Extradition rights for me but not for thee

This doesn't feel right to me at all, and I'm not even an English person. The UK has signed a treaty with the U.S. in which we can seek UK personnel for extradition without evidence for "crimes" that are not illegal in the UK...even if that person didn't "commit" it in the US:

Prior to the treaty the country seeking extradition had to serve "evidence…to justify the committal for trial". Now all that is needed is service of "a statement of facts of the offence", and for the offence to carry the possibility of imprisonment for 12 months.

This broadly means that someone can be extradited to a foreign country simply on the basis of what might turn out to have been an unfounded or malicious allegation. The extradited person is unlikely to obtain bail in the US - unlike a US national - and will be held in jail awaiting trial.[snip]

There is also no need to demonstrate that the offence complained of was an offence in the UK at the time it was alleged to have been committed. Where there is a comparable offence in the UK extradition can take place where the UK authorities have investigated and declined to bring charges. These matters are of particular concern in relation to white collar crime.

Business people are especially vulnerable because of the large number of jurisdictions in which they may operate. Where they have a US subsidiary, allegations could be made against a British-based executive on the basis of very tenuous connections with the US and on hearsay evidence.

This is not comparable with an individual who commits a crime and then flees the jurisdiction. A director may never even have visited the US subsidiary to find himself facing extradition.

Needless to say, we haven't gotten around to ratifying this treaty yet, so no turnaround for the U.K. authorities.

My, my, how the tables can turn in a hundred years of three.

(HT Agitator)