The Importance Of Extradition In The United States
Extradition is the removal of a person from one jurisdiction to another so that person can face charges in the requesting jurisdiction. This can mean
from one jurisdiction in one state to another jurisdiction in another. Then there is international extradition. Here is United States have treaties with
foreign countries that allow extradition of fugitives between the sovereign nations. Not all nations practice extradition, and not all that do practice
extradition have treaties with the United States concerning these policies. In 2003 Duane Dog Chapman, Leland Chapman, and Tim Chapman crossed
into Mexico to arrest Andrew Lester who jumped a $1 million bond on charges of drugging and raping three women (Associated Press, 2008). Luster
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

DDO DOE: Fugitive Division
DDO DOE is currently detailed to the Fugitive Division, as a Liaison Officer, where he is tasked with managing the Division's Fugitive Alien
Removal (FAR) Lead Referral Portfolio. He is responsible for all communications between ICE and INTERPOL's 190 member countries, as they
relate to foreign fugitive locates with a view towards extradition and/or repatriation. Furthermore, he provides support in other essential areas such as
AFD's executive reporting and global outreach efforts. DDO DOE consistently and accurately ensures that all foreign fugitive cases assigned to him
are reviewed and referred to the appropriate field office in a timely manner, if suitable. He verifies that all cases are complete, accurate and legally
sufficient. DDO DOE

R. V Burns Case Brief
R. v Burns case Brief
Case Facts
The defendants Glen Sebastian Burns and Atif Ahmad Rafay were accused to have committed aggravated first degree murder in Washington State.
In a confession to an undercover RCMP officer in British Columbia, posing as a mob boss, it is clamed that Burns was a contract killer hired by
Rafay to kill his parents so that Rafay could get insurance money for their deaths. It is claimed that Burns beat the victims with a baseball bat while
Rafay watched (para.10). They threw their cloths away and took a bath to wash away the blood. The accused claim that the alleged confession was a
lie to gain the confidence of who they thought was a Mob Boss (para.11). They were to be extradited to the United States, where if ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
v. Kindler was controlling even where the fugitives are Canadians. (para24). The extradition was nullified on a 2–1 decision by the British Columbia
Court of Appeal.
The Minister of Justice appealed the British Columbia Court of Appeal 's decision to nullify the extradition without assurances to the Supreme Court of
Canada.
The Supreme Court of Canada 's Decision
The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) said in regards to the section 12 of the charter claim, that in R. v. Schmidt, Judge La Forest J. concluded that
the charter cannot be used to "govern how criminal proceedings in a foreign country are to be conducted" (para.51) and therefore the respondents
section 12 charter claim was rejected.. However, the SCC decided that s.7 of the charter was relevant to the case, and made their decision based on
the interpretation of s. 7. The SCC found that s.7 evidently was the real issue they had to deal with (para.31). The minister in this case, depended on
the courts agreeing that the precedent in Kindler and Ng applied to this case. In Kindler and Ng the courts allowed for the accused to be extradited
without assurances by the Minister of Justice. In Kindler, the courts decided that each extradition case, where convictions could result in the death
penalty, each hearing should be reviewed on a case by case basis known as the "balancing process" (para.65). The respondents claim that unlike
Kindler and Ng, which were decided nearly 10 years

The United Kingdom Of England And Northern Ireland
Arguments by the UK:
The United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland believes that Ecuador has no legal right or basis to grant political or diplomatic asylum to
Assange for various legal reasons that the Court is set to debate.
First, the United Kingdom's involvement in the topic comes from their obligation to extradite Julian Assange to Sweden under Article 35, Clause 3 of
the Extradition Act of 2003. Since Sweden has filed for an EAW that has been approved by the UK, the UK is under a formal legal obligation to
extradite Assange to Sweden. An EAW is a legal document that obligates European members to surrender persons who have committed or are
suspected of committing crimes in EU territories.15
The United Kingdom counter–argues Ecuador's claim that Assange is a political refugee who has been granted political asylum on the grounds that
he is escaping persecution due to his political beliefs. They see no relevance of Assange's political actions or views to this case as the primary
purpose of his extradition is due to allegations of sexual assault that have supposedly occurred in Sweden. Due to sexual assault being a crime that has
no known relation to his political views, the UK claims that Assange does not fit the criteria listed within Article 1 of theUnited Nations Convention
and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Therefore, Assange's status as a political refugee is unfounded in the opinion of the UK.
On the topic of his potential extradition to the

The TerroristвЂ™s Extradition Loophole Essay
The Terrorist's Extradition Loophole
Most extradition treaties between states call for an exemption for crimes that are political in nature. The political offense exemption was originally
created to allow states to protect those that another state may wish to prosecute for crimes that are politically committed against that government. R.
Stuart Phillips, a Judge Advocate in the United States Army, distinguishes between "pure" political offenses and "relative" political offenses. "Pure"
political offenses are directed specifically against the state and do not directly affect civilians. They also do not contain acts that would normally be
considered a common crime. This can include efforts to overthrow the government, treason, and ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Should the person be extradited to stand trial as a terrorist? The answer to the final question is ultimately left up to the individual state. That state may
have ulterior motives for using the political offense exemption as an excuse for not extraditing the individual in question. This exemption gives some
governments the excuse they need to protect terrorists, whether or not that is their actual intention. It also gives the terrorist legal recourse to avoid
extradition for the crimes that were committed. If nothing else, this exemption allows the terrorist to stall the process of justice while awaiting a ruling
on whether the terrorist act should be considered a "political offense."
The United Nations has condemned all forms of terrorism, but what exactly that means is still up for debate. Most states would probably be willing to
extradite a "terrorist," but not quite as willing to extradite a "freedom fighter." The first step that is necessary to close this loophole is defining the
concept of terrorism itself. The current usage of the term "terrorism" is politically contrived. The former U.S. Judge to the International Court of
Justice, Richard Baxter, has shown the problem with the definition of terrorism: "[W]e have cause to regret that a legal concept of terrorism was ever
inflicted upon us. The term is imprecise; it is ambiguous; and above all, it serves no operative legal purpose"

