Skip to main content

In March 2003, John Ashcroft and U.K. Home Secretary David Blunkett co-signed a "fast track" extradition treaty between our two countries.  The US UK Extradition Treaty applies retroactively, has a loose interpretation of "probable cause," has no statute of limitations, and leaves the definition of "political exception" up to the prosecutor.

The U.K. has already signed on to their half of the treaty, and Tony Blair's constituents aren't too happy about it.  On  September 7--the same day as the highly controversial John Bolton nomination--the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will vote on whether or not to send this Treaty to the full Senate for ratification.  Please contact members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, urging them to vote "no" on the US UK Extradition Treaty (Treaty 108-23).  Talking points, links and further information below the fold...

Usually, treaties between the United States and the United Kingdom are negotiated between the U.S. State Department (not the Justice Department) and the U.K.'s Foreign And Commonwealth Office (not the British Home Secretary).  But, hey, that sort of thinking is so "reality based," isn't it?  In BushBlair Land, treaties are different.  The story so far:  the U.K. has signed on to their half of the treaty, and we have not, so right now, we have a "lopsided" extradition treaty with the U.K.  The Bush Administration has wasted no time submitting extradition requests for British citizens in connection with white collar crime:
To hear U.S. prosecutors talk, you'd think Ian Norris was a terrorist. But the 62-year-old Norris, a U.K. citizen and resident, is anything but. Norris is the retired CEO of The Morgan Crucible Co., a British manufacturer of carbon products.
The U.S. is seeking to extradite Norris for allegedly conspiring to fix the price of carbon products in the U.S. between 1989 and 2000. The alleged crime wasn't even a criminal offense in Britain until June 2003. In addition, it was committed primarily in the U.K. This has many lawyers both in the U.S. and Britain concerned...
What makes Norris' extradition possible is the U.K.'s 2003 Extradition Act, which came into force January 2004. The legislation ratified a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K. to fast track the extradition of suspected terrorists.
The U.S. has yet to ratify the treaty, but that hasn't stopped American authorities from trying to use it. So far the U.S. government has submitted 45 extradition applications, half of which relate to white-collar crime. And of the nine applications granted, not one has involved an alleged terrorist...

Did you catch this sentence?  "The alleged crime wasn't even a criminal offense in Britain until June 2003..."  This is one problem with the proposed Treaty, it applies retroactively.  Also, Mr. Norris was also never charged for a crime in Britain, which is also true of the "NatWest Three," currently in the U.S. awaiting trial.  Blogger Brian Barder sums up the case of the NatWest 3 like this:
So we have here three UK citizens, charged with offences committed in Britain against a British company, for which they have never been charged in Britain:  the Americans claiming extra-territorial jurisdiction as if Washington were the seat of a world government and a world court; an Act of Parliament under which all this is allowed to happen (thus effectively preventing the UK courts from offering protection to the victims);  the cowardly refusal of the British law officers or the home secretary to exercise their discretion to prevent extradition from going ahead; a deeply flawed and one-sided agreement with the US, for which David Blunkett is unsurprisingly responsible from his days as home secretary; and three Britons about to be the victims of the deeply unjust American systems of plea bargaining, over-charging (remember Louise Woodward?), and grossly over-long prison sentences.

U.S. patriots are concerned that the proposed Treaty pays mere lip service to the political exception clause, and has no statute of limitations, which inspired the right-wing publication World Net Daily to ask Could treaty with UK target U.S. founders?
Critics say a new anti-terrorism treaty between the U.S. and the United Kingdom could conceivably result in Great Britain seizing the assets of dead enemies - like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

The treaty, forwarded April 19, 2004, by President Bush to the U.S. Senate for ratification, has generated little media attention and little controversy - probably due to the fact that it is an
agreement between coalition partners in the war on terrorism.

But some who have examined the small print see big problems with the new extradition treaty - saying it abrogates the constitutional rights of Americans accused of wrongdoing by
Great Britain and threatens the estates of long-dead antagonists of the crown...under the treaty as written, the British could demand recompense from anyone in the U.S. who stood up to British law - living or dead....

In the U.S., the fight against this proposed treaty has been waged primarily by Irish-Americans, who fear the lack of a political exception clause and statute of limitations would put their friends and relatives in jeopardy, particularly those from Northern Ireland who were rounded up in "sweeps" for alleged IRA activity.  Many were interned without charge, released under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement, and have come to the U.S. to make a new life for themselves.  Under the proposed Treaty, the British could request these people again, to face the same unfounded allegations as before.

Irish-Americans have enlisted the help of Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, who drafted a statement against the US UK Extradition Treaty in advance of a hearing, which was held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on on July 21.

...Because of this American legacy of revolution against British Tyranny, we, Americans, have always been wary of efforts by foreign powers to transport Americans and foreigners for prosecution abroad. In the Declaration of Independence, one of the specific complaints against British Tyranny made by Thomas Jefferson was directed at the British outrage of "transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences." Such is the case for this
Treaty!

