Fractelle
Sorry to hear your not well
For all that it may be worth I wish you well
All the best
From Dave

BrianHowes,

1. You didn't explain what your original intention was in promising customers "discreet delivery". Assuming you had no intention of supplying drug manufacturers, what advantage did you suppose that would confer on your customers?

2. There were occasions where packages were marked to go through customs with labels that were misleading to a lesser or greater extent. I would think that in itself would constitute a crime.

3. I don't think this matter is as simple as the US pushing against less powerful governments to get what they want. There are international agreements and protocols that dozens of countries have adopted, under the UN I think, and some of them quite old, about transporting certain substances across borders, including substances used in drug manufacture. Australia is party to such agreements so I doubt that you could expect much assistance or protection from this government.

The illicit drug trade is regarded as a global problem requiring global intervention including restrictions on what can be imported and exported. Even if a substance is legal in one country; it might not be legal to send it to a country where it's illegal. I'm wondering if the US DEA should have just watched where your packages were going and followed them to find the meth-cooks. Your custom from drug manufacturers probably would have declined in due course once people involved in that biz realized that packages from you were being followed by authorities.

4. I think CJ's questions are pertinent and help clarify the situation. I'm pretty sure you can expect worse from authorities so maybe you could regard all of this as a practice run, even if it isn't what you'd hoped for. (What did you hope for btw?)

Fractelle says:

"My feeling has been that the issue we should
all be debating is the ethics of extradition
- however, I have been told by Forrest I should
start my own thread on this topic.
Frankly, I am not well enough to facilitate
an entire topic to my preferred standards."

I thank Fractelle for the implied compliment that this topic (although not strictly mine, it having being started by Brian Howes) is seen as being facilitated to her preferred standards, at least so far as I, and I hope Brian Howes, are apparently seen as doing. (I do not seek to hide the fact that I suggested the course of posting to this forum to Brian Howes.) I am happy to concede that the issue we should be debating is the ethics of this specific extradition, and that of the Australian Hew Griffiths, if that concession cuts out the two remaining free kicks Fractelle has. I did not realize she was inhibited from opening a topic for health reasons. Do we have a deal Fractelle?

Before you answer, I feel I should advise of this breaking news: it is reported that the US has as of Thursday 22 October, now formally requested the extradition from Switzerland of Roman Polanski. That report is here:

http://bit.ly/1Mcsik

Its significant content is, if the report is correct, that the MAXIMUM sentence Polanski faces upon return to the US is two years upon only the charge to which he pled in the original plea bargain deal, that of unlawful sexual intercourse, to use the words of the news report.

I don't seek to further discuss details of the Polanski extradition in this thread: the 'Polanski Conundrum ...' thread is still open for posting if anyone wishes to discuss this matter.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3093#74082

I intend posting there with more detail. I only mention this development here because it represents an absolutely huge back-down by the US authorities, and may be considered by Fractelle to be information of relevance in deciding whether to accept the deal proposed re this thread.

I await her response.

CJ Morgan, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:17:21 PM:

"I asked you whether you had avoided prosecution
for that alleged crime by leaving Arkansas,
as claimed in the report. A straight answer would be appreciated."

A straight question would facilitate a straight answer. The omission of a destination could create an impression of a flight from US jurisdiction, which did not happen. All the less excusable as the words 'for Oklahoma' were contained in the earlier quotation of the media report.

Its repetition that smears.

Fractelle, Thursday, 22 October 2009 12:49:17 PM:

David Hicks was not extradited from Australia to the US. He was, to all accounts, 'taken in arms' as the expression goes, in Afghanistan where he was training with Al Qaida or Taliban forces, at the time of the US intervention there. It has always been a wonder to me why nothing was ever said about the fact of such an 'adventure' being against Australian law, which it certainly appears to have been.

Belly, Saturday, 24 October 2009 3:37:57 AM:

Brian Howes was not trying to change the direction of the thread. It was me that announced that was happening in my post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 9:44:52 AM, and effected that with my post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 12:34:09 PM.

Pynchme Saturday, 24 October 2009 10:05:23 AM:

Brian Howes fully and explicitly dealt with your question 1. in his post of Friday, 23 October 2009 at 8:59:22 PM. The issues being raised in this thread are by nature demanding of precision, not only in the answering, but in the asking of questions. It seems you have read some assertion somewhere that contradicts his direct statement that there was no 'discreet packaging' of items he supplied. It would be helpful if you posted a link to the page containing the assertion in question. The posting of links does not contribute as much toward the word count of a post as do words in the text thereof, if that is a concern.

Forrest Gumpp: << Its repetition that smears. >>

I wouldn't have needed to repeat the question if Howes had given a straight answer the first time I asked it. His destination when he left Arkansas is irrelevant, but I was intrigued by his claim that no crime had been committed. There's clearly more to that story, but I agree that it's not relevant to the issue of the charges he faces concerning selling precursor chemicals for methamphetamine production in the USA.

I've now formed the view that this guy is on the nose, so I won't be participating in this thread again unless something startling is posted. Others will, of course, draw their own conclusions.

The issue is this;it doesn't matter whether Brian Howles is innocent or guilty.It is the mechanism of terrorism leglisation that can convict both the guilty and innocent is the salient point.

There has to be due process that examines all the detail and this terrorism leglislation takes this right from every individual.

Now which type of totalitarian state do we want to reside in?Chinese,Russian or Western,heralded by BS terrorism?