Advantages And Disadvantages Of The European Warrant
The European Arrest Warrant:
Successes and Weaknesses
1. Introduction
2. General features and principles
3. Successes
4. Weaknesses
5. Conclusion
1. Introduction The European Arrest Warrant is a significant tool for the principle of mutual recognition. Coming into use on the 1st of January 2004, it
is based on mutual trust and it is a means of extradition of people between countries in the European Union, based on judicial decisions reached in the
requesting state.1 The European Arrest Warrant aims at making the process of extradition faster and easier, bringing the guilty ones to justice on the
basis of mutual recognition between member–states of the European Union.2 Thus, the principle of mutual recognition also has importance in
protecting the rights and freedoms of the accused person, besides facilitating collaboration between states. The implementation of the European Arrest
Warrant is based on the trust countries have in the criminal justice systems of each other, trust that comes from the shared perspectives on the rights
and freedoms of individuals, principle of democracy and the respect of ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For the Member States, the direct costs consist of court costs, the costs of housing or holding in custody the offender – the salary of public workers,
such as policemen or prison guards, can also be included here, transportation, interpretation and other of the sort. To these opportunity costs are added,
for the money that goes into an 'extended' EAW does not go into any other, more useful to the society, fields. More importantly, the persons involved in
European Arrest Warrants abused of, suffer from just as many loses. Firstly, the most obvious one, comes from the court costs and then there are
indirect costs, both financial – lose of working days, and emotional – the person is under a lot of stress which may lead to serious health problems and

United Law Of Public International Law
Report to International Law First concerning the fear that the concept of state sovereignty in public international law is frequently overlooked by
politicians, the media and others. Introduction. International Law First has asked for a report concerning the impact of public international law on the
concept of state sovereignty in the UK. This report will examine the limits that public international law imposes on state sovereignty and the effect that
this has on the balance of power within the UK and internationally. This report will explain how state sovereignty is impacted by public international
law and the way in which public international law is incorporated into the UK's domestic law. A conclusion will be reached as to the level of impact
that public international law has on the UK's state sovereignty and the necessity of this impact for the successful functioning of the UK within the
international community. Incorporation of public international law into UK domestic law. Unlike many European states the UK operates a dualist
approach to the incorporation of public international law into domestic law. In dualist systems the ratification of international treaties by the
government does not have any effect on domestic law until the treaties are given effect by further legislation. In the light of a dualist approach UK laws
can only be created by Acts of Parliament. Furthermore, the Constitutional Reform Act 2010 introduced legislation enabling Parliament to

Brief Summary Of The Murray Article On The Extradition Of...
The Murray article on the extradition of Solomon Moseby seeks to create a complete historical narrative but does have an implicit normative moral
bias towards the rightness of those protesters, particularly among the black community who stood up against injustice. The Murray article focuses on
one single instance and provides an in depth historical narrative based on journalistic reports, witness reports, and diary entries/ letters. Murray seeks
to build upon the positive Canadian narrative as Canada being on the side of the angels. Little to no mention is made of Canadian slavery. Instead the
focus is to fill in a historical gap with an interesting narrative that provided a precedent for non extradition in the future. Women and Black
communities come off quite well in the story and whites are seen primarily as positive if passive actors. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Frequently freed slaves would return to free their family and loved ones.
Governor Simcoe was unable to fully abolish slavery due to its strong economic advantages and the strong lobby that it developed which ultimately
weakened the legislation passed to provide something of a grace period over the next few decades where children of slaves would be slaves until the
age of 25.
American fugitives frequently would remain wherever they came into Canada but had to live in fear of slave catchers coming over the border to try
and reacquire escaped property. Legal avenues were a frequent recourse of slave catchers to try to underhandedly return escapees under false pretenses.
However the lack of a distinct extradition treaty left decision making on a jurisdictional basis with great strength resting in regional institutions and
individual judges or

Regina v Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police
Status: Positive or Neutral Judicial Treatment
R. (on the application of Rottman) v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
House of Lords
16 May 2002
Case Analysis
Where Reported
[2002] UKHL 20; [2002] 2 A.C. 692; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 1315; [2002] 2 All E.R. 865; [2002] H.R.L.R. 32; 12 B.H.R.C. 329; [2002] Po. L.R. 124; [2002]
A.C.D. 69; Times, May 21, 2002; Independent, July 1, 2002; Official Transcript
Case Digest
Subject: Criminal procedure
Keywords: Arrest; Extradition; PACE codes of practice; Right to respect for private and family life; Search and seizure
Summary: Police officers arresting respondent at home pursuant to Extradition Act 1989 s 8(1) had common law power to search home and seize
goods and documents – Search and seizure ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
v Governor of Pentonville Prison Ex p. Osman (No.1)
[1990] 1 W.L.R. 277; [1989] 3 All E.R. 701; (1990) 90 Cr. App. R. 281; [1988] Crim. L.R. 611; (1990) 87(7) L.S.G. 32; (1990) 134 S.J. 458; Times,
April 13, 1988; Independent, April 15, 1988; Guardian, April 19, 1988; Daily Telegraph, April 21, 1988; QBD
Ghani v Jones
[1970] 1 Q.B. 693; [1969] 3 W.L.R. 1158; [1969] 3 All E.R. 1700; (1969) 113 S.J. 854; Times, October 30, 1969; CA (Civ Div)
All Cases Cited
R. v Shayler (David Michael)
[2002] UKHL 11; [2003] 1 A.C. 247; [2002] 2 W.L.R. 754; [2002] 2 All E.R. 477; [2002] H.R.L.R. 33; [2002] U.K.H.R.R. 603; [2002] A.C.D. 58;
(2002) 99(17) L.S.G. 34; (2002) 146 S.J.L.B. 84; Times, March 22, 2002; Independent, March 26, 2002; Official Transcript; HL
R. v Shayler (David Michael)
[2001] EWCA Crim 1977; [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2206; [2002] H.R.L.R. 3; [2001] Crim. L.R. 986; (2001) 98(40) L.S.G. 40; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 223; (2001)
145 S.J.L.B. 235; Times, October 10, 2001; Daily Telegraph, October 9, 2001; Official Transcript; CA (Crim Div)
R. (on the application of Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2001] UKHL 26; [2001] 2 A.C. 532; [2001] 2 W.L.R. 1622; [2001] 3 All E.R. 433; [2001] H.R.L.R. 49; [2001] U.K.H.R.R. 887; [2001] Prison L.R.

322; [2001] A.C.D. 79; (2001) 98(26) L.S.G. 43; (2001) 145 S.J.L.B. 156; Times, May 25, 2001; Daily Telegraph, May 29, 2001; Official Transcript;
HL
R. v Manchester Stipendiary Magistrate Ex p.

