BS: Christopher Tappin

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Apr 12 - 04:29 AM

I think you know what I meant, Richard. By 'White, Middle-class, and ordinary' I was refering to socio/ethnic groupings. Can you imagine the fuss that woulld have been caused if Mr T was of African, Latin or, heaven forbid, Native American descent?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:31 PM

Obviously the primary responsibility for any injustice involved in cases like this lies with the British government. Just as the primary responsibility would lie with the American government if the cases were reversed. Except that wouldn't be allowed to happen - that's where the difference lies.

Basically this is what the term "special relationship" actually seems to mean.

You wouldn't get France dealing with this kind of situation this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 05:22 PM

Can someone clarify

(a) was Tappin in the US at the time he allegedly did the allegedly wrongful things for which he was extradited

(b) if he was not at that time in the US, what relevant communications of his were allegedly received in the US?

Many of us have been saying since before the Extradition treaty in question became operative and before the Extradition Act that Mr Justice Cranston considered came into force that the effect as between the US and the UK are inequitable in that a person can be extradited to the US in circumstances that if mirrored would not result in his being extradited from the UK to the UK.

Which (naturally) brings me to the UK resident unlawfully incarcerated in Guanatanamo bay...

And US refusal to honour promises at governmental level to release prisoners to the UK government.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:50 PM

I have asked such a question ~ above, if you look. But the treaty was inequitably and clumsily drafted as a panic measure to counteract terrorism ~ never intended to be used for general misdemeanours, and unevenly open to interpretation by the judiciaries of the two countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:36 PM

Well the extradition treaty is an agreement between the two governments, so I don't see why the US is getting all the blame.

The UK Justice Cranston agreed that the extradition was OK. Perhaps you should be asking your questions of him.

And don't forget that he was trying to buy missile components to sell to a country that is strongly suspected of developing nuclear weapons to use against the Western World.

But don't worry, as it says in the song "We'll all go together when we go"

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:48 PM

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~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 03:19 PM

Michael, he has been dealing with International purchasing and shipping, and when you cross out of your own nation, you tangle with other people's rules.

When Christopher Tappin was extradited from the U.K. in late February to face charges for attempting to ship Hawk Missile batteries from the U.S. to Iran, government officials here portrayed him as a danger to the community and an enemy of the United States. On March 5th, a bail hearing was held for Tappin in El Paso, TX where U.S. prosecutor Greg McDonald said of the 65 year-old Tappin, "He might have character letters from the golf club but he's not going to get such glowing letters from those people shot down on planes, who were victims of these weapons. These people are screaming and crying that something be done to stop that sort of shipment."

[snip]

However, at the same time that one arm of federal law enforcement is using information from Christopher Tappin to prosecute a case, another arm is investigating him for crimes against the U.S. Tappin, the U.S. government claims, had been in discussions with undercover agents to illegally purchase military batteries, made in the U.S., for Hawk Missiles destined for Iran. Beginning in August 2006, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had information that Tappin was involved in activities that the U.S. considered dangerous to its national security. In fact, ICE claims that Tappin had called undercover agents about Hawk Missile batteries directly on October 2, 2006, a month before Tappin's call with the FBI on the Sky Capital case. Simultaneously, the U.S. government is citing Tappin for his valuable cooperation in a federal crime (Sky), while at the same time claiming that he is involved in activities of shipping military goods to Iran. So which is Tappin, friend or foe?. . .or both?

On January 26, 2007, the U.S. had a cooperating witness against Tappin for trying to move goods to Iran and issued a warrant for his arrest. Since he was in the U.K., Tappin was considered a fugitive. The guilty plea of the informant in the Hawk Missile case, Robert Gibson (U.K. citizen), landed a 24 month sentence in prison and a trial verdict of "guilty" for another person involved, Robert Caldwell (U.S. citizen), yielded 20 months prison time. So started the road to bring Tappin to the U.S. to face criminal charges.

