In 2003 the UK govt signed an extradition treaty with the US to allow the extradition of terrorist suspects without evidence being produced. The US was supposed to ratify the treaty later on. They haven't done so. Why? It seems because some senators are worried the British govt might want to extradite IRA terrorist suspects. In all the years when the IRA were active not a single suspect was allowed to be extradited by the US for fear they wouldn't get a fair trial in a UK court. It seems terrorist/freedom fighter depends on your nationality and religon.
It renders the whole war on terror in to farce.
Now these three are being extradited using this treaty despite not having commited any offence, least of all a terrorist offence and no evidence of any kind being produced. If they did commit fraud it was agaunst a British Bank not an American one and any offence was commited here. It should be noted they have not been accused of anything in this country. Natwest the supposed victim are not pushing for prosecution, nor is the Financial services Authority
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5164652.stm
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/colum ... uthor_id=2
http://www.civitas.org.uk/blog/archives ... atwes.html
During the decades of IRA terrorism that Britain endured, one of the bitterest pills for us to swallow was the fact that much of it was funded from the USA. The IRA’s coffers were filled with donations from the States, and the American government refused all requests from the British government to staunch the flow. Nor would the Americans ever extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. There is not a single case of that happening. Which is why the US Congress has refused to ratify the ‘treaty’ under which Tony Blair is so happy to extradite British subjects: reciprocity would mean that the US would have to send IRA bombers for trial here. Heaven forbid that Britain should expect a fair exchange!
Some of us would be happier if the British lion could be restrained from rolling over to have its tummy tickled – or its guts ripped out – by the bald eagle.
This is outrageous
This is outrageous
Diuretic wrote: I don't see a problem. If these three are alleged to have been involved in a conspiracy which terminated in a US jurisdiction then they are subject to extradition and trial in that jurisdiction. It's settled law in England that a conspiracy which is created outside of England to commit a crime in England can be tried in England under English law.
I believe that a British citizen who infiltrated US military computer systems from Britain is also to be extradited to the US to face trial. Again, I don't see a problem with it. The offence is effectively committed in the US so why shouldn't the US extradite?
I think also the reluctance of the US to extradite alleged IRA conspirators was because of the Diplock Courts. Somewhat ironic given that what Bush was trying to do to the Guantanamo inmates before the US Supreme Court stepped in was somewhat similar to wht the Diplock Courts were doing. I think the US was right though, the Diplock Courts were not fair and their citizens wouldn't have received a fair trial.
I suggest you read the articles again.
The alleged conspiracy was against a british bank NOT an american one. The British "victim" is not pressing charges. The US has not presented any evidence agianst these three and they are being extradited under an agreement to counter terrorism that the US has refused to ratify. This is hardly a terrorist crime, which is what his treaty was designed to combat . and it seems rather unlikely they will be given a afir trial.
If the US will not extradite IRA terrorists for fear they might not get a fair trial then why on earth should any country take seriously their claims to be involved in a war on terror when someone is designated a terrorist only when it suits them politically. It's the sheer hypocrisy and double standards of the american position that is antagonising. Try telling the relatives of the dead that the IRA are not terrorists but harmless freedom fighters.
It's settled law in England that a conspiracy which is created outside of England to commit a crime in England can be tried in England under English law.
Unless he is in america or an american system in which case the US govt won't allow extradition to stand trial. If the americans refuse to ratify the treaty like this we should not extradite anyone until they do.
I believe that a British citizen who infiltrated US military computer systems from Britain is also to be extradited to the US to face trial. Again, I don't see a problem with it. The offence is effectively committed in the US so why shouldn't the US extradite?
I think also the reluctance of the US to extradite alleged IRA conspirators was because of the Diplock Courts. Somewhat ironic given that what Bush was trying to do to the Guantanamo inmates before the US Supreme Court stepped in was somewhat similar to wht the Diplock Courts were doing. I think the US was right though, the Diplock Courts were not fair and their citizens wouldn't have received a fair trial.
I suggest you read the articles again.
The alleged conspiracy was against a british bank NOT an american one. The British "victim" is not pressing charges. The US has not presented any evidence agianst these three and they are being extradited under an agreement to counter terrorism that the US has refused to ratify. This is hardly a terrorist crime, which is what his treaty was designed to combat . and it seems rather unlikely they will be given a afir trial.
If the US will not extradite IRA terrorists for fear they might not get a fair trial then why on earth should any country take seriously their claims to be involved in a war on terror when someone is designated a terrorist only when it suits them politically. It's the sheer hypocrisy and double standards of the american position that is antagonising. Try telling the relatives of the dead that the IRA are not terrorists but harmless freedom fighters.
It's settled law in England that a conspiracy which is created outside of England to commit a crime in England can be tried in England under English law.
Unless he is in america or an american system in which case the US govt won't allow extradition to stand trial. If the americans refuse to ratify the treaty like this we should not extradite anyone until they do.
This is outrageous
posted by diuretic
And that's something for your government to take up. I rather think that your government has been sucked in by the Bush Administration on lots of things, this is just another.
