Full Version: America's right to kidnap?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle2982640.ece
This seems to be a substantial land grab by the US in terms of extra-territoriality and has not been well received on this side of the Atlantic.
1. Do you believe that the US has the legal right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
Edited for rubbish grammar mistake.
QUOTE
"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. "
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. "
This seems to be a substantial land grab by the US in terms of extra-territoriality and has not been well received on this side of the Atlantic.
1. Do you believe that the US has the legal right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
Edited for rubbish grammar mistake.
Oh my it seems the shoe is now on the other foot. Didn't we have this as an issue for the War of 1812 when the British were kidnapping Americans?
To answer the one of the questions No I do not believe that is what the courts have stated. Their answer has been that if a wanted person appeared in the US regardless of how they came here they could be tried in our courts. The person(s) that brought them here would still be subject to the laws of the country in which the person was taken. Which is very different from the question.
How would it be received if the British did that? See first.
To answer the one of the questions No I do not believe that is what the courts have stated. Their answer has been that if a wanted person appeared in the US regardless of how they came here they could be tried in our courts. The person(s) that brought them here would still be subject to the laws of the country in which the person was taken. Which is very different from the question.
How would it be received if the British did that? See first.
QUOTE(loreng59 @ Dec 3 2007, 02:24 PM) 
Oh my it seems the shoe is now on the other foot. Didn't we have this as an issue for the War of 1812 when the British were kidnapping Americans?
The main difference being that in 1812 Britain and the USA were at war. That's why it was given the description "The War of 1812".
Now, Britain and the USA are not at war with one another. Despite some British citizens wanting (and attempting) to attack the USA (Richard Reid et al) more recently than 195 years ago, the extradition treaty between our tow nations does not limit itself to terror suspects - hence the "NatWest Three"; three bank executives accused of complicity in a crime taking place in the USA despite their not having set foot there or committed any crime on the UK statue book. (Though they did plead guilty to one of the charges, interestingly enough).
1. Do you believe that the US has the legal right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
It does, but only because the UK drafters of the US-UK extraditition treaty were either sloppy or overly fawning or both. The UK government and their lawyers created this loophole - the USA is just using the laws we created in ways we didn't anticipate. More fool us - the art of drafting legislation is in anticipating what it could be used for.
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
No, but morals butter no parsnips (if that's the only thing John Major is remembered for saying, it'll be one phrase too many).
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
We'd have been laughed out of court, because the USA sets the rights of it's citizens in rather higher store than we do (and even they have been chipping away at those rights in the name of the War on Terror). Britain today, especially under NuLabour - to my chagrin as a long-standing Labour party member - is far more willing to sacrifice the rights of citizens for short-term expediency that the USA ever has been.
Possibly this has something to do with Parliament's assertion of it's own soveriegnty - i.e. Westminster refuses to be bound by anything other than it's own laws. That's why they had to pass the Human Rights Act through Westminster to allow human rights cases - which were being brought all the time, but were having to go to Strasbourg - to be tried in UK courts. If Parliament wanted to pass a Bill tomorrow removing the right to vote from everyone except people with red hair working in television, the only barrier to doing so would probably be the House of Lords. And even that could eventually be overruled using the Parliament Act.
(The Queen knows which side her bread is buttered so would sign whatever they gave her to sign.)
And they say we don't need a written constitution this side of the pond! Of course they do, because it any such thing worth the paper it was written on would have sovereignty over the will of Parliament. Which is exactly why we need one.
QUOTE
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.
Here is my problem with this statement. I seriously doubt the extradiction laws are applied evenly or consistently from country to country. Would Americans be brazen enough to attempt this without any prior legal framework?
QUOTE
Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. "The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared," he said.
I've had nothing but contempt for those who render persons across state boundaries with little or no coordination with local authourites. The big question is how far do we read into 'everyone'? What is happens if there is resistance and other people become hurt? Jones' statement really moves American drafted law into another catagory and will undoubtedly cause problems for host countries.
1. Do you believe that the US has the legal right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
If there is a specific agreement set in place yes. Without the agreement no.
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
Any lawyer who trumpets the authuority without the paper work to back it up is blowing smoke. Any attempt under those circumstances by bounty hunters is essentially covert espionage and deserves the most draconian response the imagination can conjure.
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
The only example that comes to mind is a Omar Kader, a Canadian labelled enemy combantant by the Bush administration. Maybe the UK can invent their own monicker so they can cross jurisdictions. Obviously, the label becomes lays the groundwork regardless of how relevant the charges are.
1. Do you believe that the US has the legal right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
The (unnamed) lawyer wasn't actually directly quoted. Call me dubious about the translation in this article.
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
What is the purpose of an extradition treaty? First, isn't the British government expected to hand over persons suspected of serious crimes in the US and/or if not, then they are expected to at least try them in Great Britain?
One cannot commit a serious crime and then hide within a country that the other has an extradition treaty with...can they? Of course, the host country always has the ultimate say , but if the treaty is worded in such a way that they can harbor this person, surely if that suspect travels to another country with an extradition treaty with the US, that country might decide to apprehend them and turn them over in such a case?
