TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- UK to expel 4 Russian diplomats
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Looks like it wasn't actually the UK that "started" this row, looks like Russia sent somebody to the UK to carry out yet another murder on British soil... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904066.stm That alone should justify the expulsion of the 4 diplomats at least

And you were saying that this whole mess is not politically motivated? What about Berezovsky calling on verthrowing the Russian government, well thats not a big deal, right? And you're in your right mind to believe that after all this Russia would kill Berezovsky? LMAO ... where's the logic in that? Wouldn't be too bloody obvious that it was Russia who did it?

The whole mess started as a politically motivated murder, and then obviously a Russian had to be guilty of killing this so-called "important" ex-KGB agent who was actually a low-ranking and unimportant agent, who didn't compromise any Russian secrets and only had theories (so no point of even killing him, there are thousands of refugees from Russia like that). Plus there is no motive for Lugovoi killing Litvinenko unless this is politically motivated. Anyhow, there's no evidence, as usual, just British public being scared shitless by a shitbrick named Berezovsky who's already wanted for crimes in at least two different and unrelated countries - criminal at his best trying to clear his name blaming others.

You say I haven't seen the evidence, but you haven't seen it either ... maybe its because non-existent? I couldn't find it, seriously ...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley OK for arguments sake I shall agree the Constitution agrees with you but the Council of Europe's clauses are optional which means Russia does not have to abide by them (and the article I quoted draws attention to the fact that the Russian legal system is corrupt and suspect as it means the government decides when to extradite someone or not, whereas in the UK, the government has no control over who is extradited as we are a democracy where the government's power is kept in check)

That link you provided is an opinion of a Western journalist, and is absolutely smashed in the international laws, as I shown you the link:

http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/C...L=1&CM=5&CL=ENG

READ UNDER:

Treaty No. 024 :
European Convention on Extradition

The Russian Federation shares the opinions expressed by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany in its declaration of February 4, 1991, by the Government of the Republic of Austria - in its declaration of June 4, 1991 and by the Government of the Swiss Confederation - in its declaration of August 21, 1991, concerning the reservation by Portugal of February 12, 1990 to Article 1 of the Convention.

----------------------------------------------------
WIKIPEDIA: "Some countries, such as Brazil, France, Russian Federation, Germany, Austria, China and Japan, have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradite

----------------------------------------------------

article continued:

Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 December 1999 - Or. Engl./Russ.

In accordance with Article 1 of the Convention the Russian Federation shall reserve the right to refuse extradition:

a. if extradition is requested for the purpose of bringing to responsibility before an ad hoc tribunal or by summary proceedings or for the purposes of carrying out a sentence rendered by an ad hoc tribunal or by summary proceedings when there are grounds for supposing that in the course of these proceedings the person will not be or was not provided with minimum guarantees set forth in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Protocol 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The terms �ad hoc tribunal� and � summary proceedings � do not include any international criminal court with authorities and jurisdiction recognised by the Russian Federation;

b. if there are grounds for supposing that the person requested for extradition in the requesting State was or will be exposed to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the course of the criminal proceedings, or the person was not or will not be provided with minimum guarantees set forth in Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Protocol 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

c. based on the considerations of humanity, when there are grounds for supposing that the extradition of the person can seriously affect him due to his old age or state of health.
Period covered: 9/3/2000 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 1


Reservation contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 December 1999 - Or. Engl./Russ.

In accordance with paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 2 of the Convention, the Russian Federation shall reserve the right not to extradite the persons whose extradition can affect its sovereignty, security, public order or other essential interests. Offences that may not lead to extradition shall be stated by the federal law.
Period covered: 9/3/2000 -
The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 2

Declaration contained in the instrument of ratification deposited on 10 December 1999 - Or. Engl./Russ.
----------------------------------------------------------

So, Russia abides by the INTERNATIONAL law in the European Convention, the international law states that Lugovoi can be tried in an INTERNATIONAL court judging by these points, like in the Hague or in the Russian courts. However, Russia cannot extradite to UK. Enough for you? Why dont British try Lugovoi in an INTERNATIONAL court in Hague?

