• Signatories to the European Convention of Human Rights cannot extradite people to countries where they might face the death penalty. So no extradition to SA if they could be executed.

• Extradition requires "double criminality", i.e. that the act is a crime in both countries. US Constitutional law means that hate groups are not breaking the law in the US and hence the US would not extradite them.

When the US signs a treaty that lets us extradite KKK members we can start your policy. I suspect Mexico will have invaded California before then.

One is a form of magical thinking -- the idea that "on the internet" should grant some sort of mystical immunity from jurisdiction. There's a fairly large body of pretty well-settled laws and treaties for deciding whether a country has jurisdiction for potentially-criminal actions that cross national borders, and for deciding whether to extradite to that country. That's exactly what's applying here.

Another is wishful thinking: wanting a system that extradites for things HN thinks should be crimes, but doesn't extradite for things that HN thinks shouldn't be crimes. The plain and simple fact is that it doesn't work that way; we can wish that the laws regarding, say, copyright were other than they are, but wishing won't make it so. Only actual changes to the laws will make it so, and extradition treaties are not the laws that would need changing.

Finally, there's the trap of assuming that this sort of thing -- a vengeful, powerful figure abusing the most convenient jurisdiction to punish someone -- is somehow new, or is unique to the US. Libel tourism is a relevant example here, since the UK is often a very friendly venue for those who seek legal revenge on critics/dissenters. It also ties in quite nicely with the second point above, because it has resulted in other countries actually changing their legal systems to bar enforcement of UK libel judgements.

And despite people saying "this is stupid" she's got a track record for taking a standpoint and refusing to move even when it's one that causes people to actually get motivated in saying "We think this is wrong".

Congratulations, you now understand democracy.

Maybe it's not coming from the CIA, I'm not totally familiar with who orders who around when it comes to this stuff. Some branch of US.gov at any rate.

BoingBoing: Home Secretary to net activists: shut up, I'm rendering Richard O'Dwyer to USA

vs.

CNET: The U.K. Home Office has said the Home Secretary... will not intervene in the Richard O'Dwyer case.

Extradition requires "double criminality", i.e. that something is a crime in both countries. Blasphemy against Christianity (or maybe just the Church of England) was a crime in the England and Wales until 2008. I'm not sure but Iran's blasphemy law might only apply to Islam. So there's never really been the same crime.

Additionally, signatories of the European Convention of Human Rights forbid extradition to a country for a crime which has the death penalty.

I've updated my comment to reflect the law that he's alleged to be tried under. I don't know how the extradition agreements work though - maybe the UK have signed away their rights to prosecute someone as soon as the USA steps in? Wouldn't be surprised at any rate.

They did, however, agree to their extradition agreements with the USA. But this is neither here nor there; I'm more concerned with the "he did nothing wrong" angle that is being used in argument against his extradition, whilst very ignoring the facts of the matter.

How so? What's the possible endgame if the UK were to very publicly say no?

Will the US go to war with the UK? Will they embargo the nation? Will they cease trade?

Or will they perhaps throw up a diplomatic hissy fit about 'cooling relations' and then go back to business as usual.

I think that very much depends on which country you're operating in and what the purpose behind the linking is ;)

I would very much hope that my defense lawyers would say the same ;)

and that the only UK prosecution of such did not provide a decision either way.

Which doesn't really help us either way in this case. I think that a ruling needs to be made one way or the other - somehow, some way - just to clear up stuff like this.

Which is why we need flagging and moderation to prevent our communities baser desires from turning this into the sort of place we don't want.