alleged "terrorism" as false excuses as usual, see above posts) has gone through all the English Court system, to the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords.

It looks as if the only thing that could save MacKinnon from extradition is a further appeal to the European Court Of Human Rights, in which he would be able to avail himself of international law pertaining to Human Rights, such as the UN Universal Declaration Of Human Rights 1948 and European Charter Of Human Rights 2000, and also claim that what he did was legal in the UK, that he could not obtain a fair trial in the U$A, that his health or life might be in danger in custody there, and that he would be in jeopardy of being given an unduly harsh sentence (by European standards). He would also be able to argue the substantive facts of his case.

Gary McKinnon was caught as the result of his having accessed the NASA computers from his own home (rather than an internet café or library), and not using an elite/high-anonymity proxy-server such as those listed in http://www.samair.ru/proxy . He also made the mistake of downloading whole websites using a free utility that he downloaded from a website which requires downloaders to give their names and email addresses (which could be simply falsified), and again without using a proxy-server.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon and http://freegary.org.uk and http://www.theblackvault.com/wiki/index.php/Gary_McKinnon

It looks as if the Howes are facing the same battle, and that their case may also end up in the European Court Of Human Rights, although the laws of Scotland (where they live) are generally more humane than English laws. They would, like Gary MacKinnon, be able to argue their substantive case before the European Court, along with the fact that what they did was not an offense in the UK, that they could not obtain a fair trial in the U$A, that their health or life might be in danger in custody there, and that they would be in jeopardy of being given an unduly harsh sentence by European standards

It is also unfortunate that the UK does not have some sort of Constitutional provision preventing Briti$h nationals from being extradited to face alleged charges (which could easily be politically-motivated) in foreign Courts, like many other countries have in order to protect their own nationals. France and Russia are two countries that have such a Constitutional provision, which is why Lugovoi could not be extradited from Russia to the UK on a Briti$h charge of murdering Colonel Litvenenko by poisoning him with polonium-210 in London in 2007.

As for I2 and red P, they have several important uses quite unconnected with any sort of either legal or illegal organic synthesis. I2 is used as an analytical reagent in a titration to determine dissolved oxygen in water (using starch as an indicator, with which it forms an intense blue complex when in excess), and, dissolved in grain alcohol, as the disinfectant "tincture of iodine". Red P is used to make calcium phosphide (by reaction with metallic Ca), used to poison burrowing vermin by placing Ca3P2 in their burrows, where the stuff undergoes hydrolysis in the presence of water vapor to poisonous PH3; and in making matches; and as a small constituent of some alloys.

[Edited on 18-11-09 by JohnWW]

anotheronebitesthedust - 17-11-2009 at 21:44

Quote:

Conspiracy to manufacture drugs is a felony there im sure of as well

Do you have any references? In Canada, I've never heard of anyone being charged with conspiracy to distribute or manufacture narcotics. A google search shows the same. The only conspiracy laws we have are aimed at price-fixing among businesses, and I imagine that conspiring to murder someone would have to be illegal as well, since murder is obviously universally accepted as a criminal offense. Drugs are not as black and white, many countries still employ the death penalty for simple possession, whereas other countries have decriminalized drugs altogether.

Every country has different laws and different morals and different views. Personally, I think Sudan should begin extraditing American women for wearing pants on television and in magazines. Hilary Clinton would get her fair share of lashings.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/sudan-women-sentenc...

I don't know about state law, but the U.S. federal criminal charge for possessing red phosphorus is actually "Possession of red phosphorus with intent to manufacture methamphetamine." That means they still have to prove "intent." From what I've read, it sounds like the Howes are being charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, which is a lot worse. In reality, they only need to have some sense of surety that a juror of 12 citizens will convict, or that you will plead guilty under pressure. The U.S. federal system has a 97% conviction rate (of which a large percentage are probably guilty pleas) and they also have unlimited funding.

Brian Howes just needs to keep fighting the good fight, and keep stressing the fact that 1)what he did is not a criminal offense in his country and 2)his country is a sovereign state and does not need to adhere to the ludicrous laws of a country full of retards. Being quiet is the worse thing he could do.

