No, it says the US is likely to request extradition - but has not yet. SBF was scheduled to appear remotely (Zoom or similar) before congress tomorrow.
It also says the US has filed criminal charges, which is the first I'm hearing of this.
As an aside - anyone else think it makes congress appear weak to still be allowing people to remotely testify? They supposedly are the most powerful and important legislative body in the land, perhaps the world - yet they can't compel people to show up in person and treat the event with the deference it's supposed to deserve?
Specifically they said that they arrested him because the US notified them they were pressing charges and likely to request extradition. I imagine that the 'likely to request extradition' is specific phrasing related to how the extradition treaty with the US is worded as I don't think anyone expects the request to not be made.
> Not really. Not being compelled to testify against yourself is also one of the most important rights this country has enshrined.
Congress isn't a court, and he was not testifying because congress arrested him or anything - it doesn't work that way.
He was going to testify - and a lot of people testify in front of congress all the time. But you used to have to do it in person until the pandemic. Now that congress is back to in-person session - so should the people who are testifying.
SBF was going to testify. He was going to do it remotely.
My issue is remotely was not an option before the pandemic. It was allowed during the pandemic for good reason, but now that reason doesn't exist anymore. Therefore, remote testifying should not be allowed anymore either...
Congress can legally compel you to appear - but they cannot compel you to say things against yourself (ie. incriminate yourself). You still have to show up... but you can just refuse to answer.
Congress is not the current administration. I have no idea where this comment came from...
Congress is in session - meeting in person. Why should people be allowed to remotely testify at this point? It's congress - show up in person, it's important.
Can they simultaneously criminally charge him and force him to testify before Congress without violating his 5th amendment rights? I think getting charged criminally does get him out of having to testify to Congress, or at least it should.
> North Takes Fifth Amendment in Testimony to Senate Panel : Claimed Protection at Least 40 Times, One Source Says
> WASHINGTON — Congressional sources said today that fired National Security Council aide Lt. Col. Oliver L. North took the Fifth Amendment during his testimony Monday before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
> One source, who, like the others demanded anonymity, said North took the Fifth Amendment at least 40 times. Another source said he declined to answer a number of questions put to him by senators and committee staff members.
> Asked about an apparent contradiction between Sen. Dave Durenberger’s contention that witnesses had been candid and the report that North refused to answer many questions, committee spokesman Dave Holliday said he would make no attempt to clear it up.
> The Fifth Amendment protects an individual in any proceeding from being required to give testimony that he feels may incriminate him. Invoking it carries no implication of guilt.
> Senator David Durenberger, Republican of Minnesota, who is chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, likened the proceedings before the panel to a grand jury investigation. He said witnesses were testifying under oath.
You don't have to have been charged to have 5th ammendment rights or be able to exersize them. He could have pled the 5th and not said anything whether or not they already charged him, it doesn't change that.
(If they grant you immunity , so they can't charge you even in the future, that's the only thing that gets you out of being able to plead the fifth).