As far as I am aware the Hague is an international criminal court, and therefore common murder would not fall under their jurisdiction. The Russian courts are not classed as "international" and besides which, they are viewed as corrupt and government controlled by most of the free world, so hardly the nest place for a fair trial.

I still think Russia could use the COE to extradite Lugovoi and I believe if this was just an ordinary Russian he would have been extradited, or are you suggesting that Russian law says there is no such thing as crime committed by a Russian outside of Russia?

quote:

And you were saying that this whole mess is not politically motivated?

I have never said this "mess" was not politically motivated, or even that the murder of Litvinenko was not politically motivated. I was merely providing you the definition of a political crime. Murder cannot be a political crime, even if it was politically motivated. A political crime must be actions taken against the state/government (by definition)

quote:

Anyhow, there's no evidence

Why do you keep saying that? It is not possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to take someone to court unless they have evidence. What that evidence is, neither of us know, because in a free democratic country like the UK, that evidence is not allowed in the public domain before it is first heard in court. Just because there is evidence it does not mean Lugovoi will be proven guilty, that is for a jury to decide (that's how it works in a free democracy)

How about a deal? I will admit the Russian constitution says nationals cannot be extradited if you can accept the murder of Litvinenko was not, by definition, a political crime, and that the CPS do have evidence linking Lugovoi to the murder, ok?

quote:

British public being scared shitless by a shitbrick named Berezovsky

But how does that tally up with the fact that the police arrested a man 4 weeks ago linked to this plot? The man was released on bail (and is now being held by immigration) but the fact the police acted on intelligence (allegedly from Mi5 and Mi6) should show that the threat was real, or at least believed to be real by the British authorities and therefore, whether the plot existed or not, shows Berezovsky is not lying and is telling us exactly what the police told him...

It also goes a long way to explain why the UK government took the hard line it has, it was aware of a Russian plot to kill someone in the UK, and then when Russia refused to hand over the chief suspect in another murder case that happened in the UK they must have just had enough

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley As far as I am aware the Hague is an international criminal court, and therefore common murder would not fall under their jurisdiction. The Russian courts are not classed as "international" and besides which, they are viewed as corrupt and government controlled by most of the free world, so hardly the nest place for a fair trial. I still think Russia could use the COE to extradite Lugovoi and I believe if this was just an ordinary Russian he would have been extradited, or are you suggesting that Russian law says there is no such thing as crime committed by a Russian outside of Russia? I have never said this "mess" was not politically motivated, or even that the murder of Litvinenko was not politically motivated. I was merely providing you the definition of a political crime. Murder cannot be a political crime, even if it was politically motivated. A political crime must be actions taken against the state/government (by definition) Why do you keep saying that? It is not possible for the Crown Prosecution Service to take someone to court unless they have evidence. What that evidence is, neither of us know, because in a free democratic country like the UK, that evidence is not allowed in the public domain before it is first heard in court. Just because there is evidence it does not mean Lugovoi will be proven guilty, that is for a jury to decide (that's how it works in a free democracy) How about a deal? I will admit the Russian constitution says nationals cannot be extradited if you can accept the murder of Litvinenko was not, by definition, a political crime, and that the CPS do have evidence linking Lugovoi to the murder, ok? But how does that tally up with the fact that the police arrested a man 4 weeks ago linked to this plot? The man was released on bail (and is now being held by immigration) but the fact the police acted on intelligence (allegedly from Mi5 and Mi6) should show that the threat was real, or at least believed to be real by the British authorities and therefore, whether the plot existed or not, shows Berezovsky is not lying and is telling us exactly what the police told him... It also goes a long way to explain why the UK government took the hard line it has, it was aware of a Russian plot to kill someone in the UK, and then when Russia refused to hand over the chief suspect in another murder case that happened in the UK they must have just had enough

Evidence is evidence. You cant just say that you have evidence, and fail to present it and demand an extradition of a foreign citizen. Thats not how it works. If UK has presented this strong evidence to Russia as part ofs extradition request, well, we'd all know it, media always does. So there's none, its not "secret" evidence and not hidden, its just nonexistent. Speculations and suspicions are not factual evidence in a court of law.

