Now Sevodnya in the Zakaev's case,the Russians provided all the evidence against him,some of which appeared to be wrong.What has this got to do with concealing evidence? or if all the evidence is provided before or during a court hearing?
In a court of law,you simply cannt conceal evidence from a defence.This is called Disclosure and may lead to a mistrial.
Just because our dear government puts people on the plane to the USA without any evidence like a good boy,does not mean UK should expect Russia to be a poodle to the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4650543.stm
Mr Johnson MP said in this matter of extraditing to the
USA without solid evidence "To call it poodling is an insult to poodles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003
extract:(UK)Be satisfied that the request contains admissible evidence of the offence sufficient to establish a prima facie case against the person. This requirement does not apply in respect of extradition requests from the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Extradition laws in Russia are simple.We are nobodies poodles.You have a case against our citizen then come and we will judge it ourself.If not we will protect him or her.
So why is the UK bitter? This is what the UK should be doing for us,and not playing poodle with us.In this respect my hat is off for the Russians in every respect.
So again I ask.Why did the UK make a request in the first place?
Do they want the Russians to go back on their own law to give full protection to its nationals no matter how small he is?
If they wanted Russia to make a u-turn on its own law,do they really think that Russia will even listen to some half baked evidence they are providing?
Sceptic has a point that the UK may have withheld evidence as to not disclose their source for security reasons.Then they should have not bothered with a request in the first place.
Bravo Sam. Also have to agree strongly with Skeptic about why the UK does not want to provide evidence to Russian authorities.
Only I see a loophole in the way that Skeptic has so far (as S_N and others) been unable or refuse to consider both kinds of consequences. There are more than a couple variables at this point in the investigation of the L. poisoning case with regard to the nature of the evidence.
Also, it is a completely fair time to move into this spectrum of parity conjectures since complete negative and detrimental speculations about Russia (government and people) have nearly been exhausted by the US and UK press and general media.
Nevertheless congrats to Skeptic for taking the leap. Now for the bounds.
Sam,
I don't understand your point about concealing evidence. Plainly evidence should not be concealed from a court.
I also made the point that the UK might want to protect its sources: rather understandable in the circumstances.
I also questioned why the UK went ahead with an extradition demand that was doomed to failure and suggested a cynical reason for this which I don't really believe.
As for the evidence being "half baked" no one knows that do they? As long as Britain thinks that there is a chance Lugovoy can be brought to trial then that evidence will probably stay under wraps.
But even if it is ever released without a trial there will be those who claim it is fabricated.
Finally, I don't think anyone believes Lugovoy is the really organ grinder. A trial might have brought out a lot more than a lot of people were prepared to stomach in open court as I suggested before.
Speculation, speculation :-)
Okey we have now agreed that Britain had no business requesting extradition from Russia.
So if the UK is keeping their evidence under wraps as sevodnya says.Then what ever they saw fit to provide the Russians is therefore half baked.They should not expect the Russians even to talk to them if they do not show what they have.
Then again,If UK adds Russia to its Extradition Act 2003,maybe Russia will do the same:)
Or maybe not,Just like the USA:)
Even if Lugavoy was sent back to england on the extreme demands of that gvt. it would a miss trial - trial by media. The media have already pronounced him guilty from make believe evidence therefore making the people of england believe he is guilty therefore any jury selected will have him guilty before he opens his mouth, or are the people of england so pure in their minds that this will not be the case? Get to grips. england is trying to play the boss man and bully Russia around showing total disrespect toward her law, recognised internationally. england is a loser or is england going to try an Iraq with Russia? The chance will be a fine thing. ha ha ha Lugavoy is in the best possible place.
This case has unfortunately spoilt Russian-Anglo relations and will lead to more arguements, if both Governments and their respective Intelligence organizations start excepting neither side is going to win this dispute.
Each needs to respect where each sits on this. Disarm it without escalating it.
Russia nor Great Britain wanted this standoff.
As some of you have suggested Britain wanted to Bully Russia. Thats total rubbish! Why would we want to?
We do alot of trade with Russia we are the biggest investor on your stock exchange in Europe. The TNK-BP dispute is harming UK and Russia. NOW!
The British and Russia are naturally wary of each other after the cold war. Our media will be naturally sceptical as yours is of ours. Our Courts are independent. But I am a realiest.
We need to put our mistrust behind us.
Read these blogs and you may understand. Its not so simple. As it all appears.
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/markurban/2008/07/litvinenko_killing_had_state_i.html
A few of smiley's people are talking.
Russia and Britain are both proud nations. We should avoid mistrust as thats old history, old politics = Stalinistic and Churchilian Views.
Today, 09/08/08, we had the english defence secretary recognising the fact that Russia is a sovereign state. Now then, this contradicts all that has been said and the demands made by the toothless government of england. Let us start treating Russia as a sovereign state and as such recognise her laws and constitution. England you are no longer the almighty of the world, Russia is not a satellite country of yours and Russia has her own Constitution and laws and not rediculous laws passed down from your Parliament which are absolutely rediculous to say the least.
Pretty obvious he was smuggling Plutonium Litvenenko story has so many contradictions and holes in it, it is obvious the official version is a lie especially if the MI6 was involved in a Plutonium smuggling ring with the Litvenenko mythology legend spun by the UK government and Berezovsky propaganda machine.
If they had any case then why did they wait 20 days after he was admitted to hospital to call the police, traces of Plutonium found in areas he visited before he met Lugovi, not released any CCTV footage or autopsy report?
&host=rt.com&uri=/community/forums/features/who-killed-aleksandr-litvinenko/page-6/&via=(none)&ua=CCBot/1.0 (+http://www.commoncrawl.org/bot.html))
