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.
Yours is a lickspittle Third World country terrified of your minorities (especially the Paks who have you by the shorts) and dominated by prancing politicians who have allowed great black holes in your cities to become crime centers where only a fool would enter. London sucks. Manchester sucks. Liverpool sucks. Hell, your cricketeers suck as do your football players. Your SAS top dogs join the US military. Now, asssume the fetal position and get it over with.
I don't think the automobile was invented in America.
The transistor was. The foundation of modern electronics today.
OK, a couple of points. These are not this posters comments, they are from a blog. Check the link.
Secondly, I agree with 'most' of the article. Why isn't the treaty equal? We're the US's closets ally, you'd think it would count for something. All this does is play into the hands of the anti-american Guardian crowd's hands. Not good.
Also for those of you unaware,(and I'm getting bored of having to repeat this) we are citizens, infact we're both. The term subject hasn't been used for in the UK for a long long long time. Don't believe me? Check it out http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4191613.stm
And all that rubbish about us speaking German if it wasn't for the US. Well thats not entirely true either. Back in the 1970's A unique war game was run at the Military Academy at Sandhurst, which pitted German officers who had planned the real invasion against their former enemies. The result, of what would have happened if Germany had made a combined land and air invasion in 1940 was that in just under three days, the invasion force of 90,000 men would have been decimated. Infact a documentry about Britains wartime defences and the 70's wargame was aired recently. See: THE REAL DAD'S ARMY http://www.ideasfactory.com/whatson4/features/.
Granted, American gold and arms helped us to win WWII. But without the aid, we wouldnt have lost either.
Regards
Anglo
The fact that his lack of replies making him a drive-by poster is a strong indicator of just that.
I have one word for you, syntax, try it!
Sorry with you I can't chat. You, I will later catch.
Officially, you haven't been zotted.
Come out, oh cowardly one!
Britain could always "lose" the prisoner.
Your issue is with your government, not the US.
As far as not losing without our "aid", without the materials to make bombs and bullets, much less feed yourselves your nation would have died. We provided you with massive amounts of material aid long before we officially entered the war. Many died getting it to your shores.
Was it the right thing to do, absolutely.
ZOT!
PWND!
Odd thing to go off about, usually alien posters go off about Iraq. But you are spamming for a blog, aren't you?
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.