[Edited on 18-11-2009 by anotheronebitesthedust]

Jor - 18-11-2009 at 03:48

For some actual data, I found the decision of the first judge in the extradition request: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/doc1.html. The press story is from April six months back. What's the current status of the case?

The US call it "The long arm law" it allows the US to extend it's laws to other countries.

From that link, I read at [46]:
E.mails were said to have been sent to the respondents alerting them to the fact that their chemicals were being used to manufacture methamphetamine. An e.mail warned that it was VERY illegal to sell red phosphorus to the United States without a license. Advice was said to have been given by e.mail to KNO3 in August 2005 by law enforcement in California advising that its iodine crystals were being used to manufacture methamphetamine in the United States. Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents. A saved website which gives a recipe for manufacturing methamphetamine from red phosphorus and iodine was found on a KNO3 computer.

If these statings are indeed true, KNO3 has been very irresponsible! If really warnings have been send, KNO3 should have stopped selling at all to the US, especially RP, wich is known to be a regulated chemical for reasons (meth, direct precursor to phosphorus chlorides, CWC regulated chems).

Still I think it's bullshit that the US can start trials against UK citizens.

hissingnoise - 18-11-2009 at 04:08

The threads should probably be merged---to put the whole in context.
Er. . .(Novelty, off and worn)?

GordonBrown - 18-11-2009 at 05:42

The Howes said they did receive any warnings from US authorities and no evidence was produced to show otherwise.

The Howes labelled Iodine as "Iodine for medical use" and Red Phosphorus "Red metal for metal works"

The packaging was also UN approved with a return address and all chemicals 50 of them all had a return address a business name VAT number and Labelled in accordance with UK law.

The Howes only ever took credit card orders and it has been accepted that the business account had about £6,000 in it and that was for running costs and payroll.

There is no defence for the Howes as once on US soil conspiracy can be dropped and each sale without conspiracy carries 20 years.

The plea bargain rate is 97% not the conviction rate.

only 3% of people go to trial and a small fraction are equited.

The Howes must have know as part of their job that all the chemicals had their misuses and they reported to special branch suspicious orders.

RP and Iodine may = Meth in the US but not in the eyes of people in the UK.

The Us get "universal jurisdiction" as I have been corrected by using conspiracy in the indictment to get dual criminality.

If evidence of conspiracy exists the Howes can be tried in the UK as the offence occurred there if it occurred.

Surely everybody is innocent until proven guilty?

Remand and years of proceedings does not constitute a fair trial and bail is not available fpr none US citizens after fighting extradition. The concept of innocent has completely gone.

This can happen to anybody.

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 06:57

You forgot the most important reason

I can see only three (sane) ways that someone might not be offended about this. (1) They believe that it's a good idea to restrict phosphorus and iodine sales. (2) They believe that it's a good idea that people should be subject to laws of another country. (3) They wish to blame the victim, who should have know better than to taunt powerful people. I have little respect for any of these positions.

(4) They think it's a good thing to cut off supplies to some of the dope cooks:

Quote: Originally posted by Jor

Advice was said to have been given by e.mail to KNO3 in August 2005 by law enforcement in California advising that its iodine crystals were being used to manufacture methamphetamine in the United States. Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents.

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2009 at 07:51

But watson you said yourself that conspiracy was the crime for which they are being prosecuted for. I have see suggestions that this was not a minor incedent but they have supplied enough to make TONs of methamphetamine (I know they over do it...but still).

The extradition request was based on conspiracy, because the prosecutors could make the argument that this was an action that had a US nexus. Only 2 counts of the 82 in the indictment, however, mention conspiracy. The rest are the standard List I restrictions, together with the toss-in use of communication facilities, none of which survive ordinary jurisdiction concerns.

Conspiracy requires at least two conspirators, whose have planned in advance of action to take some action. Simply selling goods is not conspiracy. Selling goods with awareness of potential illegal use is not conspiracy, since there's no knowledge of what any particular customer is doing. Selling goods with allegations of illegal use is not conspiracy (but getting closer), because allegations may be correct or incorrect (and it's considered acceptable for law enforcement to lie during an investigation). Only after a customer has informed the seller of their plans for illegal use does it rise to the level of conspiracy.