To make you happy, yes this was a murder. Murder is murder. And under no circumstances that the person or the people who did it can claim immunity from prosection on political grounds, so you happy now? But Lugovoi is innocent, and British have nothing on him. He's already been extensively questioned by British police and Scotland Yard. International courts can handle this kind of issues that may involve extradition of persons; if during the proceedings Hague court will rule to extradite Lugovoi, then Russia should ablige because it holds international law dear. But British refuse to discuss this, they want plain extradition, which is ludicrous. It cant happen. The political mess UK has created has further prevented them from achieving this. They could've handled this in proper manner and with respect to the Russian and international laws, which they clearly disregard. Too bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium [COLOR=FF7F50] Evidence is evidence. You cant just say that you have evidence, and fail to present it and demand an extradition of a foreign citizen. Thats not how it works. If UK has presented this strong evidence to Russia as part ofs extradition request, well, we'd all know it, media always does. So there's none, its not "secret" evidence and not hidden, its just nonexistent. Speculations and suspicions are not factual evidence in a court of law.

Ok let me explain how the British legal system works (tho please be aware I'm no expert on law). In a criminal case, it is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute those suspected of a crime. They must have evidence which they must provide to a court in order for the judge to say that there is a case and that the suspect can be taken to court. If there is no evidence, then the judge will say the suspect cannot be taken to court. Usually it is the police that gather the evidence and the CPS will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to stand up in a court of law (and therefore having the judge accept the case). Evidence by no means proves innocence or guilt (altho obviously it can if there is, for example, cctv footage of the crime taking place). All evidence means is that the case can be taken to court. Then, in a free and democratic country like the UK, British citizens make up a jury and hear the evidence then decide whether they think the defendent is innocent or guilty.

quote:

Lugovoi is innocent

You are in no position to make that statement. You have not seen evidence to suggest innocence or guilt, have you?

quote:

British have nothing on him

See how the British legal system works above, it proves the CPS have something on him otherwise it would not be possible to take him to court because a judge would not allow it (agree?)

quote:

He's already been extensively questioned by British police and Scotland Yard

Considering Litvinenko was poisoned on 1st November, and Lugovoi left for Moscow on 3rd November, and that the police did not declare the case was being treated as murder until 6th December, it seems unlikely that Lugovoi was questioned as anything but a whitness. Also, it would have been impossible to have known the full facts within two days.

quote:

International courts can handle this kind of issues that may involve extradition of persons; if during the proceedings Hague court will rule to extradite Lugovoi, then Russia should ablige because it holds international law dear.

It obviously doesn't hold international law if it won't abide by the original Convention of Extradition. The Russian position that it will not extradite it's citizens in fact says that crimes committed by Russians abroad are ok, so what does that tell you about how dear Russia hold's international law?

quote:

But British refuse to discuss this, they want plain extradition, which is ludicrous. It cant happen. The political mess UK has created has further prevented them from achieving this. They could've handled this in proper manner and with respect to the Russian and international laws, which they clearly disregard. Too bad.

