« Child Surveillance? (7) | Main | PMQs Explained (No6: 12/7/06) »

July 13, 2006

Comments

Jarndyce

I guess it depends on whether we want a system of justice where Edward Heathcoat Amory gets to decide who's guilty and innocent; or one in which an accused person is judged innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Take your pick.

Dave Hill

Hello Jarndyce. I pick the court of law. But I suppose E H-A's argument is that our courts have proved ineffectual in bringing serious financial fraudsters to justice.

Jarndyce

Sure. I dare say he's right. But to mix that point in with whether extradition of British citizens to another jurisdiction ought to be offered without any case at all being first presented is where he goes wrong.

And of course he (perhaps intentionally) misses the most interesting thing about all this. Which is that nobody appeared to give a toss about this extradition law while it was supposed to be there to send brown people off to American jails.

Francis Sedgemore

Liberty were quite right to get involved in this case, as whether or not the three are guilty of the charges that have yet to be formally levelled against them, the one-sided extradition treaty with the US is an absolute travesty of justice!

Roldy

These guys are such small potatos. You can tell they are nobodies. Otherwise they would be given a job at the US Treasury.

Did you know Henry Paulson, the new US Treasury Secretary, was an assistant to Erlichman from 1972-73 in the Nixon white house? This job ended when Erlichman got fired and was later sentenced to 18 months in prison.

And he was head of investment banking at Goldman Sachs in 1993 when Goldman invented "Monthly Income Prefered Shares" which were especially designed to appear as a loan for the taxman and equity to shareholders. Goldman handled them for an Enron subsidiary set up in a Caribbean tax haven in the same year. At the time this was applauded as a great coup.

If you are good at this stuff you manage to stay onside and you are invariably invited into the tent so you might piss outwards.

And the only 'controversy' about the choice of 'Hank' Paulson? He is rumoured to be an environmentalist...shock horror.

So I think the lesson is we should only bother to fight to keep hold of the really talented ones. But these guys look like clowns with no class. Sod'em.

Jeremy ryan

Hey, Mr Dave Hill,
Why do you seem so bitter about these three guys? You seem resentful about them - do you even know them? I don't know if they are innocent or guilty but I believe the way they have been treated and what they have been put through is a disgrace to tis country. Incidentally, I know a couple of people who know them - apparently they have about a dozen kids between them - and guess what - they are very nice, genuine, guys! Why do you hate them?

The comments to this entry are closed.