I am not defending these chemical sales as a societal good. I am defending justice, which has been breached here, as a societal good.

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2009 at 08:11

Quote: Originally posted by Jor

Whether you judge them irresponsible depends on your opinion of how to regulate and/or influence the drugs industry. But there's an important distinction here. Allegations made by law enforcement that materials sold by a vendor are being used illegally does not have any legal status. That word "advice" basically means "do as we say", regardless of the actual illegality of the underlying sale. If that's conspiracy, then it's a conspiracy between the vendor and the law enforcement agency, because that's where the communication lies.

This issue is one of due process of law. That's the term of art in the US, where it's in the Fourteenth Amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". The principle here is universal, though. It says that the state may not take arbitrary action without following the rules. And arbitrary action is the essence of tyranny. If a law enforcement merely "advises" someone of a fact, there's no process behind it. There's been no trial of fact before a judge, and the truth of such an allegation must not be assumed simply because a law enforcement agency says it. In the present case there's no particular reason to believe that law enforcement was lying, but that doesn't alleviate the burden that, if you want proper notification of facts, it requires judicial approval, since that's the result of the process.

Even notification, though, in the present case, doesn't push the actions into conspiracy. It does push them into a category of knowledgeable sales, which themselves are illegal under the diversion regulations. But such knowledgeable sales are only illegal within the jurisdiction of the statute, which in the present case includes the US and does not include the UK. So while the prosecutors were trying to elevate the nature of the sellers into a new crime, they did not properly succeed. Simple notification, even a proper one, does not create a US nexus for jurisdiction, and the notification that did take place wasn't even proper enough for that.

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2009 at 08:16

Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

I don't know about state law, but the U.S. federal criminal charge for possessing red phosphorus is actually "Possession of red phosphorus with intent to manufacture methamphetamine." That means they still have to prove "intent." From what I've read, it sounds like the Howes are being charged with conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, which is a lot worse.

The two conspiracy counts only involve sales, not manufacture.

"Intent" here means the intent of the vendor, not the intent of the customer. It means that if party A has possession, then it's party A's intent to manufacture that counts. The Howes couple were certainly not manufacturing themselves, and there's no allegation that they intended to.

hissingnoise - 18-11-2009 at 08:21

You forgot the most important reason.

Yes, your stated? aversion to the act of 'getting high'; vexing and perplexing, as it is, in equal measure!

Here! Take this. . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apCw_qdyfkQ&annotation_id...

[Edited on 18-11-2009 by hissingnoise]

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2009 at 08:28

You forgot the most important reason(4) They think it's a good thing to cut off supplies to some of the dope cooks

This is just another version of my reason (1) above, albeit stated a bit more generally.

The question here is not "Is methamphetamine good or bad?". The question here is one of weighing values. We have two possible situations which we have to weigh against each other. The first is that a vendor of phosphorus and iodine is extradited in an affront to the international rule of law. The second is that their sales continue and the principles of law are upheld. The question is "Do you value justice more or less that the suppression of drugs?"

Simply doing the "right thing" for society while taking short cuts around the law is a minor form of tyranny. In the full forms of tyranny, they ignore the law altogether. Taking shortcuts is the first step on that desolate road from minor tyranny to major.

I practice the second chance principle in these cases, where someone has inveighed against some harm without considering the consequences, without making a proper assessment of value, comparing two things with each other. Taking one thing in isolation is the standard practice of demagogues, and I cannot assume that the first such utterance out of someone is so intended.

So, entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 10:10

So, entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?

Would you argue in favor of the stability of international law if the situation were a company having ties to terrorist organizations shipping nerve agent precursors into the US or some other country? Would you argue against the right of that country to defend itself by arresting those responsible, even if the laws of the originating country had not been breeched?

I think the two situations are completely analagous, differing perhaps only in the numbers of innocent lives destroyed. It is all well and nice to argue the sanctity of international law, but the harm done cannot be ignored.

I believe the kno3.com folks are having their day in court, as they are entitled to.

watson.fawkes - 18-11-2009 at 10:12

So, entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?

You answer my question first, which you have not yet.