I think the fact that the UK is aware of a number of ciminal activities with suspected heavy Russian government involvement is the reason they have flown off the handle on this. Russia is showing a blatant disregard for Britain's sovereignty and if you expect the UK Government to sit back and allow that to happen then you've made a serious error of judgement...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Ok let me explain how the British legal system works (tho please be aware I'm no expert on law). In a criminal case, it is the job of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to prosecute those suspected of a crime. They must have evidence which they must provide to a court in order for the judge to say that there is a case and that the suspect can be taken to court. If there is no evidence, then the judge will say the suspect cannot be taken to court. Usually it is the police that gather the evidence and the CPS will decide whether or not there is enough evidence to stand up in a court of law (and therefore having the judge accept the case). Evidence by no means proves innocence or guilt (altho obviously it can if there is, for example, cctv footage of the crime taking place). All evidence means is that the case can be taken to court. Then, in a free and democratic country like the UK, British citizens make up a jury and hear the evidence then decide whether they think the defendent is innocent or guilty.

British law is different from Russian law. And so British law cannot demand from Russian law when the laws dont agree on points, as in this case. What really bothers me is that even Scotland Yard made the claim that is has overwhelming evidence to put Lugovoi behind bard, but has kept it quiet and secret and even the Russian side hasn't see it - while they demand Lugovoi - thats not a case for extradition. British government cant just come in and get whomever in some country when they want it and to do their showcase trials at home. They have to present evidence first to proceed to the next step in legal international actions. This hasn't happened, and I am tired of pointing this out.

quote:

You are in no position to make that statement. You have not seen evidence to suggest innocence or guilt, have you?

Have you seen the evidence? Where's it, come on, man, stop bullshitting me. Strong evidence is needed here for an extradition case, and I am not even talking about Constitutional barriers either. British government cant just extradict whomever the hell they want, there's a reason there are laws that protect people from being extradited with little or no evidence.

quote:

See how the British legal system works above, it proves the CPS have something on him otherwise it would not be possible to take him to court because a judge would not allow it (agree?)

Something on him??? LOL ... they could extradite anyone they want like that! Thats bullshit ... that's no evidence, its just speculation. There's no merit in that, no sense. You dont drag someone across many borders into another country against person's will and violating Constitutional rights with little or NO evidence .... Jesus Christ, George, come on man, use common sense ...

quote:

Considering Litvinenko was poisoned on 1st November, and Lugovoi left for Moscow on 3rd November, and that the police did not declare the case was being treated as murder until 6th December, it seems unlikely that Lugovoi was questioned as anything but a whitness. Also, it would have been impossible to have known the full facts within two days.

He was questioned already. If they want to question him again, they can travel to Russia - but they dont want to question him in UK - they want to put him behind bars in UK if he travels there. So he really doesnt want to come to UK, and he doesnt have to, because the first thing that happens is him going to prison (and whatever the mock/show trials to follow). The law is on his side, lets wait and see for British to produce some evidence for Christ's sake.

quote:

It obviously doesn't hold international law if it won't abide by the original Convention of Extradition. The Russian position that it will not extradite it's citizens in fact says that crimes committed by Russians abroad are ok, so what does that tell you about how dear Russia hold's international law?

F*ck, George, you are getting on my nerves now ... do you care for me to quote that Convention on Extradition article again?? Lugovoi CAN be tried in Russia, if evidence is presented and the case is pushed by UK (who have refused to do so in Russia). He's innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. This is not China where's its otherwise. he CAN be extradited if the international court decides so, and Russia WILL RESPECT that decision because it CLEARLY even in the Constitution has that clause. READ again the article, Jesus Christ man. He's not guilty, for Christ's sake ... he's not guilty he's not guilty ... UK should press the case to the international court, but they dont want to, how many times do I have to say this? Russia will respect International Court. Therefore, he is NOT GUILTY. Until he's convicted, he didnt commit the crime, because there's no evidence to say the least to convict him at the moment, and will not be enough.

quote:

I think the fact that the UK is aware of a number of ciminal activities with suspected heavy Russian government involvement is the reason they have flown off the handle on this. Russia is showing a blatant disregard for Britain's sovereignty and if you expect the UK Government to sit back and allow that to happen then you've made a serious error of judgement...

