No. Unless the U.S. abolishes or alters the First Amendment, creating “dual criminality.” The question of whether London’s Metropolitan Police officers and prosecutors can extradite Americans for expressing their views online about jihadis and supporters of Sharia law in the U.K. brings up several important legal and ethical considerations. 

When considering whether the London police can extradite Americans for allegations of criminal online activities, you’re entering a maze of international law as an attorney. Extradition is a formal process where one country hands over a person to another country for legal proceedings. This process involves multiple steps and stringent requirements, making it complex. 

Many in the U.K., especially South London, are fearful of insulting Muslims the government invited to live among the native Brits. The government is afraid of another terrorist attack and has little respect left for the locals in the heavily Islamic areas. So, the U.K. has clamped down on the natives, prompting riots and complaints about a two-tiered justice system. Locals say young Muslims have organized into rape gangs, and homeland security is afraid to be called “racist” for clamping down. Some locals say police are supporting a “Taliban government” out of fear of a suicide bombing. And when we complain from across the pond, the U.K. Chief of Police wants you arrested and sent to a U.K. jail. Oppression against the natives seems to be what the police director and his thought police want.

The Threat By Thought Police Chief Rowley

The police act against individuals spreading false claims or engaging in inflammatory speech. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Mark Rowley warns that the law’s reach extends beyond city limits and national borders. 

Rowley emphatically stated, “We will throw the full force of the law at people. And whether you’re in this country committing crimes on the streets or committing crimes from further afield online, we will come after you.”

Rowley addressed the issue directly when questioned about criticisms from figures such as Elon Musk regarding the government’s stance. Musk had reacted to a video allegedly depicting an arrest for offensive online comments with the question, “Is this Britain or the Soviet Union?”

In response, some pundits and politicians in the U.K. called for an investigation or even Musk’s arrest for publicly commenting on the controversy. A reporter pointed out that high-profile figures might be “whipping up hatred” and mentioned that “the likes of Elon Musk” are involved in stirring up online speech. She then questioned what measures the London police are prepared to take “when it comes to addressing individuals who incite this kind of behavior from behind a keyboard in another country.”

Extradition, Babar Ahmad, Natives, and Metropolitan Police Officers

Yes, the U.K. and U.S. have extradition treaties. London has been a hotbed for militant Islamic terrorism for years. The memory of Babar Ahmad’s alleged terrorist offenses and beatings by U.K. cops in 1990s London is still fresh in the memories of many immigrants; the U.K. seems to conflict with itself. In 2012, Ahmad lost his extradition battle and was sent to America to face trial in the U.S. After all, the U.K. fought Al Queda and the then Taliban government, only to see suicide bombings by “refugees” invited first by the Tories and then embraced by Labour as guaranteed welfare recipient voters. 

Birmingham natives have griped about Muslim Sharia law no, go zones, and rape gangs, as well as censorship and jail for complaining about the “boat people” for decades. (Mind you, Ahmad pleaded guilty in an American court to providing support for terrorism, including Al Qaeda. The FBI investigations show he ran a terror support network in south London, prompting terrorism charges.) So yes, there are ways an American could be deported by a U.K. police officer, just like Mr. Ahmad was sent to the U.S. 

Mind you, in that case, the sentencing judge, Janet Hall, “said there was no evidence he supported al-Qaeda or that he had knowledge of the 11 September plot.” Ahmad retains the record for being the longest-serving prisoner without trial in the U.K. We will get into the keyboard warrior threat by U.K. cops against the locals further down.

A Homegrown Terrorist Attack Against Native Brits = RIOTS?

It all finally kicked off when, remarkably, a Rwandan who probably wasn’t even a Muslim became the straw that broke the camel’s back. It’s been a tumultuous week in the U.K. Riots have escalated into looting, arson, violence, and threats by Muslims and natives. However, in their response to this crisis, U.K. officials seem to be drawing the wrong conclusions about how to address the turmoil. 

The unrest traces back to July 29, when three children were tragically murdered in a knife attack at a Taylor Swift-themed party in Southport, England. Ten others were injured. On that same day, a 55-year-old woman from Chester posted on social media, claiming the suspect “was an asylum seeker who came to the U.K. by boat last year and was on an MI6 watch list.”

“If this is true,” she wrote, “then all hell is about to break loose.”

But it wasn’t true. The 17-year-old suspect was “born in Wales to Rwandan parents” and is not an asylum seeker. Nonetheless, false information spread across social media, which the poster clearly stated she did not know was accurate. Police say the Chester woman was “publishing written material to stir up racial hatred” and “false communication.”

