« Bird Watchin' In The Hood | Main | Child Surveillance (8) »

July 15, 2006

Comments

Ali McNab

Hi Dave,

The amazing support of these three wealthy men, wh can afford the best lawyers (well connected lawyers too, by the looks of things).

Would these men have had the same level of support if they were skint, or were brown, or if they had been caught with millions in drugs instead of millions of other peoples money (alledgedly)?

The debate about equality over this case covers more than an unratified treaty.

Dave Hill

I agree, Ali. Perhaps surprisingly so does a hack on the Mail. Did you see my other post on this business?

http://davehill.typepad.com/temperama/2006/07/diddums.html

Till soon!

James

Hang on hang on. Whether these people have money or not is nothing to the point as to whether they are guilty or not. Indeed they hired a PR firm, which is a luxury few defendants can afford, but that too doesn't mean they are or are not guilty. The fact that the lopsidedness of the treaty hasn't been brought to public attention
before is also irrelevant.

Either they were guilty or they weren't, and (quite separately) either the extradition treaty should not have been signed until the US was prepared to ratify it or it was ok to do as we did and sign it anyway.

The case seems strange from where I'm sitting. Natwest didn't sue them. The authorities here showed no interest in them. So why are the Americans training their legal guns on them?

No I don't have the definitive answer. As it happens the majority (it is a large majority) of those charged with criminal offences in both the US and the UK are charged because they're guilty. But the system exists to protect those few who are not, and one way that works is that people are innocent until proven guilty. We shall see in this case.

Dave Hill

I think the extradition situation is unacceptable but it's a separate issue from the criminal case against them. I find their martyrdom unconvincing and its promotion by their supporters mostly a ruse for distracting attention from the case against them.

James

I was clear in my earlier post that the treaty is a separate issue from the guilt or innocence of the three defendants.

What I still don't understand is how they injured any party in the US. As I understand it, they are supposed to have sold an asset of Natwest at an undervalue. Ergo it is Natwest who should be bringing civil proceedings, but they have not. Nor have the UK authorities. Is this because the UK is soft on white collar crime, as the anti-NW3 crowd seem to say? Or is it that there is no case against them, and the whole thing is a result of overzealous US prosecutors trying to put everyone in the gun who ever had dealings with Enron.

The comments to this entry are closed.