Oh, and you have proof if this, too? You are such a double-standarded conspiracy theorist. And then you really hardcore claim that this is not politically motivated? Man, you lost this case long ago, just like the British government lost it and forked up the relations with Russia, blaming the Russian government and its police while presenting ZERO proof of that. I call that intentional plan to damage relations with another country, insanity, a case that lacks logic, common sense, and best of all ... lacks evidence to extradite a law-abiding tax-paying Russian citizen.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium British law is different from Russian law. And so British law cannot demand from Russian law when the laws dont agree on points, as in this case. What really bothers me is that even Scotland Yard made the claim that is has overwhelming evidence to put Lugovoi behind bard, but has kept it quiet and secret and even the Russian side hasn't see it - while they demand Lugovoi - thats not a case for extradition. British government cant just come in and get whomever in some country when they want it and to do their showcase trials at home. They have to present evidence first to proceed to the next step in legal international actions. This hasn't happened, and I am tired of pointing this out.

There is evidence otherwise they would not be able to put Lugovoi on trial in court. Why would they extradite someone to the UK just for a judge to throw the case out the window? Maybe you are to familiar with the Russian way of doing things where they would just throw him in prison indefinately, giving him regular beatings. That's not how the British legal system works. No evidence = no case, therefore, as the CPS believe this can go to court there IS evidence

quote:

Have you seen the evidence?

How the fuck would I have access to the British anti-terrorist police's files?

quote:

Something on him??? LOL ... they could extradite anyone they want like that! Thats bullshit ... that's no evidence, its just speculation. There's no merit in that, no sense. You dont drag someone across many borders into another country against person's will and violating Constitutional rights with little or NO evidence .... Jesus Christ, George, come on man, use common sense ...

You keep saying there is "no evidence". How are you in any position to make that statement? Has the British Special Branch (counter-terrorism police) given you special permission to look at their intelligence? Are you a secret agent that has sneaked a look?! How can you say there is "no evidence"??

quote:

He was questioned already

As a whitness!

quote:

So he really doesnt want to come to UK

I wonder why! Guilty conscience?

quote:

the first thing that happens is him going to prison (and whatever the mock/show trials to follow)

Again, don't compare the UK to Russia. We are a democracy and there is no government control over our court system, unlike in Russia where the outcome of a trial is determined by how the government want it to end.

quote:

The law is on his side, lets wait and see for British to produce some evidence for Christ's sake.

If the CPS want to take someone to court it means there IS evidence

quote:

F*ck, George, you are getting on my nerves now ... do you care for me to quote that Convention on Extradition article again?? Lugovoi CAN be tried in Russia, if evidence is presented and the case is pushed by UK (who have refused to do so in Russia). He's innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. This is not China where's its otherwise. he CAN be extradited if the international court decides so, and Russia WILL RESPECT that decision because it CLEARLY even in the Constitution has that clause. READ again the article, Jesus Christ man. He's not guilty, for Christ's sake ... he's not guilty he's not guilty ... UK should press the case to the international court, but they dont want to, how many times do I have to say this? Russia will respect International Court. Therefore, he is NOT GUILTY. Until he's convicted, he didnt commit the crime, because there's no evidence to say the least to convict him at the moment, and will not be enough.

I already said I don't think the International Court in the Hague covers crimes like this.

And how do you know he's not guilty?

quote:

Oh, and you have proof if this, too? You are such a double-standarded conspiracy theorist. And then you really hardcore claim that this is not politically motivated? Man, you lost this case long ago, just like the British government lost it and forked up the relations with Russia, blaming the Russian government and its police while presenting ZERO proof of that. I call that intentional plan to damage relations with another country, insanity, a case that lacks logic, common sense, and best of all ... lacks evidence to extradite a law-abiding tax-paying Russian citizen.

I have never claimed it was not politically motivated (because it obviously was). I have said, a number of times, that murder is not, by definition, a political crime. Unless you can show me a definition of a "political crime" that would include murder, then you're just going to have to accept it.

Show ... me ... the ... evidence ...