Who Is Nelson Hackett Dbq
From these documents, it is evident that Nelson Hackett was a person of colour and Alfred Wallace's slave in the state of Arkansas from June 1840
to July 1841 (Document 3; Document 6). Before Hackett set off to Upper Canada after having enough of Wallace's degrading and demanding work,
he stole his masters horse and coat along with other expensive goods from two men named, Augustus J. Ward and W. L. Wilson (Document 5).
Hackett was led to believe that he would be a "free man" once he arrived in Canada under the British law (Document 8). Unfortunately, this was not the
case as Hackett was not only charged with grand larceny, but he was also convicted under the grand jury of Washington (Document 7; Document 6).
Furthermore, Hackett was charged... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
A powerful example of this, is the fact that Nelson Hackett was to be extradited back to the United States even after the Canadian officials knew
that he was a slave and was trying to escape from his master (Document 7; Document 6). The major reason for the extradition of Hackett was due
to his grand larceny charge, where he stole goods ranging from a roan mare to a gold watch from not only his master, but Augustus J. Ward and W.
L. Wilson as well (Document 7; Document 5). With that being said, the Canadian and American governments followed the Fugitive Offenders' Act,
as Hackett was to be given severe consequences for fleeing from Arkansas to Canada after committing grand larceny (Document 9; Document 7).
Therefore, both the Canadian and American government showed zero tolerance to thieves while providing assurance to those who had their
property stolen that the issue would be properly dealt with. It is important to note, that in these documents, Alfred Wallace among other American
citizens in the year of 1841 viewed slaves as a part of their property rights as slavery was still legal in the United States until 1865 (Document 6; Lesson
2 Podcast). Thus, for Wallace, Hackett was of great value to him as he was more than a slave, he was also property, so by running away he was
stealing himself away from Wallace (Document 6; Lesson 2

Essay on Fight Aganist Transnational Organized Crimes
1.Introduction
Human Rights passed the important stages of development since 2nd World War and became an influential factor in international relations. At the same
time, transnational crime has showed a significant increase. In this sense, the international community has reacted by establishing strong legal
mechanisms and intensifying the preparation process of international agreements for the creation of a more favorable climate. Extradition is regarded as
an effective tool in the fight against transnational organized crimes. Inevitable, there are divergences on the inclusion of human rights through the
extradition process in terms of international treaties and domestic laws of the countries. More importantly extradition process ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
With the inherent difficulties of bilateral mechanisms and implications of obligations, there has been an increasing resort to regional and possible
universal regulation systems in the context of extradition. Notwithstanding important points, there are significant controversial arguments, divergences
between regional and bilateral treaties which cover basically human rights aspect of extradition procedure. However, main regulations of current treaties
play an important role to define the categories of extraditable offences, obligations of states and human rights aspect of extradition at international and
regional level. As one of the first regional instruments for extradition, European Convention on Extradition signed in 1957 serves for harmonization of
extradition relations and development of mutual assistance amongst European states. Under this regional mechanism, states have to be more sensitive
for human rights factor while extraditing suspects more than ever. Article 11 of the European Convention on Extradition which excludes extradition
unless the requesting Party gives reasonable assurance that death penalty will not be executed. Furthermore, the fact that this convention is unable to
limit the political application of political crimes which opens opportunities to abuse by subjects. The European Union Members achieved to tackle this
problem by signing the European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism which entered into force in 1977. Outside

First National Bank Robbery Case
In the case, a man named Brook planned to rob First National Bank in Newport, Beach, Orange County Florida, Hurst wanted to join the robbery as
long as there were no weapons involved. When Brooke and Hurst robbed the bank, Brook pulled out a gun to force the cashier to give up the money;
enough he assured Hurst there would be no use of weapons. Unfortunately, Hurst didn't see Brooke pull out the gun, while driving away Brook
confessed to using the gun and Hurst wanted to get out the car. Brook wouldn't allow him to leave until they were safely in Nogales, Arizona and
when they arrived the divided up the money and went their separate ways. Hurst went to meet a friend named Solana, who doesn't know anything about
robbery. While trying to cross... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(Smith, 2016) The state where Brooke is being held, is called the asylum state. In this case, the governor will forward the demand for extradition to the
secretary of state, who will submit a requisition to asylum country seeking to have fugitive Brook be surrendered to United States for prosecution.
(Roberson & Wallace, 2015) The receiving state Mexico, uses its own treaty obligations and own laws on extradition to arrive at an agreement on
whether or not to release Brooke to the jurisdiction of Florida. (Reuters, 2016) In most cases the asylum state requires that offense committed by
offender in another state, be considered as a crime committed in their own country. According to New York Times article "Extradition Treaty with
Mexico" "...that persons charged with the crimes hereinafter enumerated, and being fugitives from justice, should, under certain circumstances, be
reciprocally delivered up" (Seward,

Pablo Escobar: Drug Lord And Drug Trafficker
Pablo Escobar By: Mohamed Ferhat World history P.7 Pablo Escobar wasn't just the most biggest drug lord and drug trafficker but he was also a
politician. Even before selling drugs he was still popular in Colombia for being involved in politics. He used politics to get the people on his side. He
wanted law enforcement to turn their backs away from all his other illegal activities in Colombia like being a drug lord or murders he has committed.
He wanted to be so powerful that no one in this world could stop him. Pablo Emilio Escobar Gaviria was born on December 1 1949 in the Colombian
City of Rionegro, Antioquia with ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
He used needed people to become the Colombian congress. This happened during 1982 when he got elected to be an alternative in the House of
Representatives. He used the politics to help advance himself in the Colombian society. Since drug traffickers discovered they had many
limitations when it came to being influential in the Colombian society Escobar decided to run for congress. Politicians in Colombia was seen as
(Political Power circles) beyond money, or "plata o Plomo philosophy which translated to silver or lead but to the people of Colombia it meant
ether you took Escobar's bribe or dealt with his wrath which usually meant torture or death. Escobar got into politics from advice of his one friend
Alberto Santafimio Botero but after being elected Pablo was attacked by members in his own party and forced to resign his seat is disgrace. After
seeing Pablo getting into politics to extend his power when it came to drug trafficking US Drug Administration Agency, US Government, Interpol
and other Police International Agencies. The Colombian government had to chase to capture him. Later after resigning Pablo used his skills that he
learned when being a politician to fight off the Extradition law to fight off the Colombian congress. The extradition law is a law that all the
Colombian drug traffickers feared they would rather die in their homes in Colombia then rot In any jail cell in the United States of America. "The
Extradition law is the United States is the formal process by which fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country or state for
trial or punishment". Colombia started changing up there acts after the United States of America was giving "short sentences" to drug dealers. So
they created an anti drug police squad which was able to stop many crime bosses and many drug transports. This made Pablo Escobar very angry and
waged a war against the law. He killed

