Talk:UK–US extradition treaty of 2003

Importance
On the basis of the amount of attention this controversial act has been receiving in the UK press would not a higher level of importance be appropriate for this article than 'low'? (looking at the importance assessment criteria that would appear to be the case). I would have thought 'mid' would be appropriate for both law and UK politics.1812ahill (talk) 13:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, made both mid. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

One-sided?
This article presents a very limited and one-sided view of the Extradition Act: it discusses it almost entirely in the context of British people being extradited to the United States. Of course, it's actually a bilateral arrangement, and in fact the other day I read that more Americans have been extradited to the UK under the Act than Britons have been extradited to the US. But there aren't any of those listed in the examples section - surely they should be added.

(And that's not to mention the fact that the Act covers more than two countries: amongst other things, it includes the European Arrest Warrant system, so this article should really discuss extraditions to and from other EU countries to give a more balanced picture of the Act.) Robofish (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would strongly agree. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The act causes controversy in the UK because of the extradition of people to the US for things they have done in the UK, sometimes things which are not a crime in the UK and sometimes things which although criminal were committed here in the UK, i.e. US jurisdiction is being extended over the UK. Naturally this transference of sovereignty causes deep seated feelings of unease. I am not aware of anyone being extradited for trial to any other country for something they did in the UK. I am also unaware of anyone being extradited from the US to the UK for something they did in the US? Generally extradition is uncontroversial and would merit little attention apart from extradition lawyers, but this extradition act has generated a huge amount of controversy and really that is what the article seeks to explain. Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I've split this article away from the article on the Extradition Act 2003. The treaty and act clearly deserve to have separate articles. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 18:19, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on UK–US extradition treaty of 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611202458/http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article680281.ece to http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article680281.ece

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on UK–US extradition treaty of 2003. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100127115814/http://www.channel4.com:80/news/articles/world/factcheck+are+ukus+extradition+rules+lopsided/166700 to http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/factcheck+are+ukus+extradition+rules+lopsided/166700

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)