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 11:32

I do not think it's a case of the stability of international law versus the suppression of dope cooks. You act as if the whole system will come crashing down if these miscreants are extradited. As I said, they are having their day in court and I believe British law will settle the issue one way or the other. Sounds like you would have them entitled to appeal to some international court in the Hague, if not the UN security council.

Your question implies that we can only have one or the other. Bull doots.

GordonBrown - 18-11-2009 at 14:38

Here is an under cover call with Don Sherard DEA who was responsible for operation Red dragon.
Link to call

Red Phosphorus was only one of 50 chemicals and they speak of stock in the UK sold worldwide not shipped to the US.

JohnWW - 18-11-2009 at 14:39

Here are some further links regarding Brian Howes, in addition to http://extradition.org.uk and http://extradition.org.uk/category/brian-howes and http://extradition.org.uk/2008/09/08/ :
http://www.howes.uk.net
http://www.brianhowes.co.uk and http://www.brianhowes.co.uk/wordpress
http://www.brian-howes.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Brianhowes
http://scottishlaw.blogspot.com/2009/04/law-order-kenny-maca...
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/tags/brian-howes and http://gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/2009/06/26/ and http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/tags/brian-howes
http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56439 and http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27741
http://taking-liberties.net/index.html
http://kno3.com/articles.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhaKRcKH-v4 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8J-qftHGX9E
http://www.petition.co.uk/howes_family_extradition_fight_ple... and http://www.petitiononline.com/howesbri/petition.html
http://thechemicalshop.co.uk/nickcleggmp.html
http://brianhowes.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html and http://brianhowes.blogspot.com
http://basechemical.com/index.html
http://www.cleveland-police.com/tag/brian-howes and http://www.cleveland-police.org/legalaidboard.html and http://www.cleveland-police.com/2007/11
http://twitter.com/Brian_Howes
http://blogs.myspace.com/brian_howes
http://un2014.co.uk/2003extraditionact.html
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/extradition-howes and http://wordpress.com/tag/extradition-howes
http://un1350.co.uk/dailyvideodiary05018.html
http://www.rubynia.ro/Brian_Howes

See also the links concerning the similar (and long-running) case of Gary MacKinnon which I posted on page 1 of this thread, along with arguments that both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges before the European Court Of Human Rights. However, while the European Court would have due regard to the international law regarding human rights (which I mentioned in my previous post), along with the English Bill Of Rights 1689 and Magna Carta 1215, it is unlikely that they could use the U$ Constitution in that Court, particularly the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendments, because it normally applies only in Court cases before U$ Courts on U$ territory.

GordonBrown - 18-11-2009 at 14:52

So, entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?

You all seem to forget that several agencies exist to stop goods that are not wanted in any particular country.

Customs the Police and several other agencies.

Also if the US wanted to stop the sales to the US, why not ask the chemicals that are not being misused in the UK to be restricted as other chemicals are that KNO3.COM did not sell to the US.

Recently £20,000 worth of guns seized in the UK but the US seller has no responsibly even if mass murder happens.

Many people in the chemical industry in the UK are on bail pending charge and have been for over 2 years, The Howes case is a test case to see if US law will be applied in the UK leaving everybody open to extradition.

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 15:44

Quote:

You all seem to forget that several agencies exist to stop goods that are not wanted in any particular country.

Customs the Police and several other agencies.

But the Customs system depends upon the identity of goods being truthfully declared on the manifest, perhaps not the case here.

Quote:

Examples were given of United States law enforcement officers following up KNO3 orders to their destination in the United States and finding methamphetamine labs with the chemicals sent by KNO3 in packages with false descriptions of their contents.

Someone said upthread that the I2 was declared as "Iodine for medical use" and the red P as "red coloring" or some such.

GordonBrown - 18-11-2009 at 16:16

I suppose the US gun seller puts gun on his customs declaration did they when sending guns to the UK?

Iodine is for medical use.

RP was also for metal works.

Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US.

None are in the end product!

So do you think the UK can extradite US gun sellers?

Do you think the Italians should be able to extradite the CIA agents that did an illegal rendition?

Either the rule of law exists or it does not.