The Pros And Cons Of Extradition
Extradition is the transfer of an accused from one state or country to another state or country that seeks to place the accused on trial. In legal term
extradition can be defined as the legal surrender of a fugitive to the jurisdiction of another state, country, or government for trial. Extradition between
nations is regulated by extradition laws or diplomatic treaties between the country where the accused is present. Not all the countries have extradition
treaties. The united states have entered into extradition treaties with many countries in Europe and Latin America and few countries in Asia and Africa.
Extradition treaty is necessary because once a person leaves the border of a country the laws of that country cease to apply to them and ... Show more
Many of the extradition treaties which has been signed by the U.S requires that the offense should be a crime in the U.S as well as the country making
the request. In U.S requests for extradition are seen by the state department and the justice department. The limitations to extradition are as follows:–
–Not all the nations will extradite their citizens to another country for prosecution like France and Israel.
–There are countries which refuses to extradite to the U.S if the death penalty will be imposed. There are treaties which have the provisions that
prevent extradition if the person has already been convicted oe acquitted for the crime.
The European Convention on Extradition was signed on December 13th 1957. The European Convention on Extradition convention is a multilateral
extradition treaty. Extradition can only be granted with respect to certain crimes. France, Japan, Ukraine, China, Belarus are the countries which do not
have its citizens extradited.
The Extradition Clause or Interstate Rendition Clause of the United States Constitution refers to the Article 4, Section 2, Clause 2, which provides for
the extradition of a criminal back to the state where he/she has committed a

Question Of Universal Extradition Treaty (Legal)
Committee: General Assembly 6 (legal)
Question of: Universal Extradition Treaty
Submitted by: Canada
Defining extradition as the surrender by one state to another a person accused or convicted of a crime;
Aware that extradition treaties already exist between many countries and are used regularly for the transportation of suspected criminals across borders,
GRAVELY CONCERNED by the escalation ofcrime, both national and transnational; CONVINCED THAT the establishment of bilateral and
multilateral arrangements for extradition will contribute to the development of more effective international co–operation for the control of crime,
CONCERNED that these treaties are outdated and cannot be utilised in this day and age.
TAKES NOTE OF ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
ALARMED BY the fact that the current legal structure of extradition is poorly formulated and riddled with loopholes enabling criminals to remain free
and above the law even after committing heinous crimes.
CONGRATULATING nations who have indulged in bilateral transparent extradition with a large number of other nations.
ENCOURAGING nations who haven't yet, to henceforth establish bilateral extradition until the creation of a treaty with a wide number of nations.
CALLS FOR a universal extradition agreement between all member states.
RECOMMENDS THAT creation of the Universal Extradition Authority (UEA)

TAKES NOTE OF the fact that the laws of different states may differ .
HAVING REGARDED the above information, we conclude that what we need is a Universal Extradition Treaty– One single treaty to which all
civilised states become parties.
NOTING FURTHER that this NGO would accumulate and create a database of all known criminals seeking asylum in countries other than their own
and take immediate action to extradite them back to their respective nations. CALLS UPON the nations of the world to come together and form a
Universal Extradition Authority (UEA).
Countries must abide by a set of International Laws regarding extradition.
All nations must sign the Universal Extradition Treaty.
All states must agree upon a standard way to treat the accused

Extradition In The European Extradition
Although extradition is a general procedure in a criminal justice system , it is quite terrible when people have to be sent to the foreign court and have
little help in legal aspects. In recent years, there have been a lot of concerns in the Europe countries that the fast process of extraditions under the
European Arrest Warrant (EAW) are biased against the innocent. (The Economist , 2010) Nowadays, the EAW is the automatic process in theEuropean
Union country which can extradite wrongdoers or the innocent. (The Economist, 2010) European countries agree to use the EAW because the
extradition used to be an extremely slow and inconvenient process. Therefore, the solicitors can take advantages and earn a lump sum of money.
Hoping to solve these problems, EU enacted the arrest warrant which can repatriate criminals from other countries and ended the situation. (Spencer,
2010) For example, Osman Hussain, who was a bomber and set off a bomb in London in 2005, was sent from Italy in a very short time because of the
EAW. However, the EAW was criticized by critics that it was not fair with people who do not commit acrime and used with improper ways to
extradite people from the country to another country. (The Economist, 2010) This essay will argue that there are many reasons why the EAW is unfair
and can be considered as a burden on the innocent. However, it is not correct to reject this law but we should support the proposal to improve the
procedural rights.
The first reason to

Forcible Abduction Case Study
Respondent, Humberto Alyarez–Machain, was a medical doctor that prolonged the life of a DEA agent, Enrique Camarena–Salazar, while other
individuals tortured and interrogated him. The respondent was a citizen and resident of Mexico that the DEA forcibly kidnapped for his home and
flew by private plane to Texas, where he was arrested for his involvement in the murder of Camerena. Once the Court learned of the DEA's involvement,
even though it was backed by the government, they concluded that it was in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico,
and since Mexico was protesting the forcible abduction, the only proper way to right the violation would be to repatriate him back to Mexico and
dismiss the indictment against ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It was held that the respondent's forcible abduction does not prohibit his trial in a United States Court per his violations of this country's criminal laws.
The Treaty did not specifically outlaw the forcible abduction from another country, and so the respondent's fate lied with the Executive Branch.
(FindLaw's United States, 1992 p.3). The Court decided that the issue in this case is whether a criminal defendant, abducted to the United States from a
nation with which it has an extradition treaty, thereby acquires a defense to the jurisdiction of this country's courts. It was held that the he does not,
and that he may be tried in federal district court for violations of the criminal law of the United States. Respondent, Humberto Alyarez–Machain,, was
indicted for participating in the kidnap and murder of a United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent, Enrique
Camarena–Salazar, and a Mexican pilot working with Camarena, Alfredo Zavala–Avelar. The DEA alleged that respondent, (who was also a medical
doctor), participated in the murder by prolonging agent Camarena's life so that others could further torture and interrogate him. On April 2, 1990, the
respondent was forcibly kidnaped from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, to be flown by private plane to El Paso, Texas, where he was
arrested by DEA officials. (Cornell Law, 1992 p. 4). The District Court concluded that DEA agents were responsible for respondent's abduction,
although they were not personally involved in it. As such, the respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his abduction was outrageous
governmental involvement, and that his abduction was in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico, and therefore, the
Court had no jurisdiction to try him. (United States v.

