Even if the treaty is applied in this way, which it doesn't seem to be, US penalties are still not appropriate for UK citizens.
The UK has abolished the death penalty on human rights grounds - and yet the UK government can send someone over to the US for this punishment.
If you commit a UK crime on UK soil, you should be subject to UK punishment, and you should not be the subject of the law and punishment of any and all nations of the world.
> Your last sentence suggests that your problem isn't the specifics of the extradition treaty, but rather the concept of extradition in general.
You misrepresent what I said. I don't particularly object to extradition for crimes committed in US law on US soil, although I do think countries have a responsibility to protect their own citizens first and foremost (which is surely the primary purpose of nations).
If an extradition treaty means I am effectively subject to inter-national law while in my home country, then I object, yes, very much.
Not a crime in the UK at the time http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/norris-loses...
UK citizen entrapped by US agent (entrapment would likely be thrown out of a UK court, but is now being tried in the US...): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Tappin
Even if the treaty is applied in this way, which it doesn't seem to be, US penalties are still not appropriate for UK citizens.
The UK has abolished the death penalty on human rights grounds - and yet the UK government can send someone over to the US for this punishment.
If you commit a UK crime on UK soil, you should be subject to UK punishment, and you should not be the subject of the law and punishment of any and all nations of the world.