Sedit - 18-11-2009 at 16:25

Sounds like your trying to force A simularity here Gordon. You have no idea what the US dealers put on the customs report nor do I so lets not generalize something without full details.

Quote:

Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US.

To who? Meth cooks that buy off of these people? I reiterate speaking without full knowledge of facts produces weak arguments.

Honestly I do feel that the UK should be able to extradite the gun dealers if they where proven knowingly tied to organized crime in the UK. Just as a bit of thought for you, if a man in the UK was sending mail laced with anthrax to the US would you still have a grip about the UK allowing extradition? As well if someone where doing the same to the UK from the US do you feel they should go without justice.

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 16:34

Quote:

I suppose the US gun seller puts gun on his customs declaration did they when sending guns to the UK?

I have no idea, but if this violated UK law, I am in favor of extraditing them too.

Quote:

RP was also for metal works

Please explain what is "metal works" and how does it use Red P.

Quote:

Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US.

You sure about that? Red P, definitely not. You have to sign for tincture of iodine, and sales are limited. There's very little I2 in it.

Quote:

None are in the end product!

I think you give the cooks too much credit regarding purification protocols. Even if not, they are used in the manufacture of a dangerous, illegal drug.

Quote:

So do you think the UK can extradite US gun sellers?Do you think the Italians should be able to extradite the CIA agents that did an illegal rendition?

Yes. Heck yes!

Quote:

Either the rule of law exists or it does not

Absolutely! That's the reason it's being decided in a Court of Law! It exists. It will be decided by jurists with much more sense than you or I. If I had their sense, I wouldn't be here arguing with pimply faced teenagers.

12AX7 - 18-11-2009 at 17:00

Quote:

RP was also for metal works

Please explain what is "metal works" and how does it use Red P.

I would presume for use with metal. Consider "phosphorus bronze", an alloy of copper and P. P is useful in a couple of alloys.

Why you'd want to do that yourself is beyond me. Phos bronze is commercially available, and I can't imagine trying to get a consistent product by adding something as volatile as elemental phosphorus to molten copper.

Tim

entropy51 - 18-11-2009 at 18:34

Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW

....arguments that both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges

Honestly, JohnWW, has anything ever been discussed here that you thought was not unfair, corrupt, and politically inspired?

Treatment, paranoid fantasies, need.

[Edited on 19-11-2009 by entropy51]

12AX7 - 18-11-2009 at 22:47

Politically in$pired? Come on, it'$ all about the dollar$ign$!

Tim

watson.fawkes - 19-11-2009 at 17:07

I do not think it's a case of the stability of international law versus the suppression of dope cooks. You act as if the whole system will come crashing down if these miscreants are extradited. As I said, they are having their day in court and I believe British law will settle the issue one way or the other. Sounds like you would have them entitled to appeal to some international court in the Hague, if not the UN security council.

Your question implies that we can only have one or the other. Bull doots.

Two straw men and a second evasion.

Straw man one: " the whole system will come crashing down if these miscreants are extradited". I've never said anything drastic like this. What I will say forthrightly is that justice will be diminished if this extradition is carried out. "Crashing down" is a straw man. If it's your fear, your projection onto me, please be good enough to admit it. I say this because the accused will have inadequate access to their own court system to rebut the charges prior to their removal. The extradition treaty is the heart of the injustice, since it makes UK citizens accountable to US law, and UK citizens have no representation in US democracy. The tables are turned here, it's now "extradition without representation", and the colony has become the master. Little wonder that this treaty was signed, as it were, under our own King George.

Straw man two: I'm advocating some kind of higher legal power: "entitled to appeal to some international court". I've not said anything like this, not even close. While I endeavor to write clearly, there's nothing I've said whose vocabulary even approaches this. It's a complete confabulation.

The evasion. Previously, I asked you a direct question about values. You did not answer, instead throwing questions back at. I asked you to answer the question. You've posited straw men, and have evaded the question again. I ask you a second time, answer my question. entropy51, which do you value more: the stability of international law or suppression of meth manufacture in Arizona?

watson.fawkes - 19-11-2009 at 17:21

Quote:

Both of these chemicals are easily obtained in the US.