What I Learned About The Extradition
By doing this project I have learned about a lot of things. For example, I have learned a little bit about the extradition. Extradition is when you take
a case, and move it from either city to city, state to state, or even country to country. I learned about this while doing the Ethan Couch case. This had
to happen because he fled to Mexico with his mom to escape a charge of four murders and two serious injuries that had occurred while he was
driving while intoxicated. This is a procedure to transfer a certain case to someone else. They do this because It is more safe than transporting the
criminal by plane and other forms of transportation. They can also do this if another team can solve the crime more efficiently. I also learned that

Extradition Conditions In Canada
When making a trade, one typically gives away something with the hope and assurance that what they are receiving has equal or greater value to what
they are exchanging. Whether this be two children trading Pokemon cards or mafia bosses and their drug deals, a trade is generally accepted as the
exchange of goods with close to equivalent value. However, with the emergence of a Canadian government initiative to seek an extradition treaty with
China, these fundamental principles of trade are not being met. Extradition is defined as the "procedure by which a state or nation, upon receipt of a
formal request by another state or nation, turns over to that second jurisdiction an individual charged with or convicted of a crime in that jurisdiction".
With this in mind, establishing an extradition treaty with China would involve people ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Without ending these discussions immediately, Canada runs the risk of becoming complicit in the violations of justice committed by China's
inconsistent, unforgiving, and typically savage justice system. Ultimately, Canada must resist the temptation of international clout and improved trade
relations with China in order to protect its most basic principles of justice. As a nation, Canada has established a fundamental opposition to torture and
inhumane prison conditions. This has been decreed in Canadian law via the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states that "Everyone has the right
not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment" (Justice Canada 1982). Torture, which is defined as "any act or omission by
which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for a purpose including: obtaining from the person or
from a third person information or a statement, punishing the person for an act that the person or a third person has committed or is suspected of
having committed, and intimidating or coercing the person or a third

The Implementation Of The Lisbon Treaty
INTRODUCTION
The implementation of the Lisbon Treaty gave rise to the European Parliament becoming a key participant in the field of European Criminal Justice.
Since the 1990s the European Union has been gradually constructing a framework of measures designed to enhance the cooperation between Member
States in the area of criminal investigations and prosecutions. A fundamental aim of the EU is to construct an area of freedom justice and security
without internal boundaries, and with full respect for basic human rights, all of these factors are interlinked. The success in one area of the criminal
justice system relies on the cooperation in other areas. In order for the European Union to ensure that cross–border criminal proceedings are effective
and at the same time fair, the principle of mutual recognition and how operational it is within measures must be considered. The Framework
Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) was adopted ten years and was the first concrete measure to acknowledge the principle of mutual
recognition. Since then there has been proposed measures established to try and eradicate some of the issues which have arose through the EAW.
Two such measures are the proposed European Investigation Order (EIO) and the newer proposed European Public Prosecutors Office (EPPO). The
purpose of this paper is to analyse The EAW and how it has been transposed into European law, assessing any problems with its functions. It will
consider the potential of two

Domestic And International Measures Of International Crime
Both domestic and international measures are somewhat effective in dealing with international crime. Both crimes against the international community
and Transnational crimes represent both positive outcomes in dealing with international crime, thus, exemplify issues in key areas. Through
intergovernmental organizations such as the International Criminal Court and Operation Sovereign Borders (OSB), international crime Is effectively
dealt with. Hence, problems such as extradition and people smuggling are hard to contain. These four issues will also be discussed in light of key
effectiveness criteria, including equality, access, resources and the protection of rights.
Crimes against the international community are a collection of offences that are recognised by the international community as being of universal
concern. However the prosecution of crimes against the international community can be controversial. Such crimes may be committed in the context of
military conflict. They may be highly politically motivated, or they may have been ordered or committed by the state itself. The establishment of the
International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 was a significant development in the law of crimes against the international community. The independent
international court established by the Rome Statute, acts as a last resort for crimes fitting into the three categories of genocide, crimes against humanity
and war crimes. Due to Australia's Dualistic system, both the War crimes Act

Pabloloo Escobar: Drug Lord And Narco-Terrorism
Pablo Emilio Escobar born on December 1, 1949, in Antioquia, Colombia, became Colombia's most known drug lord and narco–terrorism in the 80's.
Escobar joins the cocaine trade in the early 1970's. Eventually, Escobar controlled over 80% of the cocaine being shipped to the U.S. Escobar became
well known for sponsoring soccer clubs and charity projects but later on started to terrorize Colombia making people turn against him. Eventually
being killed by the DEA and Colombian police on December 2, 1993.
With the huge amount of profits made by the drug trade, Escobar made Medellin Cartel into a force more powerful than the Colombian government.
Colombian and American forces raided Medellin Cartel production facilities in 1984, destroying more

El Chapo Guzman Case
Drug kingpin Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, a legend in Mexico through his dramatic prison escapes and years of staying just ahead of the law, arrived
late Thursday in New York after his extradition to the United States.
Guzman will appear Friday in a federal courtroom in Brooklyn, where he will stand trial at a later date. Stringent security measures were being put in
place around the Manhattan jail where Guzman is to be held, a law enforcement source said. The Brooklyn Bridge will be closed while the drug lord
is being transported to court.
The extradition may have been timed. Mexican authorities wanted to turn over Guzman, head of the Sinaloa cartel, before Friday's inauguration of
President–elect Donald Trump, a US official told CNN. Trump

The Supreme Court 's Court
Analysis The Supreme Court's ruling in Burns is important because the case involves a critical shift in Canada's approach to extradition in cases
involving capital punishment. In "effectively overruling" the decisions in Kindler and Ng, the Burns verdict now means that almost all extraditions
from Canada that do not contain assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed violate the principles of fundamental justice. In that respect, "in
all but exceptional cases" any exercise of the Minister's discretion that purports to grant an unconditional extradition in light of a capital sentence is
void under s. 7 of the Charter. This ruling now shifts Canada's approach to death penalty extradition in line with that of most European... Show more
25 of the Extradition Act. The technical aspect of the Court's reasoning was based on the "balancing process", and involved evaluating whether the
deprivation of liberty as a result of the extradition process was in accordance with s. 7 of the Charter. In doing so, the Court affirmed as correct the
approach taken by the Court in Kindler and Ng. The Court in Burns adopted Lamer J's discussion in Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act that the "principles of
fundamental justice" were comprised of the "basic tenets" of the Canadian legal system. According to their Honours', the weight of relevant factors
advocating extradition without assurance, including the principles of comity and fairness as inherent within the extradition process, the notion that
people who travel beyond Canada's borders also leave Canada's legal system, and the appropriate place of trial is the state where the offence occurred,
was insufficient to tilt the balance in favour of unconditional extradition. In reaching this determination, the Court in Burns cited a change in the weight
of conflicting factors in the intervening decade as underpinning their decision. The Court provided three main reasons, which formed the substantive
focus of the Court's reasoning, as to why the precedent decisions in Kindler and Ng were no longer applicable in extradition cases. These factors
included: i) the international trend to abolish the death penalty, ii) the concern over wrongful convictions and iii) the