He cooperated with the Federal officials on an earlier case in which he made a dodgy investment. He has been in the cross-hairs for a while now yet he chose to make another dodgy investment. I suspect that the whole extradition thing is tangled with the UK and US war politics and Mr. Tappin is an embarrassment to both countries.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:36 PM

Did he do so, though, while physically present in US? If not, then the law seems to me, to say the least, unclear ~~ as the controversy over the inequity in the extradition provisions would seem to confirm.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 02:22 PM

DtG said "ordinary".

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Tappin not set up and pursue the transaction in the USA - where the US undoubtedly has jurisdiction?

The only question in this case (if I am right) is whether he should be extradited to a place where he is unlikely to get a fair trial - and without the evidence against him being tested in a UK court.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 11:26 AM

I think we are on the same side, Richard; but I don't approve of your paltering with the language in the suggestion that any member of the middle classes must be Mr Average; this seems to me merely to muddy an issue which needs to be kept clear.

Whether he knew what he was doing or not is beside the point, SRS, if what he was doing was not illegal in the place where he was doing it. It might astonish you to learn it, but we are not subject to your laws over here ~ even tho you may think they were declared immutable by that creature in whom, according to your banknotes, you trust. If I should happen to commit a bit of adultery [at my age! Ha! ~~ chance would be a fine thing!], I don't see that I should be in any way inhibited by being required to consider that I should be stoned to death if they happened to hear about it in Saudi Arabia!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:43 AM

Go read the Forbes magazine article I linked to. It sounds like Mr. Tappin has been trying to get rich quick, cutting it close to the line between legal and illegal as he chooses what he is investing in. The earlier episode illustrates that.

Just because he's older and walks with a stick doesn't mean he's gained wisdom during his years on earth. He sounds like someone who is living in comfortable circumstances who tried to pull a fast profit one too many times and now he's having to face the American legal system.

I suspect he knew what he was doing.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:28 AM

The point is that Tappin was not Mr Average. I don't think he should be hauled off to the USA for offering to sell batteries, and I have no doubt at all that he will not get a fair trial unless his family can raise millions in legal fees and I'd be doubtful even then.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Bert
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 10:25 AM

...And what is the relevance of what the items were?...

I assumed that they were special batteries designed for a specific missile, which would make them missile components. If they were just your ordinary double A's, then I doubt if he would be in jail.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:28 AM

Well, what of it, Richard: aren't arms dealers middle-class, then? I didn't know that anyone regarded them as aristocracy. And if they were/are rich, so what? Are they not therefore entitled to common justice?

And what is the relevance of what the items were?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 06:16 AM

Actually DtG I was under the impression that they were in fact rich arms dealers. I may be wrong, but that is what I thought I had seen somewhere.

But in any event, the items in question here were BATTERIES.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Apr 12 - 04:45 AM

I guess this case, and this thread, has not generated the public outcry that a lot get because Mr Tappin and his family are white, middle class, ordinary people. If they had been of any other background it would have been an instant invitation for everyone to jump on the bandwagon of the oppressed!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 09:13 PM

Forbes article about the case.

Solitary - I suspect he has heard about American prisons. It's an investor cash cow over here - private prisons run by corporations. And the more they can cram in them, the better they like it, so I think you'll find that some of these corporations are behind the lobbying for stern mandatory prison sentences for all sorts of things, even non-violent crimes.

Mr. Tappin probably figured he had a better chance of being unmolested in solitary.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: katlaughing
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 07:35 PM

There is a claim on WIKI that he asked , at first, to be in solitary. There are also some statements by him and info about his family. THIS ARTICLE says he is now being held in a dormitory with four other inmates and has quotes by his son.

And, finally, there is an article HERE about his life and family and a recent phone call he made to his wife, as well as quotes from him on how his living situation is, at the moment.

I am not saying anything about the circumstances of how this happened or about the extradition, just giving some updates I found by googling. There are several others.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 06:09 PM

I am less concerned about the crime itself than about the way in which the US judicial system is handling it.

