Posted on 03/08/2006 4:11:26 AM PST by Proud Brit
Edited on 03/08/2006 4:42:11 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
All your citizens are belong to us.
That was my first thought. If it wasn't for this kid's potty mouth, I would be sympathetic.
OK. Just a few things to say. The finest army in the world? Please, I want some back up to that. Please prove that is a fact. You certainly cannot prove it had to do with WWII. If America hadn't stepped in, you would be Nazi Germany right now. So please, indulge me with some evidence that you have the "Finest Army." It must be those shorts the soldiers wear (Yes, shorts are part of the battle dress). Yeah, keep up the good work. Yeah frighten us Americans.
America relies on the British military. Once again, some facts please. Yes, you are in Iraq. I am as well. I am an American. The Brits work from the Border of Kuwait up to about 30 miles into Iraq. Basrah, Safwan, and Umm Qasr. Please tell me all the Brits are doing to take such a huge work load off the US.
You can be a proud Brit, but do not mistake your pride with false visions of past glory. The English were once a mighty empire. But so were the Aztecs. You have had your time, and now America is having hers and I do not forsee anything coming between that. I have spoken with British soldiers, and none believe that is remotely close to being a superpower any longer. Being the world's Superpower does have it's perks. Tony Blair can say what he wants. All of your politicians can. But in 1776 we declared our independence from England, and in 2006, we are no longer your cousins. I hate to say this because I respect the British, but your time has passed. You have the bomb, good for you. So does Pakistan. Does that mean they deserve a world power status as well?
Alright, your soccer league is better. Yeah, I knew I could send you off with a smile.
While I'm no expert, I don't think that there are any British "citizens." They're "subjects."
Mark
I am not sure if the poster is Zot material either, but to some everyone who just signed up seems to be. It's actually a shame
Proud twit!
I am disappointed to see the mother tongue used with such pedestrian disregard. Being both an Anglophile and an ally of the Crown, I am compelled to address your ill-advised rant, thus:
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.
Granted. Especially the infighting. But read on...
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;
Telephone, Internet, the Apollo Space program, the cotton gin, vaccinations for polio and measles, all American innovations;
we have the finest army in the world
I am second to none in my admiration for Her Majesty's Armed Forces, past and present - though you must also accept the American Armed Forces as the best equipped, most technologically advanced, and most adaptive fighting force in history
and we have The Bomb;
Yet ANOTHER invention you simply can't claim.
we have an economy that not completely screwed yet
I assume you meant, "an economy that IS NOT YET completely screwed...
And I might agree.
; and we have a market and an army that the US must still rely on.
There is a difference between MUST, and MAY. Must implies being indispensible - which nothing is - while May implies that it is in our nations' mutual interest to continue. Comments such as yours are, thankfully, not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government.
For now.
For the immediate future, your use of unimaginative obscentities on your introductory post, taken with the extrememly bad form of pimping your blog, shows us all that you are uninterested in any civil discourse or even the most simple display of the manners I am accustomed to when dealing with British citizens.
I regret learning of your existence.
For my sake you must stay,
for if you go away,
you'll spoil this party
I am throwing.
I'll stay a week or two,
I'll stay the summer through,
but I am telling you,
I must be going.
Spaceflight, aircraft, the internet, computers, the automobile, the internet, robotics, nanotechnology, atomic technology (weapons and civil). All invented by Americans.
FINALLY.....My first IBTZ too!!
No, I'm not!
"He's on my side of the seat!"
"Oh, you big baby. Look, I'm legally on my side of the car seat. I am NOT touching you."
"Waaaah! Make him stop!"
Here comes the Pain Train! Wooo wooo!!!
;-)
You are absolutely correct. The difference is that citizens can be trusted with firearms.
I tend to agree.
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.