US V. Alvarez: A Case Study
U.S. v. Alvarez–Machain "On Thursday, February 7, 1985, at 2:00 pm, Special Agent Enrique Camarena left the American Consulate in
Guadalajara to meet his wife, Mika, for lunch. Camarena had been in Mexico for the past four years trying to bust a huge marijuana and cocaine
cartel. He was told that he was going to be moved to another location due to the fact that he was dangerously close to exposing the leaders of the
cartel. On his way to his car, he was shoved into car, blinded, and the car sped away. The men who had kidnapped him were members of the cartel
and had decided to take matters into their hands. They tortured him over the span of thirty hours. Along with fractures in his face and ribs they also
found that his skin had been burned by cigarettes, and they had driven his... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The majority opinion stated two things. One " Neither the Treaty's language nor the history of negotiations and practice under it supports the
proposition that it prohibits abductions outside of its terms. The Treaty says nothing about either country refraining from forcibly abducting people
from the other's territory or the consequences if an abduction occurs. In addition, although the Mexican Government was made aware of the Ker
doctrine as early as 1906, and language to curtail Ker was drafted as early as 1935, the Treaty's current version contains no such clause." (Justia Court
Opinion, 1). Secondly " The defendant may not be prosecuted in violation of terms of an extradition treaty if the treaty states that it is not allowed. If a
treaty has not been invoked then the court may properly exercise jurisdiction. However in this case a treaty has been invoked, so laws to not apply if
they are not stated in the treaty. In this case there is nothing in the treaty that prohibits prosecution." (Justia Court Opinion, 1). Justices White, Scalia,
Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas joined Justice Rehnquist in this

Gary Mckinnon's Biggest Military Hacking
This is the case of biggest military hack of all the time. Gary McKinnon, a Scottish computer hacker was accused of hacking 97 US military and 16
NASA computer. He hacked the computers over a 13 months period between Feb 2001 to March 2002 using the name 'solo'. He posted a notice on
military's website stated –"your security is crap". According to US military, he deleted important files from operating systems and it drastically
affects 2000 computers for a day as he deleted all the files, which shut down the US army's military district of Washington networks. Not only this, he
even copied all the data, files and passwords onto his own computer. According to US authorities, the cost for tracking and solving this problem was $
700,000. Arrest... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
People started opposing that settlement because they feared that google's copying should be protected and it would gain a monopoly over
digitized books. But Judge chin rejected it in Nov. 2013 and give the decision in favor of google. He said that even the motive of google for this
copyright is to earn profit, still it serves several important educational purposes. Ans 5) RecordTV Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd This
is the case where a website known as RecordTV.com allows registered users to record the television shows and films of MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte
Ltd and that can be viewed later online for a week because the content is stored for a week only . So, a lawsuit is filed In U.S. District court in Los
Angeles against Record TV.com and on his founder named David Simon–a computer programmer– by 12 film studios companies named Walt Disney
co., News Corp. , Sony , Viacom and by some more companies. The company was accused of copyright infringement, violation of cable television
las and many more alleged violations. The quality of video provided by the RecordTV was not good, still it attracts many users towards it because
the service is free of cost. According to Simon, what he did was legally protected and users should have the privilege to watch and shift the time of
their favorite shows according to their

State Vs State Government
The U.S Constitution is the oldest and shortest constitution of any major government in the world. The three main functions of which are creating a
national government consisting of a legislative, executive, and judicial branch, with a system of checks between the three branches. It protects various
individual liberties of American citizens while also dividing power between the federal government and the states. Article IV enumerates relationships
between the state and federal government and also relationships between states. Hence understanding article IV is important to understanding the
function of state and local governments. Section I of Article IV contains the Full Faith and Credit Clause which declares that the public acts, records,...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It requires that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government..." However, it is unclear what is a
republican form of government and what is not. In Luther v. Borden, the Supreme Court attempted to decide this. According to Oyez, Rhode Island
was operating under a royal charter from 1663, which strictly limited the type of people that could vote to the rural elite that owned land. Individuals
that were protesting the charter, held a convention to draft a new constitution and to elect a governor. The state government at the time declared martial
law and put down the rebellion, which came to be known as Dorr's Rebellion, largely led by a man named Thomas Wilson Dorr. A dissident named,
Martin Luther, sued the old charter regime for not providing a government founded on republican principles and argued therefore that all its acts were
unconstitutional. When the case reached the Supreme Court it was decided nonjusticiable and that congress and the president should handle these
issues. It is important to note that the new constitution was eventually ratified in May of 1843, two years after the convention was held and six years
before the case went to the Supreme

Rottman v commissioners of police for the Metropolis
Rottman v commissioners of police for the Metropolis
"Extradition search is lawful, lords say common law power is still available"
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held
in the house of lords. The judges on this were– Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger
of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date
of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
MATERIAL FACTS– the respondent, Mr. Micheal Rottman , is a German businessman and was suspected of fraud in Germany. A court in Germany...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In the Divisional Court Lord Justice Brooke said that in R v Governor of Pentonville Prison, Ex p. Osman Lord Justice Lloyd had said:
Is there any difference between a warrant of arrest in domestic proceedings and a provisional warrant under section 6 of the Fugitive Offenders Act
1967? We can see none.
His Lordship found it impossible to interpret Part II of the 1984 Act as providing any saving for the common–law power identified in Osman
Parliament intended s. 18 to provide in codified form for the full extent of a constable's power to enter and search premises after an arrest, for the
purposes identified in that section, and intended it to be limited to police inquiries into domestic offences. His Lordship was satisfied that the
common–law power of search which was identified in Osman was extinguished when Part II came into force. The police possessed no statutory power
of entry and search without a warrant outside the four corners of the Act and the Act gave them no such power in an extradition context.
The House of Lords's ratio
However, in the Lords, Lord Hutton said that the Divisional Court

The Media Interpretation Of : Rise And Fall Of Pablo Escobar
Jai Mareddy
HIST 2222 Essay
Chamosa
11/13/16
US Media Interpretation of: Rise and Fall of Pablo Escobar
Abstract:
Pablo Escobar is known to many as king of the cocaine trade, having controlled and dominated over 80% of the cocaine shipped to the US. He was
born on Dec. 1, 1949 in Rionegro, Colombia to Abel Escobar and Hermilda Gaviria. Pablo showed his finesse for criminal activities in college itself,
when he ran a successful practice of selling counterfeit college diplomas to students. He later entered the cocaine trade in the early 1970's. He formed
the Medellin Cartel with other established criminals, and started one of the most successful crime organizations in Colombia. He initially earned
popularity with the public by sponsoring various charity projects throughout the Antioquia region, however later terror campaigns resulting in the
murder of thousands of civilians led to him being marked as a public enemy. He was killed in 1993, leading to the end of the biggest cocaine empire
of the time.
Pablo Escobar: Early Life/Rise to Power
Pablo Escobar was born on December 1 to parents: Abel Escobar and Hermilda Gaviria. He grew up in modest means, with his father as a farmer and
his mother as a schoolteacher. From very young, he was ambitious and wished to earn one million dollars by the time he was 22. Before getting into
the drug trade, Escobar sold stolen tombstones to smugglers and was also into the business of stealing cars. His criminal activities included