Extradition cannot be granted without sufficient evidence, dammit. UK just cant extradite anyone they want whenever they want, thats the truth. Plus the other hurdles ... I already said this many times ... in UK they will find a way to jail/convict Lugovoi, no doubt about it. I mean, just look what the British government is doing for its Russian counterparts, you can tell how much they are interested in this case ... Lugovoi has already declared guilty without a trial by most people. Its retarded. I want EVIDENCE. Russian officials have not seen this evidence. So therefore, Lugovoi is not required to travel to UK, because he's obviously not going to get a warm treatment, not by any shot. Because the first thing will happen when he arrives in UK, is handcuffed, media frenzy, hussled to jail and for extended period of time fighting this bullshit that British lawmakers can turn and turn. He's got family, he's got business, and he rightfully doesnt want to sacrifice his time for British propaganda campaign to taint Russia. Its up to the legal proceedings and evidence to speak for itself first.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Show ... me ... the ... evidence ...

It is illegal for evidence to be shown to the public before a trial, otherwise the trial probably won't be fair - in this case, if they released the evidence suggesting Lugovoi was the killer, then it would not be fair on him because everyone in the jury would have seen the reports in the media showing how he was the killer and he was hiding in Russia to get away with it.

However, I'm sure the Russian embassy has been, or will have been, shown the evidence.

But it is not because of a lack of evidence the Russian's don't want Lugovoi extraditied is it? They are trying to protect him. Like you keep saying, it is very unlikely someone acting alone would have access to Russian made polonium, which would suggest possible government collusion (and given the Russian attempts to murder Berezovsky I wouldn't put it past them).

I can only assume the Russian government don't want whatever information Lugovoi has to find it's way into the UK's hands...

(In fact it wouldn't suprise me if Lugovoi turned up dead as well)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley It is illegal for evidence to be shown to the public before a trial, otherwise the trial probably won't be fair - in this case, if they released the evidence suggesting Lugovoi was the killer, then it would not be fair on him because everyone in the jury would have seen the reports in the media showing how he was the killer and he was hiding in Russia to get away with it. However, I'm sure the Russian embassy has been, or will have been, shown the evidence. But it is not because of a lack of evidence the Russian's don't want Lugovoi extraditied is it? They are trying to protect him. Like you keep saying, it is very unlikely someone acting alone would have access to Russian made polonium, which would suggest possible government collusion (and given the Russian attempts to murder Berezovsky I wouldn't put it past them). I can only assume the Russian government don't want whatever information Lugovoi has to find it's way into the UK's hands... (In fact it wouldn't suprise me if Lugovoi turned up dead as well)

Speculation as usual ... Russian Embassy has only received a formal extradition request. But no evidence was presented. Lugovoi has WHAT kind of information that Putin wants to hide? LOL ... you've watched too many James Bond movies ... Litvinenko had nothing on Putin or the Russian FSB to release to create shockwaves. Neither did Berezovsky. Nothing could be verified. One thing was verified though, is that Berezovsky is a criminal. Just because many thousands of Russians used to work in KGB, doesnt mean they have incriminating information against Putin. Heck, even Putin used to work in KGB. Back then it was normal for someone to work in KGB. It was the biggest police force in the world.

oh shit, here comes the Russian retaliation, just read it on the Russian media ... dang, eye for an eye ... quite sad, but seen it coming.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium oh shit, here comes the Russian retaliation, just read it on the Russian media ... dang, eye for an eye ... quite sad, but seen it coming.

Wow you must have super intelligence to see that one coming!

Ok so far, Russia is covering up the murder of a British citizen, has planned to commit another murder on British soil. In perfectly justified retaliation the UK expelled 4 Russian diplomats as a message to Russia to say "you can't do shit like that". And now Russia has expelled 4 UK diplomats.

Russia needs to be taught a lesson. I think the international community, especially the EU and America, need to stand firmly behind the UK and punish Russia for their blatant disregard of the sovereignty of a democratic nation.