Oh yes you're dead right there. This one is not going away, the business community is up in arms about it. It's not that anyone would defend them if guilty of fraud it's their being whisked abroad using an agreement meant to combat terrorism that the US refuse to honour and serious concerns that the trial will not be a fair one that are getting people worked up. TB must be getting close to surpassing Maggie Thatcher as a hate figure in British politics.
And that's something for your government to take up. I rather think that your government has been sucked in by the Bush Administration on lots of things, this is just another.
Oh yes you're dead right there. This one is not going away, the business community is up in arms about it. It's not that anyone would defend them if guilty of fraud it's their being whisked abroad using an agreement meant to combat terrorism that the US refuse to honour and serious concerns that the trial will not be a fair one that are getting people worked up. TB must be getting close to surpassing Maggie Thatcher as a hate figure in British politics.
This is outrageous
Diuretic wrote: It struck me as I was reading the various sources that the relationship between the US govt and the UK govt is asymetrical - the advantage is all in the US court. Why the hell is Blair so intent on selling out his country? Or is he just a poor negotiator? And perhaps he may just end up like his idol, Thatcher. What an excuse for a Labour leader he is.
He's a pillock. what is really depressing is how long he has got away with it. The amount of opposition and resentment and disenchantment with polics in general and especially with new labour is growing daily. If not careful he will have done to the labout party whgt maggie did to the tories and kill it as a political force for years to come. They are losing support in what used to be their die hard followers. Sadly most of the other political parties show no signs of being up to much either. We badly need electoral reform to stop parties with minimal support being able to from a government.
He's a pillock. what is really depressing is how long he has got away with it. The amount of opposition and resentment and disenchantment with polics in general and especially with new labour is growing daily. If not careful he will have done to the labout party whgt maggie did to the tories and kill it as a political force for years to come. They are losing support in what used to be their die hard followers. Sadly most of the other political parties show no signs of being up to much either. We badly need electoral reform to stop parties with minimal support being able to from a government.
This is outrageous
posted by arnold layne
I know this agreement dates back to just 2003 but I dont remember the US ever sending over many, if any, IRA suspects in the past. We are being bullied !
In fact they have not allowed the extradition of a single one. It also seems to be the reason they don't want to ratify the treaty in case we start asking for them.
posted by diuretic
Watch out for Blair pulling you out of the European human rights treaty. I'd put money on it. He now hates the legislation that put your citizens in the European Court of Human Rights.
there have already been a number of landmark cases. you can't take a govt agency to court in the UK if their actions cause injustice. It's beginning to dawn on him that they can now be taken to the european court. No doubt they will find a red herring to cloud the issue. (mixed metaphors ain't they grand)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5171266.stm
MPs have signalled their anger at Tony Blair over the extradition to the US of three bankers to face a fraud trial.
They voted by a majority of 242 to adjourn the Commons early in symbolic protest at the government's extradition arrangements after a three hour debate.
A vote of no confidence would have been a bigger hint.
I don't think that in order to maintain good relations between this country and the US it is necessary for the prime minister of the UK to be a poodle of the President of the United States of America
I'm sorry but that is unfair to poodles. As part owner of a rather large standard poodle I can produce several postmen and two jehovah's witnesses that now have a healthy respect for poodles. Didn't bite them just scared then shitless.
I know this agreement dates back to just 2003 but I dont remember the US ever sending over many, if any, IRA suspects in the past. We are being bullied !
In fact they have not allowed the extradition of a single one. It also seems to be the reason they don't want to ratify the treaty in case we start asking for them.
posted by diuretic
Watch out for Blair pulling you out of the European human rights treaty. I'd put money on it. He now hates the legislation that put your citizens in the European Court of Human Rights.
there have already been a number of landmark cases. you can't take a govt agency to court in the UK if their actions cause injustice. It's beginning to dawn on him that they can now be taken to the european court. No doubt they will find a red herring to cloud the issue. (mixed metaphors ain't they grand)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5171266.stm
MPs have signalled their anger at Tony Blair over the extradition to the US of three bankers to face a fraud trial.
They voted by a majority of 242 to adjourn the Commons early in symbolic protest at the government's extradition arrangements after a three hour debate.
A vote of no confidence would have been a bigger hint.
I don't think that in order to maintain good relations between this country and the US it is necessary for the prime minister of the UK to be a poodle of the President of the United States of America
I'm sorry but that is unfair to poodles. As part owner of a rather large standard poodle I can produce several postmen and two jehovah's witnesses that now have a healthy respect for poodles. Didn't bite them just scared then shitless.
This is outrageous
The main thing is that if we want to be seen as better than the terrorists and "in the right." We shouldn't ignore the one thing that makes us different than them....our laws.
If we do, then we become the very thing we are fighting.
If we do, then we become the very thing we are fighting.
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
This is outrageous
Jives wrote: The main thing is that if we want to be seen as better than the terrorists and "in the right." We shouldn't ignore the one thing that makes us different than them....our laws.
