Most people know what extradition is - the transfer of a person to another country for trial. But I wasn't quite sure exactly what the meaning of the word was. Who actually does the extradition - the country who wants the individual, or the country where the individual is located? Is extradition the request for transfer, the acceptance of the request, the entire process from request to transfer, or the transfer itself? Various news accounts give me the impression that many reporters are unsure of the meaning of the word. You'll find a number of definitions here (click), but I'm still not sure what the term means.

• If the US requests, has the person been extradited?
  
• If the UK agrees to the request, has he been extradited?
  
• If the UK refuses the request, is that extraditus interruptus?

And what is the person's status now?
I don't see this as a terrible thing, for the UK to send the man to the US to stand trial. Presumably, the man will get a fair trial - and he may well be acquitted. I think that in most cases, a nation should refuse to extradite only when the charges against an individual are blatantly unjust. I gather from the definitions I've seen that "extradition" isn't extradition until the transfer has been completed. Acknowledging the request from Peter K., I have changed the title to Hacker to be extradited to the US, which is a bit closer to accuracy.
-Joe-