How could he possibly be a 'fugitive', just by sitting at home, without his accusers resorting to the sort of tricksy, deceitful equivocations with language which seem to have characterised the whole of the US government's approach to this case? A 'fugitive' has, by definition, flown from somewhere. Mr Tappin had sat at home in front of his desktop screen. Whence was he supposed to have 'flown'? The US government seems to have been using language completely Humpty-Dumpty-wise throughout -- which doesn't somehow afford much confidence in their integrity or bona fides in the prosecution of this matter.

In any event, there is surely something wrong with a treaty which allows a foreign government to arrest the national of another country and take him abroad by force without his having been informed of the charges against him or given any opportunity to defend them according to the judicial processes of his own country.

~M~