If we do, then we become the very thing we are fighting.
Which is why the perceived injustice of this has got people annoyed about it. It's also why things like guantanimo bay is one of many issues that has lost america the moral high ground.
We seem to honouring an agreement that the americans refuse to ratify and past support of the IRA by americans is coming back to haunt. If you want a war on terror then you can't be selective about it and need to be very clear on what a terrorist is. I notice some US media programmes are now talking about drug terrorists and gang terrorists when they are simply criminals. These three are hardly terrorists whether guilty or not.
If guilty our punishment for white collar crime is actually far too lenient. There have been one or two cases recently in the UK-such as equitable life- where the scale of the crime and its effect were such that many would like to see hefty prison sentences imposed as well as confiscation of asll assets. Might discourage the B)*&**S.
This is one of a number of issues that look like bringing TB down. He's not like the president elected to office he can be kicked out by parliament. It's not just the voters he is ignoring now. He's also now up to his neck in a corruption scandal of his own. I think we need to restrict how long somebody can serve as prime minister.
If we do, then we become the very thing we are fighting.
Which is why the perceived injustice of this has got people annoyed about it. It's also why things like guantanimo bay is one of many issues that has lost america the moral high ground.
We seem to honouring an agreement that the americans refuse to ratify and past support of the IRA by americans is coming back to haunt. If you want a war on terror then you can't be selective about it and need to be very clear on what a terrorist is. I notice some US media programmes are now talking about drug terrorists and gang terrorists when they are simply criminals. These three are hardly terrorists whether guilty or not.
If guilty our punishment for white collar crime is actually far too lenient. There have been one or two cases recently in the UK-such as equitable life- where the scale of the crime and its effect were such that many would like to see hefty prison sentences imposed as well as confiscation of asll assets. Might discourage the B)*&**S.
This is one of a number of issues that look like bringing TB down. He's not like the president elected to office he can be kicked out by parliament. It's not just the voters he is ignoring now. He's also now up to his neck in a corruption scandal of his own. I think we need to restrict how long somebody can serve as prime minister.
This is outrageous
cant our government suspend this treaty ?
those three guys are to be flown out at 9.30am this morning, are they really going to let this happen ?
those three guys are to be flown out at 9.30am this morning, are they really going to let this happen ?
This is outrageous
It's a joke! Getting increasingly tired of Tony selling us down the river. We need a leader in this country with a spine who will turn round and say "Oi! Bush! NO! I'm not extraditing any prisoners until you sign your end of the agreement!" Harry Enfield it is then :wah: .
Seriously, can we, the people, kick Tony Blair out? Him and his cronies have been in power for 9 years now and they are definately starting to whiff quite strongly now. I hope those men he sold out do get a fair and quick trial and are not left bancrupt if found innocent.
Seriously, can we, the people, kick Tony Blair out? Him and his cronies have been in power for 9 years now and they are definately starting to whiff quite strongly now. I hope those men he sold out do get a fair and quick trial and are not left bancrupt if found innocent.
This is outrageous
Mongoose wrote: It's a joke! Getting increasingly tired of Tony selling us down the river. We need a leader in this country with a spine who will turn round and say "Oi! Bush! NO! I'm not extraditing any prisoners until you sign your end of the agreement!" Harry Enfield it is then :wah: .
Seriously, can we, the people, kick Tony Blair out? Him and his cronies have been in power for 9 years now and they are definately starting to whiff quite strongly now. I hope those men he sold out do get a fair and quick trial and are not left bancrupt if found innocent.
The sovereign power in the UK is parliament and the people who elect it, not the cabinet, not the queen and not the prime minister. He is in the post because he is the leader of the party with enough MP's tp form a majority govt. In theory he is "first among equals" and as such he can be demoted and he is not there by any right of office nor was he voted in to the post even of he does carry on like a president he doesn't actually have that kind of authority or tenure.
If enough labour MP's vote against govt policy or demand he stands down as leader of the labour party he will have little choice in the matter. Hopefully they are acquiring some backbone and getting round to doing so. It's not as though he ius likely to win the next election for them. A vote of no confidence would force an election but that is probably wishful thinking.
Seriously, can we, the people, kick Tony Blair out? Him and his cronies have been in power for 9 years now and they are definately starting to whiff quite strongly now. I hope those men he sold out do get a fair and quick trial and are not left bancrupt if found innocent.
The sovereign power in the UK is parliament and the people who elect it, not the cabinet, not the queen and not the prime minister. He is in the post because he is the leader of the party with enough MP's tp form a majority govt. In theory he is "first among equals" and as such he can be demoted and he is not there by any right of office nor was he voted in to the post even of he does carry on like a president he doesn't actually have that kind of authority or tenure.
If enough labour MP's vote against govt policy or demand he stands down as leader of the labour party he will have little choice in the matter. Hopefully they are acquiring some backbone and getting round to doing so. It's not as though he ius likely to win the next election for them. A vote of no confidence would force an election but that is probably wishful thinking.