1. Solitary confinement!........WHY?
2. Refusal of bail!.....again, WHY? Take away his passport and where's he going to run to? As for the danger to the public, WTF does that mean? We're talking about a slightly overweight sixty five year old sedentary type with zero record of violent behaviour, not a fucking Japanese Ninja.
3. Not being allowed books of crossword puzzles sent by concerned family to pass the time for the two years it is expected he will serve before trial!.......WHY?    Do they think he's going to make a huge paper airplane and fly away?
4. Austin Texas, it appears, is the closest city with lawyers. A considerable plane journey reduces his access to legal representation.
5. Press releases from prosecutors only, with no single word of his side of the story....WHY?   Are they subjecting him to "Trial by Media" with only half the story so that fair trial is impossible? Looks that way to us!

Is this whole clusterfuck of undue process leading to his quiet disappearance into Guantanamo where he can be kept until he dies, or assisted to that end by an "unavoidable and unfortunate "accident"?"

A US citizen in the same circumstances would be out on the street two hours after arrest, bailed to attend court later.

I say again, American justice?.....AN OXYMORON!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 05:12 PM

But that is precisely the point, Bert ~~he was NOT a US citizen. But for a flawed, unbalanced and inexpertly drafted extradition agreement [and how was that ever allowed to come about?!], the US could have no possible jurisdiction in the matter. He committed no crime under UK law, and I cannot imagine what merit there can be in the point you quote from Cranston (J).

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Bert
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 03:57 PM

I am very much against entrapment and think that any deal that you do with Government officials should be considered legal.

However, if what Mr Justice Cranston, states is true, that the buyers made the first approach and that Tappin was given a chance to withdraw, Then buying the missile components (yes they may have been batteries) amounts to a crime. It would have been treason if he were a US citizen.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Apr 12 - 02:24 PM

Refresh in re ongoing "Extradition" thread"

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 08:15 AM

There are arguments about whether enabling copyright infringment is also an infringing act, and the way the wind is blowing, judicially, seems to be in that direction in most jurisdictions.

I have never liked the argument that an act, in relation to copyright, is done where the effects are felt rather than where it is done, and still think that the Bogsch theory is wrong, but you can see the problems taht arise shold someone authorise, abroad, the doing of a direct infringment in the UK (for example by granting a licence rooted in water).

The US is I think the greatest promulgator of "long arm" statutes in the world and I find that that indicates an unpleasant arrogance.

Subject to those qualifications I agree with Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 07:54 AM

Unless of course, government agencies of the United States are under the impression that the UK is within US jurisdiction, in which case they need to be disabused of the notion...PRONTO!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 07:49 AM

My last three sentences related specifically to the latest extradition of an English lad for pointing the way to websites which infringed copyright, without actually infringing any UK law whatever.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 07:46 AM

IMHO, our courts should insist that the US government present sufficient evidence to show the same "probable cause" which allows drug dealers and gang members to challenge arrest and even conviction within the US justice system.

Also IMO, nobody should be extradited to the US for activities in the UK which are not illegal in the UK.

If they cannot be charged, convicted and punished in this country, they should not be removed to another state to enable conviction under different rules.

It would be different if these "criminal" activities had occurred within US jurisdiction, but they did not!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Mar 12 - 02:05 AM

YY ~ I do see what you mean; and the mods must surely have seen what you have said. If they want to change it, or you want to contact them to suggest it, fine by me. But in fact the thread does now seem to have taken off and interest aroused Thank you for your interest; I certainly take the point about your husband's reaction.

Best regards
~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 07:48 PM

If the US can demand the English be extradited for crimes under US law, why can't Iran demand we be extradited to them for apostasy?

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Mrrzy
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 07:18 PM

I do think that half the arrests made lately for theoretical terrorism seem to be sting operations, like the Americans are going around and saying Anybody want to kill us? And if somebody says Yes, they help them set it up and then arrest them for trying. makes for good copy on We foiled another plot, but makes me wonder... how many of these people would have done anything at all if the americans hadn't helped first?

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 06:38 PM

"I find the comparative lack of interest in this thread depressing and distressing in the extreme."

