ZOT!
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.
Here's where you crossed the line especially here on FR. You want to shame America? Get over it. Go to the DU or the Daily Kos.
Read the opening of FreeRepublic
Welcome to Free Republic! Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!
We are not here for any GUILT TRIP. BYE-BYE.
You're not here for any reasoned conversation or debate either are you?
Finally, NB4Z
ZOT!
If that was really the extent of it, why do you think we would have any interest in them?
Obviously there is more to the story.
And perhaps the information that makes the story more complete is highly classified that reveals our sources if exposed. That it would prevent us from rooting out others bent on killing us (including killing you). In addition I would think it is highly likely that those in the know in your government are aware of that and agree with this course of action.
Filling you in with background information and making observations about said information. What else? :)
If I were to be embarrassed by what congress did, there'd be no end to my embarrassment... So why bother...
Bill Clinton used up all my shame...
If there are inequities in extradition laws, I agree with my fellow FReepers who say you should take it up with your government officials. They are the ones who represent you.
I also agree with my FReeper friends that Americans have contributed most significantly to the inventions that make our world better. The Scots are pretty clever, too.
Our government has not yet told the US to go and #### itself with a rusty tin can.
You may have some good points, but it is in very bad form to join up, spew foul language and insults into our house, blog-pimp then run away. We are your allies, after all, and many of us are your distant cousins. You shouldn't treat your family this way. Shame!
Nope. No points for good behavior. I think I'll get my boots. IBTZ
In the case of the last British Subject extradited to the U.S. to face murder charges, I believe he waived his right to an extradition hearing.
Actually a git is the term used to describe a piece of thrown away Iron. i.e the bits the Smithy no longer needed, therefore coining the term, useless git.
If not, I do believe your Government did you a great disservice.
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?
Obviously the question was more or less answered. 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.
Imagine!
It's also b/c it infringes on our freedoms as a nation with a system of due process when such systems don't necessarily exist, either formally or in practice, in other nations.
As well, since when are your "criminal citizens" of such value to you that you must defend them as such? Does the U.S. have a track record of extradicting Brits that failed to pay their subway tolls, trying them, and sentencing them to five years? I don't think so!
Indeed. I smell an alterior motive.
Hey, new word "criming"...
Oops... That was suppose to be "crime"...
never heard that usage before. learn something new everyday.
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.