Posted on 12/02/2007 10:39:46 AM PST by Santa Fe_Conservative
America has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the United States.
A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.
The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.
The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
And the Leftist trash in the Junk Media are only now suddenly in a panic over this? Gee, I wonder why? Maybe they went a saw a couple of recent Hollyweird movies?
Also interesting that the hysteria over this is not matched by the actual record. When a Canadian Judge ruled that Tollman had to be released, he was turned back over to the Canadian authorities. It was also Canadian authorities who arrested him and turned him over to the Americans. He was not "kidnapped".
So it seems this "Journalist" is putting a spin based on a hollweird movie understanding of the topic on this issue that is not matched by the actual facts in the story.
Seems to me we’ve been doing pretty much what we want since, when, 1775 or so?
I guess you can do it as long as you are not arrested for kidnapping in Britain, which is basically what it is.
The Supreme Court decided this way after a wanted drug dealer was seized in Mexico and brought back to the US.
SCOTUS upheld the procedure.
However, I’ve always questioned that. This is what extradition treaties are for. And what happens if another country kidnaps a US citizen and then puts him on trial? What is our response?
With the end of diplomatic immunity (so that every dingbat country in the world can allege it has jurisdiction to put
leaders of foreign countries on trial for its definition of ‘war crimes’),
and the assertion of sovereignty over anyone, anywhere, for judicial purposes,
we’re going further away from civilization and back into the dark ages of brute might. . .
My thoughts exactly. Historically, this is a right reserved by all sovereign nations and is nothing new.
Perhaps this idea could be counterproductive. The world wants more of us than we do of them.
Actually, if you look at history since the Renaissance, a sovereign nation is a nation that has the power to protect itself, at home and abroad.
Since the failed League of Nations and the UN, there has been a pretence that a sovereign nation is any nation that the UN declaresd to be sovereign, including midgets and basked cases.
Not so. We have seen how sovereign Yugoslavia was, when the big boys decided to break it up. And we may soon see how sovereign the Serbs are, if the Muslims clinton handed it over to steal the province of Kosovo from them with our connivance. Incidentally, the UN didn’t approve of that war, but NATO went ahead and did it anyway, because they could.
A treaty between two real sovereign nations will usually be honored. But if one of the nations is only “sovereign” because somebody else is protecting them, then all bets are off if they start spitting in the eye of their protector.
Sovereignty means self-rule, or power to set the rules and agree to them.
Er, wasn’t British kidnapping of American sailors one of the proximate causes of the War of 1812? As I recall, we were against it.
The lovers of ever-expanding big and Big government are going to be really conflicted over this outrageous claim of infinite power by a person hired to represent the official US Government position. This is pure tyranny. As far as I am concerned, US law must stop at the US border, just as much as law from the UN or the EU must stop at the US border too. This is the heart of the whole issue of sovereignty, as well as the limits of government.
The United States has made some mistakes but has spent more of it's own citizenry's blood and money to help other nations than any other nation in the history of the planet.
When a person commits a heinous and brutal crime and then flees to another country to avoid the consequences (i.e. the death penalty, then perhaps diplomatically sanctioned kidnapping should be considered...
“Also interesting that the hysteria over this is not matched by the actual record. When a Canadian Judge ruled that Tollman had to be released, he was turned back over to the Canadian authorities. It was also Canadian authorities who arrested him and turned him over to the Americans. He was not “kidnapped”.”
Not sure you’re reading that correctly. It doesn’t say he was kidnapped and he wasn’t turned over to the Americans or handed back to the Canadians. He was arrested, held by the Canadians for ten days, then released. That’s why the journalist refers to an ‘attempted abduction’. What the US preosecutor wanted to happen was for Tollman to be driven to the border and handed over to US custody.
Has it ever occurred to David Leppard that it is because of the United States that his newspaper is published in English rather than German?
This article is tendentious nonsense and many of the comments on this thread are too. Do I really need to explain to FReepers the difference between “kidnapping” by “America” and arrest by local authorities followed by a request for extradition?
So if we, the US accepts this, then we shouldn’t be upset if the Italians kidnap that soldier they want to try for murder.
Its funny when the Brits get all uppity.
Its almost like they can do something about it or something.
Well, they could always go crying to the UN again.
Funny thing is when the Iranians kidnap Brits they bend over backwards for them. When its us who are merely brining criminals to justice they decide to kick up a fuss. Whats with that ?
Please do.
It was a rhetorical question.
“Do I really need to explain to FReepers the difference between “kidnapping” by “America” and arrest by local authorities followed by a request for extradition?”
The representative of the US Government in this case was specifically asked about and was talking about the former rather than the latter.
“The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared. If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s”
Dude. Your “representative of the US Government” is in fact a British lawyer. His words do not constitute the policy of the United States of America.
“Your “representative of the US Government” is in fact a British lawyer.”
Err yeah. It was a British court, so obviously he would be a British lawyer, and he was representing the US government in the case.
“His words do not constitute the policy of the United States of America.”
Indeed not. And I’ve not read up on this anymore than this article, so I’ve not arrived at any firm judgements. I was just noting that your implication that the only issue at question was relating to formal extradition requests was not correct.
If you are now saying that the lawyer was wrong, can you link me to anywhere where the US Government has corrected the statements of their lawyer, or otherwise clarified the position on this?
What I intended to implicate is that the article conflates the concepts of kidnapping and extradition and that some FReepers are doing so as well.
...can you link me to anywhere where the US Government has corrected the statements of their lawyer...
I certainly hope that my Government has not wasted my money doing this.
But what about Dawg the bounty hunter? Oh, that’s right he’s not part of the government so has to play by the rules.
I suspect that the line reads more like this:
"America has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes "against" the United States."
There, I fixed it.
"America has told Britain that it can “take into permanent custody” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes "against" the United States."
"Some Limey lawyer spouted off some nonsense so we're using that as an excuse to dishonestly slag the US yet again."
Didn’t we fight the war of 1812 over something like this, only in reverse?
.
.
.
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
Posted on 11/15/2007 3:43:17 AM PST by Kevmo
That was then, this is now. That was them, this is us. As my seven-year-old niece once informed her parents, "oh, that's different!" ;^)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.