For that reason, several episodes in the early history of our Republic, such as that of Citizen Genet under Thomas Jefferson, laid the foundation for the uniquely American notion of the "political offense exception" to extradition. Today, this bedrock principle of American Justice is now under assault by means of this Treaty. Although it pays lip-service to the political offense exception, the Treaty effectively eliminates it for all practical purposes...

... Most outrageously, under this Treaty, responsibility for determining whether a prosecution is politically motivated is transferred from the U.S. Federal Courts to the executive branch of government...

The U.K. is putting tremendous pressure on the United States to ratify this treaty, because it's been such an embarrassment to Tony Blair that he signed up for this thing and we didn't.  Well, hey, Tony Blair's embarrassment is not our problem!  Peter Hain also weighed in, assuring Irish-Americans that the U.K. is not out to get them.  Since when is "just trust us" a foreign policy?

Action item #1: Please send an email to the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, urging them to vote "no" to the US UK Extradition Treaty (Treaty 108-23) when the treaty comes up for a vote on September 7.  For more information, see the ACLU press release Oppose British-American Extradition Treaty and their list of talking points Support Proper Judicial Review for Extradition Requests.

A group of lawyers from my own circle of internet activists also came up with this joint statement:

The U.S. Senate Should Not Eliminate Our Right To A Fair trial

The right to a fair trial is one of our most precious freedoms as American citizens. A treaty currently under consideration by the U.S. Senate would eliminate that precious right.

The proposed Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom (Treaty Document 108-23) should not be ratified by the U.S. Senate. Under this treaty, any American citizen could be shipped overseas without a
fair trial in a U.S. court, to face punishment in circumstances where a fair trial might be difficult or impossible.

Under the terms of this extradition treaty:

-- Americans are stripped of their right to have a U.S. court decide whether a foreign country's prosecution of a U.S. citizen is politically motivated.

-- Americans are stripped of their right to have a U.S. court decide whether a foreign country's prosecution of a U.S. citizen is a pretext for punishment on account of his or her race, religion, nationality or political
opinion.

-- Americans are stripped of their right to have a U.S. court decide whether a foreign country's prosecution of a U.S. citizen is based on legitimate political activities.

-- Americans can be prosecuted for activities they engaged in even before the treaty's ratification.

-- Americans can be held without trial for up to 60 days at the request of a foreign government.

This extradition treaty outsources the protection of American citizens' right to a fair trial to foreign courts, including the infamous "Diplock Courts" of Northern Ireland, where the accused has no right to silence, no right to a presumption of innocence, no right to a jury, and none of the other basic rights guaranteed by our American constitution. Our right to a fair trial should not be signed away by the U.S. Senate.

Below is a list of Committee members.  I've put an asterisk beside the names of those who voted for the flag burning amendment, because I thought Kos readers would like to challenge these Senators to show how truly patriotic they are.  Since they voted to protect the symbol of Democracy, tell them to cast a vote to protect Democracy itself, by voting no to the US/UK Extradition Treaty on September 7.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee (* = voted for flag burning amendment)

Republicans
Richard Lugar
Chuck Hagel
Lincoln Chafee
George Allen *
Norm Coleman *
George Voinovich *
Lamar Alexander *
John Sununu *
Lisa Murkowski *
Mel Martinez *

Democrats
Joseph R. Biden
Paul S. Sarbanes
Christopher J. Dodd
John F. Kerry
Russell D. Feingold
Barbara Boxer
Bill Nelson *
Barack Obama

*Action item #2:  Your Senators need to know this is on the horizon, just in case the Senate Foreign Relations Committee votes to send it to the full Senate on September 7.  Write your two Senators today, asking for a "no" vote, should the Treaty come before the full Senate for ratification.  And, again, we especially want to target those Senators who voted to protect the symbol of Democracy--our flag--and ask them to stand up for Democracy itself by opposing this anti-American "fast track" treaty:

Senators who voted for flag burning amendment:

Republicans * = member, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Lamar Alexander *, Wayne Allard, George Allen *, Kit Bond, Sam Brownback, Jim Bunning, Conrad Burns, Richard Burr, Saxby Chambliss, Tom Coburn, Thad Cochran, Norm Coleman *, Susan Collins, John Cornyn, Larry Craig, Michael Crapo, Jim DeMint, Mike DeWine, Elizabeth Dole, Pete Domenici, John Ensign, Michael Enzi, Bill Frist, Lindsey Graham, Charles Grassley, Judd Gregg, Chuck Hagel, Orrin Hatch, Kay Bailey Hutchison, James Inhofe, Johnny Isakson, Jon Kyl, Trent Lott, Richard Lugar *, Mel Martinez *, John McCain, Lisa Murkowski *, Pat Roberts, Rick Santorum, Jeff Sessions, Richard Shelby, Gordon Smith, Olympia Snowe, Arlen Specter, Ted Stevens, John Sununu *, Jim Talent, Craig Thomas,John Thune, David Vitter, George Voinovich *, John Warner

Democrats

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Mark Dayton, Dianne Feinstein, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Robert Menéndez, Bill Nelson *, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Debbie Stabenow

One more obvious point--we actually do have an extradition treaty with the U.K. already, which is good enough to bring any criminals to the U.S. for trial, assuming we have just cause.  We don't need another treaty, especially not one endorsed by John Ashcroft.