To who? Meth cooks that buy off of these people? I reiterate speaking without full knowledge of facts produces weak arguments.

In fact, they are easily available. They just aren't readily available without reporting and subsequent attention.

Personal story. The ex-girlfriend of an acquaintance of mine was recently busted for meth manufacture. The 'ex-' part of it was prior to these events, fortunately for him. This woman mail-ordered a 55 gal. drum of red phosphorus and had it shipped. Yes, I verified that size with him when I first heard it. There was an investigation, naturally, since the transaction was unusual. Duh. There was apparently no particular trouble just ordering up the chemical. That's the availability issue.

It's important to distinguish between "availability" and "availability with no external cost". In the US, we have the first but not the second. Dealing with an investigation, whether or not it results in law enforcement action, is most definitely an external cost, over and above the cost of the goods themselves.

anotheronebitesthedust - 19-11-2009 at 18:57

Entropy51:

Quote:

There is a clause in most extradition treaties which claims that dual criminality is necessary for extradition. I'm sure the U.S. would be able to extradite someone who commits acts of terrorism, as long as there is evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_criminality

What if the exporter of the nerve agent precursor did not have terrorist ties? What if the exporter was actually a large export company that was simply acting in accordance of it's own country's laws? What if the exporter made the importer sign a contract that the importer takes responsibility for it's country's own laws?

We can sit here for days on end asking "What if" questions but the fact of the matter is that, as scientists, we know that we cannot be comparing one chemical to another chemical. We cannot compare meth to nerve agent because meth is not nerve agent. Wikipedia says so:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nerve_agent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meth

This is kinda funny
Sedit:

Quote:

Sounds like your trying to force A simularity here Gordon.

And then in the same post:

Quote:

if a man in the UK was sending mail laced with anthrax to the US would you still have a grip about the UK allowing extradition?

Again, why are you comparing meth to another chemical? Anthrax is not purchased by millions of U.S. citizens every day and used recreationally.

Sedit - 19-11-2009 at 20:19

I am in no way trying to force a simularity another1, but I can compair one act of terrorism to another just like he was attempting to do can't I? They are claiming ties to organized crime and in doing so I feel one should be able to extradite over that sort of thing beit guns, anthrax or drug manufacturing. Meth has ruined many more lives in america then anthrax has world wide yet if someone from the US was sending anthrax over to the UK would you oppose there extradition?

Its a matter of personal morals comming into play here. I personaly hate the idea of the guns being sent over as well since atlest when a meth user does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.

They mislabled chemicals ordered by the DEA on request which Im pretty sure that breaks some sort of international shipping laws at the very lest.

You are all fucking this topic up trying to make it black and white and need to understand that. This is a huge grey area. No I do not feel they should get a count for each RP transaction since that should be the US job to inspect the chemicals but I do feel they should suffer the consequenses of there own wrong doings which you all seem to be acting like there was no wrong when there clearly was.

I don't know what to think of this case at the moment because just like yourselfs I dont have all the facts but what I do know is you all are clouding your better judgment with fear and prejudice.

JohnWW - 19-11-2009 at 23:59

Quote: Originally posted by JohnWW

....arguments that both parties could use against unfair extradition to face trial on the corruptly and politically inspired charges

Honestly, JohnWW, has anything ever been discussed here that you thought was not unfair, corrupt, and politically inspired?

Because ALL governments of the world, and their agencies and ministries, have become UNIVERSALLY CORRUPT, either for cheap vote-catching purposes (like claiming to be "tough on [alleged] crime", as an excuse for repressive new laws curtailing civil liberties and rights, and framing innocent people for terrible crimes they did not commit as scapegoats), or else for bribe$ (often under the guise of "election campaign donation$")! The combination of the two forms of corruption has resulted in the U$A, in particular, becoming a plutocratic police state. The Kennedys were probably the last U$ leaders who could have prevented this from developing, but the country's fate was sealed by their CIA-organized assassinations by mind-controled "zombies" (or "Manchurian Candidates") in 1963 and 1968. (I still remember what I was doing on the day the news came through in New Zealand of JFK's assassination in 1963).

