Sydney judge says US ex-fighter pilot accused of training Chinese aviators can be extradited to US

SYDNEY (AP) — A Sydney judge on Friday ruled that former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan can be extradited to the United States on allegations that he illegally trained Chinese aviators, leaving the attorney-general as Duggan’s last hope of remaining in Australia.

Magistrate Daniel Reiss ordered the Boston-born 55-year-old to remain in custody awaiting extradition.

While his lawyers said they had no legal grounds to challenge the magistrate’s ruling that Duggan was eligible for extradition, they will make submissions to Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus on why the pilot should not be surrendered.

“The attorney will give us sufficient time, I’m quite sure, to ventilate all of the issues that under the Extradition Act are not capable of being run in an Australian court,” Duggan’s lawyer, Bernard Collaery, told reporters outside court.

Dreyfus’ office said in a statement the government does not comment on extradition matters.

Duggan’s wife and mother of his six children, Saffrine Duggan, said the extradition court hearing was “simply about ticking boxes.”

“Now, we respectfully ask the attorney-general to take another look at this case and to bring my husband home,” she told a gathering of reporters and supporters outside court.

The pilot has spent 19 months in maximum-security prison since he was arrested in 2022 at his family home in the state of New South Wales.

In a 2016 indictment from the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., unsealed late 2022, prosecutors say Duggan conspired with others to provide training to Chinese military pilots in 2010 and 2012, and possibly at other times, without applying for an appropriate license.

Prosecutors say Duggan received about nine payments totaling around 88,000 Australian dollars ($61,000) and international travel from another conspirator for what was sometimes described as “personal development training.”

Duggan served in the U.S. Marines for 12 years before immigrating to Australia in 2002. In January 2012, he gained Australian citizenship, choosing to give up his U.S. citizenship in the process.

The indictment says Duggan traveled to the United States, China and South Africa, and provided training to Chinese pilots in South Africa.

Duggan has denied the allegations, saying they were political posturing by the U.S., which unfairly singled him out.

Saffrine Duggan speaks outside Downing Central Court in Sydney, Friday, May 24, 2024, where her husband Daniel will appear. A Sydney judge ruled that former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan can be extradited to the United States on allegations he illegally trained Chinese aviators, leaving the Australian attorney-general Duggan's last hope of remaining in Australia. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

Saffrine Duggan speaks outside Downing Central Court in Sydney, Friday, May 24, 2024, where her husband Daniel will appear. A Sydney judge ruled that former U.S. Marine Corps pilot Daniel Duggan can be extradited to the United States on allegations he illegally trained Chinese aviators, leaving the Australian attorney-general Duggan's last hope of remaining in Australia. (AP Photo/Rick Rycroft)

PHOENIX (AP) — A judge on Friday rejected an effort by GOP lawmakers to use the term “unborn human being” to refer to a fetus in the pamphlet that Arizona voters will use to weigh a ballot measure that would expand abortion access in the state.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Christopher Whitten said the wording the legislative council suggested is “packed with emotion and partisan meaning” and asked for what he called more “neutral” language. The measure aims to expand abortion access from 15 weeks to 24 weeks – the point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb.

It would allow exemptions to save the woman’s life or to protect her physical or mental health. It would also prevent the state from adopting or enforcing laws that would forbid access to the procedure.

Arizona House Speaker Ben Toma, who is a co-chair of the legislative council, said the group will appeal the court’s decision to the state Supreme Court.

“The ruling is just plain wrong and clearly partisan,” said Toma, a Republican.

The State Supreme Court has until Aug. 27 to rule on the appeal for the language to be changed.

Aaron Thacker, communications director for Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, noted that the final decision on the ballot itself remains in the air.

“There’s still a lot of scenarios at play," he said. "Even after the secretary certifies the signatures, the courts have to decide if counties can put it on the ballot or not."

Arizona for Abortion Access, the organization leading the ballot measure campaign, sued the council earlier this month over the suggested language and advocated for the term “fetus,” which the council rejected.

Attorney General Kris Mayes wrote in a motion to submit an amicus brief that “fetus" and “pregnancy” are both neutral terms that the council could adopt.

“It’s incredibly important to us that Arizona voters get to learn more about and weigh our measure in objective and accurate terminology,” said Dawn Penich, communications director for the abortion access group.

Democrats have centered abortion rights in their campaigns in this year’s elections. Organizers in five other states have also proposed similar measures that would codify abortion access in their state constitutions: Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Nevada and South Dakota.

Arizona organizers submitted more than double the amount of signatures needed for the measure to appear on the ballot.

FILE - Arizona abortion-rights supporters deliver over 800,000 petition signatures to the capitol to get abortion rights on the November general election ballot July 3, 2024, in Phoenix. A judge on Friday, July 26, rejected an effort by GOP lawmakers to use the term “unborn human being” to refer to a fetus in the pamphlet that Arizona voters will use to decide on a ballot measure that would expand abortion access in the state. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin, File)