I know we will have the full backing of the Eastern European members of the EU.

The only course of action should be to invite Ukraine to join NATO...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2093759.ece

Russia needs to be very very careful...

Oh look! Litvinenko lives!

http://theghostoflitvinenko.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Wow you must have super intelligence to see that one coming! Ok so far, Russia is covering up the murder of a British citizen, has planned to commit another murder on British soil. In perfectly justified retaliation the UK expelled 4 Russian diplomats as a message to Russia to say "you can't do shit like that". And now Russia has expelled 4 UK diplomats. Russia needs to be taught a lesson. I think the international community, especially the EU and America, need to stand firmly behind the UK and punish Russia for their blatant disregard of the sovereignty of a democratic nation. I know we will have the full backing of the Eastern European members of the EU. The only course of action should be to invite Ukraine to join NATO...

Hmmm, once again ... you have already given the verdict to Lugovoi ... but where's the evidence? He's not guilty until convicted, and the proof was not presented. Extradition will be denied to UK because there's something's called international laws and sovereign Constitution ... its UK thats bent on disregarding Russian sovereignity by pressuring it to break its own laws.

UK is the one who needs to be taught a lesson to respect other nations' laws and international laws and stop acting like a boy scout. Russia didnt disregard the sovereignity of UK ... could you please provide proof of your silly rant on that as well? You are just a conspiracy theorist bent on ruining relations with Russia. Oh well. Its sad that some people can be arrogant, its just sad.

BTW, your other article about the bombers ... you should read it carefully ... "Russian military aircraft based near the northern port city of Murmansk fly patrols off the Norwegian coast regularly". And, by the way, the bombers were in INTERNATIONAL waters, AND that happened a month ago, old article, bud. I read it about a month ago on Russian media. The planes DID NOT veer into British air space.

When I said Russian retaliation, I gave you a hint about Russia kicking out 4 British diplomats ... dang, your media is so slow.

Sorry, George, but maybe you should stop being so paranoid on your phobia of Russia ... we haven't done anything wrong in this situation, and you guys have portrayed Russia as some evil dictatorship that protects criminals ... thats a lot of hate. And little evidence. I really dont know whats going on inside British people's heads ... almost like in China, where you are guilty until proven innocent.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium And, by the way, the bombers were in INTERNATIONAL waters

Well in that case the Russian airforce needs to get some glasses for its pilots!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne...icle2093759.ece Russia needs to be very very careful...

Here's a similar random article on your Western paranoia ... I guess Yeltsin did that too, in retaliation for Lugovoi back in 1999

http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/01/russia.pentagon/

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Here's a similar random article on your Western paranoia ... I guess Yeltsin did that too, in retaliation for Lugovoi back in 1999 http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/01/russia.pentagon/

The Times article is dated 18th July 2007 and says the incident took place "yesterday" (17th July)

It also says that although they regularly fly down the Norwegian coast, they don't usually come as far down as Scotland...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Sorry, George, but maybe you should stop being so paranoid on your phobia of Russia ... we haven't done anything wrong in this situation, and you guys have portrayed Russia as some evil dictatorship that protects criminals ... thats a lot of hate. And little evidence. I really dont know whats going on inside British people's heads ... almost like in China, where you are guilty until proven innocent.

Unlike in Russia where you are innocent if you are on the side of the government, and guilty (and in many cases dead) if you are opposed to the government?

And here's the CPS statement they made after assessing the information gathered by Scotland Yard on the case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6679873.stm

quote:

"I have today concluded that the evidence sent to us by the police is sufficient to charge Andrei Lugovoi with the murder of Mr Litvinenko by deliberate poisoning."

There's not much really there for you to argue about is there?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Unlike in Russia where you are innocent if you are on the side of the government, and guilty (and in many cases dead) if you are opposed to the government? And here's the CPS statement they made after assessing the information gathered by Scotland Yard on the case: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6679873.stm There's not much really there for you to argue about is there?