I don't honestly understand what this thread is about, as Europe does this all of the time. We have an American soldier on trial in absentia in Italy. If the courts convict him, he can never travel to any country in Europe for fear of being "kidnapped" (not my personal choice of words) and turned over to Italian authorities. How, for that matter, did they obtain Pinochet? Oh, yeah..."kidnapping".
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
Is Andrei Lugovoi free to travel around the US now? I can't imagine he is. Think he's now able to travel around Europe (without an alias)? If he steps into Germany, surely they'd send him to the UK?
The (unnamed) lawyer wasn't actually directly quoted. Call me dubious about the translation in this article.
2. Do you believe that the US has the moral right to do as has been suggested by one of its lawyers?
What is the purpose of an extradition treaty? First, isn't the British government expected to hand over persons suspected of serious crimes in the US and/or if not, then they are expected to at least try them in Great Britain?
One cannot commit a serious crime and then hide within a country that the other has an extradition treaty with...can they? Of course, the host country always has the ultimate say , but if the treaty is worded in such a way that they can harbor this person, surely if that suspect travels to another country with an extradition treaty with the US, that country might decide to apprehend them and turn them over in such a case? I don't honestly understand what this thread is about, as Europe does this all of the time. We have an American soldier on trial in absentia in Italy. If the courts convict him, he can never travel to any country in Europe for fear of being "kidnapped" (not my personal choice of words) and turned over to Italian authorities. How, for that matter, did they obtain Pinochet? Oh, yeah..."kidnapping".
3. If the UK had expressed similar opinions in US courts how do you feel it would have been received?
Is Andrei Lugovoi free to travel around the US now? I can't imagine he is. Think he's now able to travel around Europe (without an alias)? If he steps into Germany, surely they'd send him to the UK?
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 9 2007, 06:17 AM)
Is Andrei Lugovoi free to travel around the US now? I can't imagine he is. Think he's now able to travel around Europe (without an alias)? If he steps into Germany, surely they'd send him to the UK?
Less than a week ago Andrei Lugovoi was elected to the Duma along with other Putin cronies, so diplomatic status would exempt him under international principles of sovereign immunity to all national laws of any nation he entered. Although I am not sure if immunity would apply to prior indictments, it probably would affect the likelihood of uninvolved countries from arresting him on behalf of Britain. If countries are friendly with one another, there have been cases when misbehaving diplomats have been prosecuted after the home country of the diplomat cooperated and stripped diplomatic status, but I have heard of that rarely, and only in extreme, and well-witnessed, cases of criminal conduct.
QUOTE(metropolitical @ Dec 9 2007, 10:32 PM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 9 2007, 06:17 AM)
Is Andrei Lugovoi free to travel around the US now? I can't imagine he is. Think he's now able to travel around Europe (without an alias)? If he steps into Germany, surely they'd send him to the UK?
Less than a week ago Andrei Lugovoi was elected to the Duma along with other Putin cronies, so diplomatic status would exempt him under international principles of sovereign immunity to all national laws of any nation he entered. Although I am not sure if immunity would apply to prior indictments, it probably would affect the likelihood of uninvolved countries from arresting him on behalf of Britain. If countries are friendly with one another, there have been cases when misbehaving diplomats have been prosecuted after the home country of the diplomat cooperated and stripped diplomatic status, but I have heard of that rarely, and only in extreme, and well-witnessed, cases of criminal conduct.
I'm not sure exactly, but I think diplomatic immunity only applies when the host country grants a diplomatic visa. I seriously doubt the US would grant such a visa to Lugivoi.
Aquilla
QUOTE(metropolitical @ Dec 10 2007, 01:32 AM)
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Dec 9 2007, 06:17 AM)
Is Andrei Lugovoi free to travel around the US now? I can't imagine he is. Think he's now able to travel around Europe (without an alias)? If he steps into Germany, surely they'd send him to the UK?
Less than a week ago Andrei Lugovoi was elected to the Duma along with other Putin cronies, so diplomatic status would exempt him under international principles of sovereign immunity to all national laws of any nation he entered. Although I am not sure if immunity would apply to prior indictments, it probably would affect the likelihood of uninvolved countries from arresting him on behalf of Britain. If countries are friendly with one another, there have been cases when misbehaving diplomats have been prosecuted after the home country of the diplomat cooperated and stripped diplomatic status, but I have heard of that rarely, and only in extreme, and well-witnessed, cases of criminal conduct.
Diplomatic status won't necessarily exempt him from prosecution for crimes (even if we granted him that visa, which I doubt). It didn't exempt Pinochet, with his diplomatic passport. Lugovoi's vacation plans will never be the same as before, "diplomat" or no, methinks. This might even be a good thing if his status lures him out with a false sense of security.
Edited to add: Just found a link to the legalities here
QUOTE
Pinochet was detained while he was in London for medical treatment. He holds a diplomatic passport, but that does not necessarily mean that he has diplomatic immunity. Such immunity stems from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, which provides that "The person of a diplomatic agent shall be inviolable. He shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention." But a "diplomatic agent" under the Vienna Convention is defined as "the head of the mission or a member of the diplomatic staff of the mission." It does not appear that Pinochet currently serves as the head or member of the diplomatic staff of any Chilean mission. Nor does it appear that he was serving in any capacity as a diplomat when he was detained.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.