"I am saddened by the lack of any response from our own resident Cat dogooders who are usually so ready to leap in & vociferously denounce any oppression or injustice anywhere else in the world ~~ you all know who I mean, our well-meaning-amateur-status-losers like eg. JC or Pot7*. Only this time it is only a middle-class English couple being grossly persecuted so that's all right then, eh?"

MGM, I guess what bothers me is that you have been quick to conclude there is no interest, and to disparage "Cat dogooders", and yet when I have (twice) suggested reasons why you haven't had the response(s) you expected, you have not acknowledged that possibility.

If this was a thread I had started myself, and if my real concern was making more people aware of this outrageous situation, I would have PMed a Mudelf and asked them to change the subject days ago. I have thought of doing so anyway, but it seems highly inappropriate to me to ask that they change the subject of a thread started by someone else.

I have considered starting another thread on this topic -- but it seems to me it would just get combined with this one.

What I'm driving at is that -- at least from your posts on this thread -- you seem more inclined to bemoan the lack of interest than to help more people become aware of it. I'm honestly not trying to be nasty when I say that; it's just what it looks like from my vantage point.

From other posts of yours that I've read, you seem like a pretty knowledgeable, down-to-earth fellow, so it's surprised me that you haven't taken a more practical approach in this thread.

What say you?

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 02:48 PM

In any event, I intended the thread simply to refer to this particular abusive instance in the case of Mr Tappin; and provided IMO a detailed link sufficient to acquaint any newcomers to it with its particulars. I don't particularly want the thread to drift to the general question of the uneven effects of the extradition treaty in force; if you, or anyone, wants one, then why not start one and title it as you please?

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 12:00 PM

Not sure how to, YY. Though it a job for the mods.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 16 Mar 12 - 11:53 AM

MGM, you've never responded to my theory on why your thread hasn't had as much interest as you expected/my suggestion to change the subject of the thread. I was kinda hopin' you would...

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 09:03 PM

In general terms Supreme Court used to be House of Lords trumps Court of Appeal trumps High Court.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 12:57 PM

I have all-too-personal experience of British courts/judges -- from Magistrate's Court to Crown Court all the way up to the High Court (this was before the new Supreme Court was implemented) -- ignoring "inconvenient" facts, laws and even blatant perjury; also of a judge going from a sympathetic attitude (during the first session) to a surprisingly hostile one (during the next session some months later). This was over a speeding ticket, and I remember my (English, btw) hubbie & I thinking, "If they play this dirty when a speeding ticket is involved, what lengths will they go to when the stakes are higher?" So I'm afraid I have no trouble believing that a Judge could have been "leaned on"...

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Mar 12 - 02:29 AM

This is a rare case, to have made me dubious as to the bona fides and impartiality of a High Court decision, supposedly delivered independently of governmental interference and influence. Cannot help suspecting Cranston J was got at by the Foreign Office as to what sort of decision woud be acceptable ~~ seems only possible explanation of so perverse a judgment of such comfort to our dubiously putative co-equals in this obscenely uneven extradition treaty [see Richard's {a Man Of Laws himself} excellent demolition of the judgment above].

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 11:25 PM

So Mr Justice Cranston, a British High Court judge, is in on it? Or is he perhaps just not British enough?

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 08:03 PM

And by the way, if you compare paragraphs 29 and 31 of the judgment you will see the bending of the logic - which is over and above the ridiculously unjust nature of the obligation to extradite contained in the Extradition Act.

Further the unverified reports of the statements of Gibson are prayed in aid to demonstrate the truth of the allegation that Tappin had done what Gibson alleged. That is the sort of thing that the rules against hearsay ought still to strike down.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 07:49 PM

Batteries, FFS?

And who will pay, in the USA, for Tappin's defence?

And will the US "system" offer a plea bargain based on a back end hammer with a possible death sentence?

Fair trial my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Ebbie
Date: 14 Mar 12 - 12:02 PM

In this case as in so many others it seems to me that the courts- whether British or American - might have more information than I.