El Chapo Case
Charged for drug trafficking, money laundering, and involvement in 12 murder conspiracies Joaquin (El Chapo) Guzman awaits trials in a court at
Manhattan. His extradition occurred January 20, 2017 after several months of a dispute between his lawyers and U.S authorities. He was not
physically present for his first court meeting with federal court Judge Brian Cogan. The judge expressed that he expected the first hearing to be "brief
and non–substantive" therefore he was "inclined to have defendant present by video transmission only in order to minimize the disruption from
physical transportation". (Keshner, 2017). However, El Chapo has claimed that he wants to be physically present to his upcoming court date, and for
every future court date in his case. After his two past prison breaks in Mexico, Joaquin (El Chapo) Guzman is being held at the Metropolitan
Correctional Center in lower Manhattan (Keshner, 2017); he is currently held in solitary confinement due to his high profile risk. His lawyers, Michael
Schneider and Michelle Gelernt of the Federal Defenders of New York, argued that his client had "a right to understand how the case would unfold and
see the judge handling the case" (Keshner, 2017).... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
While in Mexico, El Chapo's lawyers fought against the Mexican government the legality of the extradition request. Once El Chapo was put on a U.S
bound plane, his Mexican lawyers were unaware of his client's sudden departure and were actually waiting to meet with him. Schneider and Gelernt
argued that their client's presence in court is necessary to ensure his faith in the fairness of the American judicial process. After their motion was filled
on Monday, Judge Cogan gave the prosecutors a Wednesday deadline to answer the defense

Edward Snowden's Journey
Travel for personal benefit is widely recognized. Things such as a trip, or a holiday are very common especially to international destinations. Edward
Snowden's journey was one of personal struggle against the country he loved and protected, as well as one to shield his own moral compass. His
travel was not for personal benefit or satisfaction, but of self–security. Being considered a terrorist, Snowden is a top priority of the United States
Government. They wish to extradite him from his hiding spot and bring him to justice for turning on his country, potentially putting American lives in
danger, and breaking his oath as a government agent.
As a former agent for the CIA, Snowden was privy to close guarded secrets of the US government in regards to clandestine programs and illegal
missions of surveillance across the globe. Knowing the false truths of his own government, Snowden fled America with classified documents that he
would use as blackmail against the America until he ultimately applied for asylum in Russia and other neighboring countries. Tensions have become
raised between two former enemies, and current fragile acquaintances over a fundamental dispute of integrity and respect. His actions reshaped the
repairing relationship between the US and Russia, his own life, the lives of his loved ones, and the people he thought he was protecting. The only
question that remains is why hasn't he been given asylum or extradited from Russia to the US? There are underlying

A Warrant for Rottman's Arrest by Germany Essays
Material Facts
In 1996 a warrant was issued in Germany for the arrest of Rottman in connection with alleged fraud offences. Metropolitan Police received a request
from the German authorities for Rottman's extradition. His precise whereabouts within England at the time were unknown. A provisional warrant for
his arrest was issued by Bow Street magistrates' court under s 8 (1) Extradition Act 1989 ( no search warrant issued). The officers then followed him
into the driveway of the house where he had been living after spotting him as a result of a surveillance operation and he was arrested outside the door.
Soon after, German police officers asked the senior officer present to search the house. Thereafter the officers entered and searched ... Show more
The Counsel for the Police Commissioner appealed the decision on the grounds that search and seizure powers applied to both domestic and
extraditable offences. Also that common law powers were merely supplanted and not replaced. He contended that the search was legal under Section
18 and 19 of PACE, and that there was no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR as search and seizure powers were lawful and proportionate to the
legitimate aim in a democratic society of crime prevention.
Ratio Decindi
Lord Hutton had affirmed the existence of common law powers to search the respondent's premises after arresting him for extraditable offences by
upholding the principles in Ghani v Jones and Osman particularly the lack of difference between warrants of arrest in domestic and extradition
proceedings.
He also held that it is a well established principle that a rule of the common law is not extinguished by a statute unless the statute makes this clear by
express provision or by clear implication. The powers for search and seizure in s18 and s19 of PACE only applied to domestic offences leaving
common law powers unmolested for extraditable offences.
It was held that there was no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR. Lord Hutton states that the arrest and the entry to perform the

Volkswagen: International White Collar Crime
In 2014, questions began to arise surrounding the Volkswagen and the emissions that their diesel cars produced. It came to light that the company was
violating U.S. environmental regulations by installing software in their cars that was able to sense when emissions were being tested and limit the
operations that increase emissions during the test thus producing a lower score. The result of this was that Volkswagen had produced and sold
approximately 10,000 vehicles that violated U.S. law. In the early part of 2017, the FBI arrested Oliver Schmidt, a Volkswagen official, in Florida
based on his connection to Volkswagens criminal activities. This case illustrates an ever growing issue in the world: international white collarcrime.
Globalization ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The difference in laws and how investigations are conducted in separate countries pose challenges with what investigators can and cannot do when
conducting their inquiries. To illustrate, international white collar crimes are often crimes of communication. Insider trading, intellectual property
rights violations, and other crimes are all based on communications between two or more people. One of the many tools that investigators use to gain
intelligence on these sorts of crimes is wiretapping, however, the procedures for using this method and the standards that must be met are different
from state to state. Yet, if the evidence ascertained in this manner is to be used in a case within theUnited States, all U.S. laws must be have been
adhered to in order for it to be admissible in court. Standards of probable cause and protections from unjust search and seizure are more stringent in
the United States and thus some evidence obtained by foreign officials in regards to a case of international white collar crime may be inadmissible.
There can be further strains when suspects are interrogated outside of the United States. U.S.' law clearly states that individuals have a right to a lawyer
and to know what their own rights are, but if this standard is not upheld in a foreign investigation, but the interrogation provides valuable information to
the U.S. case, should the

