US: hands off our citizens (Zotted with rusty tin can)

[Proud Brit]

I have been meaning to write something about the Extradition Act 2003 for some time, on the grounds that it is one of those subjects when I would like to tell the US to shove their extradition requests where their prima facie evidence don't shine...

However, I'm exhausted already, I have another all-nighter ahead of me and can't really summon up the energy, so I will leave you in the capable hands of Boris, speaking in the House of Commons on Monday.

There are currently several cases before the courts that arise directly from the Extradition Act 2003. I know of one of those cases particularly, because it affects one of my constituents, who is one of three bankers who are being electromagnetically sucked--hoovered, even--across the Atlantic without any duty on the Americans to produce any prima facie evidence. ...

There is a second and related problem that greatly inflames the whole question. We are obliged by the terms of the Extradition Act 2003 to send our nationals to America without prima facie evidence, yet America is under no corresponding duty to send people we want from America without prima facie evidence being supplied by us. ...

Why does that grotesque imbalance exist? The Prime Minister said in Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday that it is because the American Congress has not ratified the 2003 treaty. That is not, strictly speaking, true. It is right to say that Congress does not want to ratify the 2003 treaty because many Congressmen want to keep the ability to retain in America people whom they fear would not get a fair trial overseas and they want to keep a political bar to extradition. That is why we have not succeeded in extraditing a single IRA suspect from America to this country in 30 years. However, even if Congress were to ratify this treaty, it is a dismal fact that... there would be no symmetry because we have to show due cause and they do not. Therefore, I think the whole treaty should be renegotiated.

The whole thing is definitely worth reading (as was The Spectator article a couple of weeks ago) but it basically boils down to the following points:

1. The US can demand the extradition of any British citizen to stand trial in the US, even if the crime was not committed on US soil or against US interests.

2. We cannot ask the same of the US.

3. Our government has not yet told the US to go and #### itself with a rusty tin can.

4. Why the #### not?

This is a very, very simple situation. Whilst I am, generally, in favour of following the US model over the EU model, I am actually far more concerned that everyone should follow my ideal GB model; we, if only we could stop squabbling amongst ourselves and allowing the state's insidious influence to continue corrupting our lives, are a world-power. We are the old-time masters of international trade; we are the inventors of just about every sodding invention that has made man's life a little bit better in the last 400 years; we have the finest army in the world, and we have The Bomb; we have an economy that not completely screwed yet; and we have a market and an army that the US must still rely on.

We aren't some ####y, little, lickspittle, third world country to be pushed around by sinister-looking men in 70s shades: we are the ####ing British and we don't ship our citizens off to any ####ing country unless that country can show us a really good reason why we should. And even then we might just tell you to #### off.

So here am I, telling the US Foreign Office and Justice Department to go #### yourselves: you cannot have our citizens. Swivel, you ####s.

Wouldn't it be great if some British politician actually got up and said that? And actually meant it? You can almost hear that stirring martial music, eh...?

http://devilskitchen.blogspot.com/2006/03/us-hands-off-our-citizens.html

Harsh but fair I thought.

'scuse language.

[ASA Vet]

the invasion force of 90,000 men would have been decimated.

Leaving 81,000 German soldiers. You'd have been in deep kimchee.

[usmcobra]

[F.J. Mitchell]

There is no excuse for that kind of ####ing language, you ####ing twit!!!!!!!!!

Just kidding. Your point is well taken. While we cannot trust most countries to be fair if we allow extradition of our citizens, we should trust the Brits, our allies for most of our history.

[MarkL]

While I'm no expert, I don't think that there are any British "citizens." They're "subjects."

It's true you're not an expert, in fact you're totally wrong. The British Nationality Act clearly states that we're citizens, as does my passport.

I stand corrected... You've been a citizen of Great Britain since 1981. I've been a citizen of the USA since 1962. Welcome to the club.

Mark

[doc30]

THis poster does have a valid point, albeit unimaginativelly vulgar. THe U.S. should not be requesting extradition from another country to the U.S. on one standard, but demand a higher standard for countries requesting extradition from the U.S. And the U.S. has no business requesting extradition of suspects who have not committed crimes in the U.S. or against U.S. interests outside the U.S.

[sarasota]

Well said, Sir, and God bless you.

[starbase]

the invasion force of 90,000 men would have been decimated.

[Leaving 81,000 German soldiers. You'd have been in deep kimchee.]

All of this "we didn't need America" nonsense is an attempt in Europe these days to get out from under our dominance. There's no limit to the fantasy scenarios they will swallow to achieve that goal, as Anglo demonstrates by citing a "study" in the "'70s", wow, now that's historic.

I've had this discussion before, and am reluctant to start it again. Europeans are pathetically pretending Russia won the war, which is kind of like saying Europe lost WWII twice, once to Germany and once to Soviet Russia.

Without the US fighting in Asia, Japan could have easily attacked Russia from the East, defeating Russia in three weeks. Without the US bombing Germany, fully operational German industry plus reinforcements of occupying armies from Western Europe would have defeated Russia.

On D-day there were something like 29 Nazi divisions, 33 American divisions, and around 3 European divisions, 2 British and one made up of Euro-scraps from other countries. Without US, 3 European divisions against 29 Nazi divisions, any fool can see it was no contest.

Of course Britain would have only lost, and could have only lost, and Germany would have easily defeated Russia with no pressure from America. But then, the self-esteem needs in Europe today are intense, and that's putting it mildly.

[scott0347]

[AmericaUnite]

I think this should go to Mark Levin. I know the worlds courts have some crazy ideas as to who is a criminal. Some of our state and local governments do also. I think Mark would know more about said treaty.

[darkwing104]

If I had time to do a little research I bet there is a lot more to this story than what was posted.

My gut feeling says this diatribe is a bunch of hogwash.

[Anglo]

For your information

http://www.boris-johnson.com/archives/2006/03/extradition_act_ratify_reform.php

[Kaslin]

I noticed he has been zotted, however I often post articles and I don't reply to any replies. Does that mean I am zot material?

[darkwing104]

What Mr. Johnson proposes is reasonable. That is what the original poster should of posted in the first place.

[Anglo]

i'm given to understand that its 20 US Divisions, 14 British divisions, 3 Canadian divisions and one each from France and Poland.

[mollynme]

No - but it would depend on the article. A "for your information" type of article often doesn't need replies unless you're interested in discussing it. An "in your face" posting that generates questions/complaints would hopfully get responses from you.

[vigilante2]

Go #### yourself proud brit

[Old Sarge]

Ursula stands on the still-smoking carcass of the enemy…

[Dallas59]

[Thunder90]

[King Prout]

your courts can prosecute American citizens in-absentia for your legal definition of slander and libel, and impose binding financial penalties. For this reason, Muslim groups use your courts to shut Americans up about islamic "charity" and other groups having connections to terror groups.

so don't expect any sympathy, dude.