Riots erupted across England and Northern Ireland with looting, vandalism, and barricading buildings housing Mulsim immigrants. Police say both sides hurled threats, engaging in acts of violence. Police arrested hundreds. 

U.K. Police Threaten Native-Born British Islanders?

Police are accused of being scared of the Muslims who threaten violence, commit acts of violence, or engage in vandalism and arson. Hence, the locals argue that there is a two-tiered justice system. London police can’t resist the urge to see censorship as a solution to problems it can no longer solve with so many jihadis and proponents of Sharia law in the country now. Unfortunately, the U.K. government issued a warning on X to “Think before you post” while quoting a post from the Crown Prosecution Service about inciting hatred and “online violence.”

This does little to inspire confidence that officials will protect free speech while cracking down on illegal conduct. While urging people to think before speaking might seem like harmless advice, the vagueness of the government’s warning and the ominous threat of prosecution may stifle citizens’ legal expression about current events. 

Destruction of Speech Rights in the U.K.

The U.K. and its surrogate, Canada, have a terrible record of free speech. It was on a downward trajectory even before these riots. The tension between national sovereignty and international cooperation in cybercrime, freedom of speech, and wokeness are all at play. In the U.K., insulting someone or disagreeing with your government can be a crime, not just a civil defamation claim. This area of law is foreign to most U.S. personal injury attorneys like myself.

Treaties Play a Role in Extradition

Extrajudicial actions such as extraditions for online postings are not straightforward and involve a complex web of laws and treaties. The principle of dual criminality requires that the act be considered a crime in both the requesting and requested countries. Therefore, understanding the intricate legal landscapes of the United States and the United Kingdom is essential. 

To make this clear, let’s look at a few critical factors: 

• Legal Framework: The U.S. and the U.K. have distinct legal structures governing freedom of speech and anti-terrorism. The First Amendment in the U.S. offers broad protections for speech, while U.K. laws include more stringent regulations against hate speech and incitement.
• Extradition Treaties: The U.S. and the U.K. have an existing extradition treaty, but any extradition request must meet stringent criteria and offer sufficient evidence of criminal activity.
• Evidence and Intent: Authorities would need to prove that the individual’s online activities were not just free speech but crossed into illegal behavior, such as incitement to violence or material support for terrorism.

Ultimately, extradition heavily depends on the specifics of each case. It will hinge on actions that align with or violate local/international laws. While cooperation between countries is necessary for combating global threats, balancing it with individual rights remains challenging. 

This table provides an overview of US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003, which is still subject to debate: 

Let’s Get Educated

When discussing whether the London police can extradite Americans for their online activities, especially those advocating for jihadis to be ousted from the U.K., it is crucial to consider several vital facts. The history of these details illuminates the complexities and injustice involved. 

Firstly, you need to understand that treaties govern extradition. The United States and the United Kingdom have a bilateral extradition treaty. This was signed in 2003. The treaty outlines extraditable crimes. However, activities like posting opinions online may not meet these criteria, even if they are against or supportive of jihadi Sharia law activists invited to the U.K. 

The Extradition Treaty, which governs extradition between the U.K. and the U.S., was signed in 2003.

This agreement includes: 

• Extraditable Offenses: Crimes that are punishable by more than one year of imprisonment in both countries.
• Probable Cause: Evidence must be presented to justify the extradition request.
• Dual Criminality: The treaty states that the offense must be recognized as a crime in both jurisdictions, a condition known as “dual criminality.”

“Extraditable offenses generally involve serious crimes such as terrorism, murder, or significant fraud. Simply expressing political or controversial views online usually doesn’t qualify.” – Michael Ehline, Esq.

Furthermore, several critical factors could prevent such an extradition: 

• Nature of the offense: Cyber activities often fall into a gray area that may not be easily classified under the treaty’s terms.
• Freedom of speech: U.S. law fiercely protects the right to free speech, including, within certain limits, online activities.
• Legal standards: Extradition requests must meet high evidentiary standards and legal thresholds that might not align across jurisdictions.

As a result, the London police can initiate an extradition request if U.S. law also censors the same speech as the U.K. However, if Harris loses, there is little chance the U.S. will adopt the same anti-free speech laws as the U.K. Hence, there is no dual criminality here, and it is highly unlikely you can be sent to a U.K. prison for being hard on Muslim immigrants as a U.S. keyboard warrior. If you are facing a legal issue or are suffering a personal injury from a false arrest, please contact Ehline Law Firm at (213) 596-9642.