"A federal arrest warrant for Tappin was first issued by a grand jury in Texas in 2007. In January 2012 Tappin lost his final appeal against extradition to the USA under the Extradition Act 2003.[9] On denying Tappin's appeal against extradition to the United States, Mr Justice Cranston, a British High Court judge, considered whether the case was the result of entrapment by US agents, concluding:

    "Gibson, [Tappin]'s co-conspirator, approached MGE officers, not the other way around, and said that he had already conducted illegal export activities with [Tappin]. After Gibson dropped out, [Tappin] pursued the order and made clear that ultimately he wanted 35 batteries. [Tappin] devised the cover that the batteries were for electroplating by a Dutch chemical company. MGE's agents gave [Tappin] an opportunity to withdraw from the transaction on 19 October [2006], after he had stopped payment, but [Tappin] persisted.[4]"

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 10:34 PM

Richard,

Yes -- and for an "offense" that is not even illegal in the UK!

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 07:09 PM

Another one went tonight. Extradited for an alleged copyright offence committed in the UK.

It is time we stopped being an unsinkable aircraft carrier.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 05:35 PM

I just asked my hubbie -- who is something of a newshound (and has a much better memory than I do) -- if the name "Christopher Tappin" means anything to him. "Yeeeeeeees," he said, but give me a context." When I said "extradition", he remembered who CT is.

Given that my hubbie is way better informed than most Brits (let alone Yanks, including me), and that there is no doubt way more coverage of this story in the UK than in the US (remember that most USians haven't even heard of Gary McKinnon, let alone Christopher Tappin!), I don't think CT's name alone is enough to get folks interested.

I only clicked on this thread (the first time, which was not the first time I noticed it) because I had no idea who CT was and was a bit curious -- and also because it was a nice, unintimidatingly short thread that wouldn't take ages to read (I already feel like I spend too much time reading Mudcat...).

Unfortunately, CT is highly unlikely to have the kind of name recognition factor of Nelson Mandela -- or even, say, Leonard Peltier, so -- as I mentioned before, if you want input from "our own resident Cat dogooders", I strongly suggest you get a mudelf to change the thread's subject... and if you want input from (or better yet, to help raise awareness of) other Yanks, it'd be a good idea to have the word US somewhere in the subject as well...

How's about "Unfair US extradition policy"? (Or if you want to be diplomatic, "Highly questionable US extradition policy"; if not, "Outrageous US extradition policy"!)

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 12:32 PM

An American citizen cannot be arrested by his own law enforcement authorities without "probable cause", and yet they can extradite the citizens of another state without producing any evidence, take them in the most humiliating way (in handcuffs) in full view of the public of both countries, hold them in jail until trial, however long that takes and incarcerate them without anything that remotely resembles fair trial for periods vastly in excess of what a murderer would serve in their own country.

We have absolutely no evidence from the US as to the nature of the batteries they used to entrap Christopher Tappin, other than a claim that they could be used in Iranian missiles. We are not told whether they might also be used in any other capacity, but, even if they are dedicated missile components, we haven't seen any evidence presented that they were intended for Iran.

And I'm sure that US dealers have sold plenty to other missile owning states.

The US government isn't winning many friends this side of the pond, and we are the ones who elect those politicians who maintain the "Special Relationship" (you know, the relationship between the school bully and his victim).

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 07:10 AM

I have previously posted on the issue of the extraordinary and unjust US/UK extradition treaty. I am with MtheGM and Don Thompson every inch of the way on this one - and indeed probably further.

Batteries, for fuck's sake!

The US law on the export of technology is a farce of vastly overreaching tendency. It is a modern equivalent of sending a gunboat.

The US "justice" system serves only the very very rich, and the US plea bargaining process is (and "back end slammer" charging habits are) a disgrace.

The "European Arrest Warrant" is no better and in some respect worse (although we wait with bated breath to see if the Supreme Court will clip its wings over Assange) in that it conflates a request from a prosecutor with one from a judicial authority.