Until the evidence is given to the Russian side, then we'll be talking. So far they're holding it like its some sort of prized trophy. Thats still not going to get an extradition. I've lived under communism when I was really really young and we all know about these so-called mock-shows. Scotland Yard can make all the claims they want, but if they want an extradition of Lugovoi, they need to present copy of this evidence to Russia. And then subsequent international / Constitutional hurdles ... A statement is not the same as presenting evidence. All British people right now are in the same mental state, a convinced view that Lugovoi is guilty and thats enough for extradition ... but thats not the norms of international law. Ask Interpol, for example, what it takes for extradition: FIRST THING: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED. And so on ....

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley The Times article is dated 18th July 2007 and says the incident took place "yesterday" (17th July) It also says that although they regularly fly down the Norwegian coast, they don't usually come as far down as Scotland...

Look at the map ... Norway ... Scotland ... they're not that far off. Do lets say that article I was talking about a month ago was a different one (its in Russian). Well, so I guess then its not 'unusual' anymore. No violations took place in this case, and I personally dont think that patrolling Norwegian coast regularly is a neccessary idea ... but thats a topic for another time.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Until the evidence is given to the Russian side, then we'll be talking. So far they're holding it like its some sort of prized trophy. Thats still not going to get an extradition. I've lived under communism when I was really really young and we all know about these so-called mock-shows. Scotland Yard can make all the claims they want, but if they want an extradition of Lugovoi, they need to present copy of this evidence to Russia. And then subsequent international / Constitutional hurdles ... A statement is not the same as presenting evidence. All British people right now are in the same mental state, a convinced view that Lugovoi is guilty and thats enough for extradition ... but thats not the norms of international law. Ask Interpol, for example, what it takes for extradition: FIRST THING: SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED. And so on ....

Do you know that the Russians have not been presented with the evidence?

And if I agree with you that the evidence is flimsy, then what's the problem in having Luovoi in court? If the evidence is as bad as you say it is (after all, you've seen the evidence right?) then he won't get convicted will he?

And to compare the USSR with the UK is ludicrous - the British courts are completely independent of the government, so it is not possible to have a "mock trial" where the verdict has already been decided (unlike in Russia today, according to the EU and UN, which is why the UK refuse to let him be tried there, because the verdict will have already been decided by the Russian government who want to protect Lugovoi)

By the way, a politician on Russia's constitutional legislation committee says Russia could extradite Lugovoi according to the European Convention

quote:

A lawmaker in Russia's upper house of parliament, meanwhile, said he doubted that Russian law prevented such extraditions, according to The Associated Press. Speaking on Ekho Moskvy radio, Yuri Sharandin, chairman of the Federation Council's constitutional legislation committee, said the European convention allowed for such extraditions, but also gives the country receiving the request the right to refuse.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europ...iref=newssearch

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Do you know that the Russians have not been presented with the evidence? And if I agree with you that the evidence is flimsy, then what's the problem in having Luovoi in court? If the evidence is as bad as you say it is (after all, you've seen the evidence right?) then he won't get convicted will he? And to compare the USSR with the UK is ludicrous - the British courts are completely independent of the government, so it is not possible to have a "mock trial" where the verdict has already been decided (unlike in Russia today, according to the EU and UN, which is why the UK refuse to let him be tried there, because the verdict will have already been decided by the Russian government who want to protect Lugovoi)

I had nothing against this UK's bid for extradition, originally. But Russian side hasn;t seen the evidence ... the British themselves in your article said they've JUST finally come up with something, and pressed for extradition. Russian Constitution protects Lugovoi, not the Russian government. It is Russian government's obligation to follow the Constitution, so you cant blame them for not sending Lugovoi out immediately. This process is not going to take a day, or a week, or even a month. A month didnt pass and British have already retaliated! And they they expect Russia is just going to shove the tail between its arse and comply? Come on, man, think ...

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.