Originally posted to CoolOnion on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 05:02 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  hey thanks for the heads up (0+ / 0-)

    Voinovich and Allen? (I never keep track of the committees) Friggin bleak that is.

    You're a moron if you think I'm going to die for Israel or George Bush--Me.

    by Nulwee on Thu Aug 24, 2006 at 05:30:52 AM PDT

    •  I never noticed Allen's name 'til last night (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nulwee

      I was working on this post, and thought to myself, "George 'Macaca' Allen's on this list?  We're screwed!"  We sure do need people with common sense on these committees, especially Foreign Relations.

  •  Let me get this straight (0+ / 0-)

    Engage in an activity that is legal in your own juristiction. Years later you are extradited to a foreign power, the USA, without the usual protections a citizen would expect.

    Outrageous. Use fear of terror to remove the protection of law.

    Great diary!
    •  Yeah, it is outrageous. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      John DE, paul2port

      It's like if you were selling an item on the internet that's perfectly legal--tennis balls, let's say--but in two years terrorists start using them, so then it becomes illegal to sell your product internationally.  The U.K. could request you, even though whatever you did was legal at the time you did it.  It's insane.

  •  It is outrageous! (0+ / 0-)

    Here in the UK, nobody ex Blair likes this treaty. Under the exisisting one the authorities have to present some evidence, under this they just ask for whoever they want.

    •  I'm so sorry it hasn't made the news here (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ybruti, subtropolis

      I've been working on this since 2003, and our media just won't pick it up.  A lawyer in one of my internet activist groups just happened to hear a brief mention of it on the radio in the summer of 2003, which is how I got involved.  We've not been able to get anyone interested in covering it, and I just feel horrible about how the Bush Administration is using it to request people in the UK.

      If it goes to the full Senate, it needs 2/3 for ratification, and I just can't imagine that it will get that many votes.  Hopefully, it will be rejected in the Senate, and overturned in the UK, too.

  •  Please pass this link along to your email lists (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    subtropolis, PBen

    It looks like this diary will soon slide off the front page into Kos oblivion, so if everyone who recommended this diary would pass the link along to your email lists, that would help get the word out about this treaty.

  •  Friday, August 25--sent link to... (0+ / 0-)
    Randi Rhodes

    rrhodes@airamericaradio.com

    Michael Moore
    mike@michaelmoore.com

    Al Franken
    http://www.airamerica.com/...

    It was also sent out on two email news lists I subscribe to.  Feel free to share it with your own lists.  I'll be doing another post on this topic next week.

  •  Not Out To Get Us? (0+ / 0-)

    Then perhaps Mr. Hain would have his government agree to this reservation:

    No person shall be subject to extradition for any offense related to the conflict in Northern Ireland.

  •  Are Americans clueless re lack of rights in UK? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CoolOnion

    And is this further evidence of the neo-con plan to erode civil liberties in the USA?

    I guess it's no surprise that Bush's GOP wants to reward Tony Blair.  However, it is troubling that so few Democrats are speaking out against this startling abrogation of the Bill of Rights.  And where is the outrage on the Daily Kos? Could it be that the progressives here have a blind spot when it comes to our British "friends"?  After all, Tony Blair, Inc. is just so much more eloquent than George Bush, Inc. - therefore (I speculate), shouldn't progressives just trust whatever the UK does? Whatever Tony wants, Tony gets?  Including this treaty which strips Americans of all of their rights under the US Constitution?

    •  In answer to your question, yes. (0+ / 0-)

      Americans are totally clueless as to the lack of rights in the U.K.  Most people assume they have something similar to a Bill of Rights, which they don't.  In the U.K., this treaty was passed through Parliament without any kind of debate.

      That's what BushCo has in mind for the U.S.  Unfortunately, most people on Kos are more concerned about the next election than the "big picture."  The right-wingers have been working on "big picture" ideas since the 1960s, and we're only just now seeing the fruits of their labor in things like warrentless wiretaps, black box voting, and the US UK Extradition Treaty.

      If we don't pay attention, there won't be a "next election."

      •  Hope more Kos posters see this danger (0+ / 0-)

        I understand why so many are focussed on the next election, and hope that the Democrats carry both houses.  However, you are right to bring our attention to this abominable abrogation of our Bill of Rights.  Hopefully, more Kos posters will join us in actively opposing this proposed UK/US treaty.

  •  Going to blanket the Senate with letters (0+ / 0-)

    May I use the text of the statement you block quoted above in my efforts?  It's wonderful.

  •  Great work, Cool Onion! (0+ / 0-)

    I e-mailed the members of the FRC and wrote to my senators.

    It might be a good idea to call the FRC as well:

    U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
    Dirksen Senate Office Building
    Washington, DC 20510-6225

    Majority Phone: (202) 224-4651
    Minority Phone: (202) 224-3953

    Thanks for publicizing this potential travesty.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site