The US pursues with a terrifying and spiteful focus those who seek to limit its hubris. Bradley Manning is being physically and mentally tortured, McKinnon has been and still is being psychologically tortured, and there is no possible defence of the physical and psychological systematic tortures in Guantanamo Bay and indeed in Abu Ghraib.

The US is a rogue state that refuses to accept international norms (eg the International Criminal Court).

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 05:08 AM

Sorry, Ebbie. See your point. But nobody can ever start from anywhere except where they are, can they? No offence to Americans, I assure you; I gather the matter has not even been canvassed there. But I was distressed that nobody else had taken note here, tho the matter had been running for a while. So I started this thread on the 'better late...' principle.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: Ebbie
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 02:35 AM

MtheGM, I take umbrage - always when someone starts out by slamming other Mudcatters (usually American) for not starting a thread on a particular subject. My position is that you should acknowledge that neither had you started a thread on it before that very moment. It seems the height of rudeness and thoughtlessness to me.

I feel strongly enough about it to consider not even reading about the subject- but I will.

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Mar 12 - 12:58 AM

Indeed, YY. And I am saddened by the lack of any response from our own resident Cat dogooders who are usually so ready to leap in & vociferously denounce any oppression or injustice anywhere else in the world ~~ you all know who I mean, our well-meaning-amateur-status-losers like eg. JC or Pot7*. Only this time it is only a middle-class English couple being grossly persecuted so that's all right then, eh?

vomit

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: YorkshireYankee
Date: 12 Mar 12 - 11:33 PM

I confess that I've managed to miss hearing/seeing much about this one 'til you mentioned it here, MGM. I wonder if the reason you've not had much response is that -- even if folks have heard of the case -- they (like me) don't recognise Mr Tappin's name. Maybe the thread would attract more attention with a Subject along the lines of "Another unfair US extradition of UK citizen"?

I read the Daily Mail article you mentioned above, and read a couple more after Googling the subject:

Telegraph: David Cameron not sympathetic to plight of alleged arms dealer
and
Forbes: U.K.'s Chris Tappin, U.S. Government Informant or Enemy? (I wanted to find an article with a US view as well.)

As a USian living in the UK, I all too often find my government's behaviour appalling, outrageous and seriously upsetting. I agree with British opinion that this extradition agreement with the US is absurd, and can't really see why the UK govt 1) agreed to it in the first place, and 2) hasn't repealed or at least modified it by now. Why on earth agree to let another country extradite one's citizens without at least being granted the same courtesy in return?

I have particularly been concerned about the plight of
Gary McKinnon (here's a link for anyone (prolly Yanks) who hasn't already heard of him) (especially since, if I bring up the subject when I'm visiting the US, it seems almost no-one has even heard of him). It is harder (for me) to feel quite the same amount of sympathy for Mr Tappin, but I agree the principles still (should) apply to him as well, and that it is completely unjust that the US apparently has been allowed to extradite him (in handcuffs!) without showing evidence, while his own witnesses won't even be able to testify on his behalf.

I'm also concerned about Mr Tappin's wife; according to the Mail, she has Churg-Strauss syndrome (which is what killed UK DJ Charlie Gillett) and he has been taking care of her. What will happen to her if he's locked up in the US for the rest of his life?

It is absolutely sickening.
But since what he's accused of is -- in effect -- (a form of) arms dealing, I don't foresee Avaaz or Amnesty International championing his cause anytime soon...

Subject: RE: BS: Christopher Tappin
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Mar 12 - 03:09 PM

Well, not that much response, was there? I still think this is an iniquitous situation, redounding no credit on our government and authorities; and extreme discredit on our American friends.

I find the comparative lack of interest in this thread depressing and distressing in the extreme.

But thanks to the four of you who have replied: all, it would appear, on my side of the question.

Anybody think there is anything to be said in favour of his treatment. No-one else anything to say against it?

Or is this enormity, whereby a previously entirely respectable citizen can be shipped in handcuffs 5,000 mile from his home & wife & family, with no sort of charge against him even communicated to him or his lawyers, really to be met here with such a near-universal shrug?

~M~