Mid-1980's Colombian Drug Cartel
By the mid–1980's Colombian drug cartels controlled most of the cocaine smuggled into the United States. More than 15 tons of cocaine smuggled in
each day, netting the cartel as much as $420 million a week. The cartels involved saw it as an opportunity to gain status and defeat the American
government. What each person in a cartel was most afraid of was being extradited to the United States.
In 1979 was a deadly shootout at the Dadeland Mall; Colombian traffickers initiated the beginning of the South Florida's drug war in which drug dealers
competed for Miami's markets. The violence in South Florida was linked to the MedellГn Cartel consolidating its control of the drug business. 49
people were killed in the shootout on July 22, 1979. According to Federal and local law enforcement officials, the Dadeland assault was part of a
sharp stepping, bloody war between various drug smuggling groups, made up of mostly illegal Colombians immigrants. In 1982 a seize of $100 million
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
At the time Murphy was transferred, Colombia was known as the center point for the world's drug trade. Murphy was paired with another DEA agent
in Colombia, Javier Pena. Murphy and Pena worked all over Colombia to find any leads for the Colombian National Police. When Escobar's wealth
became an issue of public debate the U.S. increased pressure on Colombia to extradite him.
Escobar's preoccupation tortured him; a long sentence dealt to Lehder– life sentence plus 130 years in the Federal penitentiary at Marlon, Illinois. In
1990, Escobar had Maruja PachГіn de Villamizar and her sister–in–law, Beatriz Villamizr de Guerrero kidnapped. Guerrero and Villamizar were of the
highest of society in Colombia. Guerrero is the sister of Alberto Villamizar, the deputy who succeeded in blocking the anti–extradition law. Escobar
organization tried to keep the Administration of President Gavria from extraditing

Treaties Against Terrorism And Aircraft Hijacking
treaties against terrorism and aircraft hijacking going as far back as the 70s. It was Universal jurisdiction that allowed Israel to try Adolf Eichmann in
Jerusalem in 1961. Kissinger in his article stated that "thought it possible that national judges would use them as a basis for extradition requests
regarding alleged crimes committed outside their jurisdiction". The Torture convention on 1984 that was ratified by 124 governments required that any
torturer found in its territory will be tried where the torture took place even if that means extradition. A country that does not have the means to try
someone in violation may extradite the torturer to a country that can. Then there is the Geneva conventions of 1949 on the conduct of war. The Geneva
convention was ratified by 189 countries including the United States. All countries involved have agreed to search for persons regardless of
nationality to courts for trial who are reasonably accused of crimes. Kissinger worries that the ICC was vague and ran the risk of being used for
political agenda. Roth assures him that in fact that the treaty 's definition for war crimes follows closely to the Pentagon 's very own military manuals
as well as the Geneva convention. The fear that judges and courts becoming tyrannical can be offset by the fact that as it stands prosecutors can be
removed for misconduct by a majority vote. The ICC treaty even states that a two–thirds vote can remove a judge. Many of the concerns that the ICC

Border Simulation
The peaceful relationship between the American and Mexico would not be known by looking at the militarization of our shared border. In recent
years, both parties have been talking about fixing a broken border. Serious steps need to be taken to protect the rights of individuals who have risked
their lives in order to have better chances in America. We need to address the deadly drug cartel as criminals and not the entire country ofMexico. Also,
we need to find a way to permit Mexican migrant workers with programs that help them work legally and void of the dangers of being undocumented.
The most detrimental threat propose to fix the border is the proposal of mass deportation.
In order to deal with powerful cartels, I purpose a Bilateral Extradition

Prevention And Suppression Of International Terrorism
Prevention
1.Notes that for the purposes of this resolution:
a."Major Criteria" is any act that by itself constitutes a terrorist act,
b."Minor criteria" is any act which by its sole presence does not necessarily define a terrorist act, it is necessary the concurrence of at least two (2) of
them to be regarded as such,
c."Facilities" are any public or private building, or means of transportation;
2.Instructs that for the purposes of this resolution, in accordance with the legal instruments related to the prevention and suppression of international
terrorism made by the United Nations and regional bodies, an act will be regarded as a "terrorist act" whenever it is committed crossing one or more
borders with the aim of achieving political goals through the dissemination of terror with the intent to influence beyond the immediate victim, and it is
accompanied by one (1) major criteria, or by the concurrence of at least two (2) minor criteria:
a.Major criteria constitutes an acts that:
i.Causes death or serious body injuries to potential victims as defined in paragraph (3), based on Article 2 subsection "a" of the International
Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, (1997). ii. Intimidates a population, based on Article 2 subsection "b" of the International
Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, 1999. iii. Compels a Government or international organization to perform or abstain
from performing and act, based on Article 2 subsection

Private Meek Case Essay
Several issues arose from a violent dispute at a bar between two American members of the Armed Forces that were stationed in another country. This
dispute injured a waitress and led to the death of one of them, Private Meek. When the member of the Armed Forces was killed by the other, a violent
crowd of locals appeared at the American Embassy in that country. This violent crowd caused the death of another individual which then caused
employees to go in the defense of the Embassy and further produce several other deaths and injuries. This incident is very controversial because there
was a crime committed at a local bar by foreigners that led to two more committed crimes by locals to that country, Hwat Nau. In order to address who
has jurisdiction ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One might analyze the Passive Personality Principle in this case. This principle is These countries may consider negotiating with one another to resolve
any and all jurisdictional disputes. This is particularly handled by diplomatic agents sent abroad. This negotiation between Hwat Nau and the United
States might consist of an extradition treaty. This would mean that the United States may request the extradition of Sergeant Bully for jurisdiction in
the US and the court will consider if the extradition is valid in the case.
Considering that Hwat Nau has direct jurisdiction in this case, the United States can request an agreement with Hwat Nau taking into consideration the
Status of Forces Agreement

Analysis Of Atif Rafay And Sebastian Burns
Atif Rafay and Sebastian Burns, two young Vancouverites charged with the brutal Triple Homicide of the Rafay family, after 10 years at large, were
put behind American bars in 2003. Perhaps recognized as one of the most controversial yet defining cases in the history of Canadian law, United
States vs. Burns, is noted for its intriguing story, its subsequent battle over extradition and its controversial use of evidence. Essentially, from a
Canadian perspective, this benchmark case challenged the fundamental rights of Canadians embedded deep within our Constitution, and set a distinct
precedent in handling extraditions. The brutal slayings of the Rafay family, which took place over the summer of 1994 in Bellevue, Washington,
triggered a series of legal complications that would last for 10 years. Upon the tragic death of his family, Atif Rafay and his friend Sebastian Burns
fled to Vancouver in hopes of evading American law–enforcement officials. However, the duo was unaware they had become part of an intensive
undercover operation manned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After confessing the crimes to an undercover officer on video, they were
arrested along with their roommate in 1995. Prompted by the request of Washington State prosecutors for their extradition, the caseUnited States vs.
Burns made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada in February of 2001. The subject of the hearing regarded constitutional law, as the defense counsel
invoked sections 1, 6, 7 and 12

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Jeanne Hall

More from Jeanne Hall (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)