"Same old story, regardless of which political party is in power, when the Yanks say "Jump", the Australian government says "How high?"

David

The US have had their eyes on this land for a while, and when you out grow one country, you look for another. ( and not just the US )

Keep letting them in and watch our wonderland distroyed.

But you know what they say, the more people, the more money.

mmmmm hard choice.

BLUE

I think Greg Barnes is wrong, this is not an issue on double jeopardy, rather one of the US recognising and respecting the legal systems of other countries.

I understand the US consititution enshrines the principle of double jeopardy. Therefore, to retry Watson would require the US Courts to not recognise the Australian Court system.

Law and order politicians right here in NSW have trashed our human rights by abolishing Double Jeopardy. We need to have the statute which abolished it repealed urgently.

I believe that the Double Jeopardy rule must be absolute and final in all cases. That is if a person is acquitted, thats the end of it. The government must only have one bite of the cherry. Same as in this case. As there is a risk that this bloke will have his human rights violated, we must refuse to extradite him and grant him asylum. He's done his time. We hand out asylum like lollies, to people who deliberately destroy or fail to carry their papers, so they can fabricate their nationality, their story, etc.

Seems like Uncle Sam, we're fast becoming an authoritarian free-market state.

I agree that double jeopardy has to be protected from politicians on a power trip.

I do not have information about the case but why was Gabe Watson convicted with manslaughter in the first place? According to this article the Alabama authorities want to charge him with murder and kidnapping.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/honeymoon-killer-lands-in-melbourne-20101111-17okm.html

Do they know something we don't know? Have they got evidence to support a murder conviction? I am no legal expert but I would think that US and Australian systems of justice are more or less compatible with respect to accepting and reviewing evidence.

Either our justice system needs a serious looking into or the Alabama authorities are up to something. And if Alabama and the US cannot trust Australian justice, what does that say about one of our closest allies? Maybe the fact that Australia doesn't stand up to the US in certain areas is returned to us when the US decides to refrain from saying: "your justice system is..."

http://currentglobalperceptions.blogspot.com/

So where were all the bleeding hearts when the Federal Police tipped off the Indonesians about the Bali nine? There would seem to be more concern for a man who killed his bride for the insurance money than for a few stupid kids. All Mr and Mrs Rush got was an unmet assurance to protect their wayward son from his own stupidity.

What is most detestable is the belief that Australia should be a moral guidance officer for other nations. Alabama would rightly be contemptuous of such pomposity.

Regardless of whether or not the guy is scum, or American, or a freemason, or a boy scout, or anything else for that matter, he committed a crime in Australia. We can argue until we are blue in the face about whether or not our system dispensed justice, but the fact is that he did not commit a capital offence in the state of Alabama, so he should not be tried for a capital offence in that case.

Handing him over to be tried for murder could well set a dangerous precedent. In effect, it would be telling the USA that it is OK for them to override our legal system whenever they don't like our decisions. Would the same apply if we convicted an American of murdering another American in our nation, but they felt that he (or she) should be acquitted? The ingredients are all there - two Americans, a crime in Australia and a legal finding deemed unsatisfactory by the USA.