[Edited on 20-11-09 by JohnWW]

JohnWW - 20-11-2009 at 00:47

(cut) They mislabled chemicals ordered by the DEA on request which Im pretty sure that breaks some sort of international shipping laws at the very lest.(cut)

If the Howes "mislabeled chemicals", "on request" by the DEA, presumably using a false name or "front" company when ordering the stuff, that would clearly amount to ENTRAPMENT, because the idea for at least this part of the alleged offenses came from the DEA itself! It would be at least a partial defense to the charges.

Also, the Howes could not have been too bright if they allowed themselves to be entrapped by such a "sting" operation by the DEA, anyway. They could have read the source code of the hidden header of the DEA agent's email in which the order was placed, to obtain the IP address of the sender. Alternatively, if the order was placed by logging onto their website to enter the order and payment details, they should have been able to log the IP address used by the DEA. Then they could have entered this IP address in some free online site, such as http://showmyip.com , that looks up the geographical location and ISP of IP addresses, to find out exactly where the order was placed from, and the cu$tomer's ISP.

If the shipping address was different from the location indicated by the IP address, which would have suggested that the DEA had used a proxy-server, grave suspicion would have been raised about the cu$tomer's identity, and the order should have been refused, especially if (as happened) the cu$tomer also wanted the labeling to be falsified. The Howes should also have refused to fill the order if the IP address was in Washington, DC, or in the Virginia or Maryland suburbs and outskirts of Washington, and certainly if also the customer's ISP turned out to be an U$ Government agency.

[Edited on 20-11-09 by JohnWW]

anotheronebitesthedust - 20-11-2009 at 01:28

Quote:

atlest when a meth user does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.

Exactly. If someone is uses a substance in a self-destructive manner, why must we blame other people. Everybody should be responsible for their own actions. The problem in the U.S. is that there are so many "less uneducated" or "less sophisticated" people who are too easily persuaded.

Sedit - 20-11-2009 at 06:10

Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

Quote:

atlest when a meth user does what they do there putting the gun to there own head but a murder puts the gun to someone elses head.

Your right everyone should be responsible for there own actions yet your defending the defendents right to not be responsible for theres. I do not know the importation and exportation laws and if someone would be kind enough to post them here so this thread would clean up a bit that would be great. Im sure these people broke some sort of international laws thru intentional mislabling of packages but until we have the laws in front of us arguing about it is just spinning our wheels.

As far as the less sophisticated in the US being easy to persuade, well in all honesty us unsophisticated americans are the one persuading there government to extradite them in the first place

. Most be a pecking order there somewhere.

hissingnoise - 20-11-2009 at 06:59

The mislabeling was obviously intentional and Howes must have been aware of what was happening to his 'exports', but we should remember that anti-drug law incentivises this, and other kinds of wrongdoing!
His easy-money making racket is on a low scale in the general scheme, and extradition to the US should be only for major criminals.
He could, if he must, possibly face some kind of 'minor proceedings' in the UK, at most.
If I break a law I don't agree with (and I have) I know I shouldn't expect total immunity. . .

sonogashira - 20-11-2009 at 07:01

Quote: Originally posted by anotheronebitesthedust

"less uneducated"

The irony! Hehe!

hissingnoise - 20-11-2009 at 07:40

He certainly seems to have proven a point other than the one intended. . .

anotheronebitesthedust - 20-11-2009 at 20:20

Quote:

Im sure these people broke some sort of international laws thru intentional mislabling of packages

Many packages get mislabelled in order to expedite shipping and to save a lot of hassles from customs. I'm sure that the penalties for mislabelling packages are minor.

Sedit - 20-11-2009 at 20:50

Your more then likely thinking wrong.

watson.fawkes - 21-11-2009 at 07:13

They mislabled chemicals ordered by the DEA on request which Im pretty sure that breaks some sort of international shipping laws at the very lest.

There are no allegations of mislabeling in the indictment. The Howes claim that they did not mislabel their packages. Please support your claim that they engaged in this behavior.

Sedit - 21-11-2009 at 07:19

The link that Gorden brown posted with the call from the DEA agent to the reporter if indeed real suggested that the DEA ordered chemicals and they mislabled the chemicals in the order on request.

watson.fawkes - 22-11-2009 at 08:08