Am I missing something? Has he been found guilty? Why is an extradition the same thing as being "guilty until proven innocent"? By definition, extradition is before a trial has occurred. After he has been extradited is when the trial will occur.
The UK could've done their part and stopped this from happening in the first place. They are way out of bounds stepping over into other countries to pursue legal action for this. The site wasn't operated in the US. Who was threatened by a link site? There's much bigger fish in the sea of copyright infringement.
SOPA and PIPA may have gotten shelved, but this just proves US will do what it wants anyway.
So, what is the right approach? Start the extradition process when you don't believe the individual is guilty? I would hope not. Taking action to bring someone to trial because you believe they are guilty is entirely different from the claim that in the US you are now "guilty until proven innocent".
Presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution in the trial. It does not mean that the prosecution is required to not believe themselves that the individual is guilty.
That shows they believed he is guilty before a trial. It was a linking site, he wasn't hosting anything. Google aids in copyright infringement as people use their service every day to find download links to things. But they are fine? The legislation in place across the globe is not equipped to handle these types of cases. Combine that with ignorant octogenarian judges, equals one messed up "justice" system.
if "they" refers to the prosecution: well, i sure hope that the prosecution believes he is guilty before a trial starts. i think the alternative is that the prosecution prosecutes people at random?
if "they" refers to the judge: definitely not. seizures like this are because they have evidence against him and have what the judge believes to be a reasonable case; this does not mean the judge believes the defendant to be guilty. maybe you don't think the case is reasonable, and maybe its not, but its a far cry from "guilty until proven innocent"
Totally legit.
The judge that will hear this trial, on the other hand, will not have already made up their mind.
what's the alternative? you try the guy in absentia (which would actually be an illegal trial in the united states) and then extradite him afterwards? never extradite anyone?
> Juries are invariably biased against foreigners, so the chances of an acquittal are basically zero.
there is absolutely zero evidence for this statement; you just pulled it out of your ass.