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.
Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.
The US governments view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.
The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.
During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollmans nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.
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.
He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be honest about [his] position.
Jones replied: That is United States law.
He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.
Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time as there currently is between the United States and Britain the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.
In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.
An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.
A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a sinister trap and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.
Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term extraordinary rendition was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.
There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.
The US Justice Department declined to comment.
Its a good thing American bounty hunters are as effective as Yosemite Sam and Elmer Fudd. Right?
I saw this in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, but my connection crashed before I got the chance to post it.
Yet again, the Wild West mentality of the current administration bothers me. I wonder how they'd react if the UK decided to start snatching US citizens off the streets and shipping them out.
I'm pretty amused at the Justice Department had the audacity to attempt to bypass their own rules like a bunch of idiots. They tossed into the slammer themselves. 
. . .
I guess this means hiding in Sam's basement is out. They can just burn the place down and drag my charred body back to this downward spiraling country. 
~Tobe
So America is like a sinkhole?? Possibly of despair
Not yet, we started pretty high up so we have some spiraling to do before we hit sea level. 
~Tobe
As one of our more outspoken politicians was heard to say to Tony Blair in the House of Commons during a discussion on "extraordinary rendition":
"All we want is a special relationship [with America] that does not resemble that between Miss Lewinsky and a former United States President: unequal, disreputable and with the junior partner always on their knees."
LOL @ Sam. Genius quote!
I guess it's time for us to rescind our extradition agreement. Why have one when the US will just trample over it anyhow?
Regarding the Natwest 3, was it true that their alleged crimes did not take place (if they took place at all) on US soil nor in US jurisdiction? I seem to recall a lot of controversy over why on earth they were extradited in the first place.
Honestly, this world gets worse every day...
DW
Quote:
LOL @ Sam. Genius quote!
George Galloway came out with it at the emergency debate into the Natwest renditions. You can imagine the House's reaction.
Quote:
Regarding the Natwest 3, was it true that their alleged crimes did not take place (if they took place at all) on US soil nor in US jurisdiction? I seem to recall a lot of controversy over why on earth they were extradited in the first place.
If I'm remembering rightly, the wire fraud wasn't the bigger issue.
Aww c'mon Brits. 230 years ago, you guys did the same thing.
I do not see what the problem is here. Why are you people so upset at America taking its criminals out of your country? Do you want our criminals?
Doesn't make it fair though. 
:">
And meanwhile, the Justice Department is bungling the Ramos and Compean case, where two Border Agents are serving jailtime for shooting a drug runner in the buttocks at night. The drug runner got immunity from the Justice Department to testify AGAINST the border agents. As the trial was going on, the drug runner was...running drugs.
(smacks forehead) Oy.
Quote:
I wonder how they'd react if the UK decided to start snatching US citizens off the streets and shipping them out.
Please, PLEASE get them to do that. Seriously... as a matter of fact, you can have as many newborn babies as you want, then you can raise them to believe they are UK citizens for all I care. XD Heck, TAKE ME!
lol I actually agree with stair
Quote:
Why are you people so upset at America taking its criminals out of your country?
They're not the US' "criminals" - they're British citizens, and the precedent was set under some very ropey retroactive application of a treaty. That's the point.
Plus, we sort of have this little thing about people being innocent until proven guilty at a fair trial, remember?
Yeah, we got rid of that that thing over here a while ago Sam. Now it's that they are guilty tell they hire a sleasy enough lawyer.
~Tobe
Dear America,
New Australian law states that while in America, Australians are free to take things from stories without paying for them. It's permissible under our law, because our government has sanctioned it.
Wait, wait. What of these facts is wrong?
-They're British citizens.
-They (allegedly) broke US law on US soil.
-They were extradited from a country with an extradition treaty for (allegedly) breaking US law on US soil.
-They're being held in the US pending a US trial for (allegedly) breaking US law on US soil.
If all four of those are right (admittedly, I've heard a lot of confusing things from a lot of untrustworthy sources, not the least of which is the horribly biased story linked in the first post), I don't understand what the problem is.
From what I remember of skimming the other day, I think that law was mainly used for terrorist activity previously.
You're right, Acrio. Quoting from the above article:
Quote:
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.
Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.
I think that the concentration on the specific case of the Natwest Three is clouding the real issue - which is the US' belief in the aftermath of that case that kidnapping someone off the street is reasonable, and that being guilty until proven innocent is a fine justification for such.
Quote:
-They're British citizens.
-They (allegedly) broke US law on US soil.
-They were extradited from a country with an extradition treaty for (allegedly) breaking US law on US soil.
-They're being held in the US pending a US trial for (allegedly) breaking US law on US soil.
The problems we have are in bold, SX.
How would you feel if someone in America was kidnapped and taken to a foreign country you don't like because they may have broken a law there?
How would you feel if it was someone you knew?
Or how would you feel if it was you?
Remember, the US really isn't th worlds best friend right now, and the average British citizen isn't in favour of the US either. So to kidnap citizens from a supposed allied country who's citizens aren't fond of being the ally isn't a smart thing to do, at all. Plus there's the whole human rights stuff.
Hrrrm...enough of this American hatefest...let's actually look at the issue at hand. It isn't a matter of "innocence". The matter in question is "If you're kidnapped(by anyone) and brought into another jurisdiction, are you submitting to the courts in that jurisdiction?" I would say yes(even if you're fighting being sent there in another jurisdiction). Even if it was involuntary.
Now the next question..."Is this good American policy?" Probably not.
If the British Government believes(or knows) someone was kidnapped and dragged to the United States they should issue a warrant against the kidnappers for the crime they committed on their soil.
I was under the impression that extradition was for any major crime (such as wire fraud, which is a felony), not just terrorism. I mean, we've had extradition LONG before terrorism was the buzzword. But, if we're not allowed to hold citizens until AFTER their trial...wouldn't the guilty ones just, I don't know, not stick around to be arrested?
Perhaps it's because I'm an American - and also because I'm wary of blatantly obvious bias, like insisting on using the word "kidnapping" twenty times per paragraph, instead of what it is, "extradition," a totally legal and legit claim - but I really don't see any huge major issue here.
I also notice that it was "assumed to be" for terrorists. I read that as "...but never actually stated anywhere that it's only for terror charges."
Now, were these people extradited, and peacefully turned over to the courts, or did the Big Bad CIA Agent bust into these guys' homes and drag them off to a sinister dark-coloured van?
The core concept of this procedure isn't the thing that scares me. What really scares me is that the US government can use this as a stepping-stone towards more terrifying activities.
Robo: I think SX uses "(allegedly)" because they haven't been found guilty (yet). Under habeas corpus, we have to have them there for trial. Do I think we could have gone about this better? Yes. Do I see alternatives being offered? No.
I agree with James a bit, this seems to be becoming another "America sucks" thread. But before I say anything further, could the man have been made to stood trial in England and the damages (read: owed tax dollars) be paid to America under the order of a British judge? Moreover, if the ruling could be made, would people still scream "bull"? I'm honestly hoping the answer to the first is yes, as it means there would be some reasonable alternative in which justice is meted out without all these issues rising. IMO extradition should be a last resort measure, but from the reaction it seems our government pulled the trigger too soon again.
Two more points I'd like to make...
First off, to Cy...it wouldn't be proper or right for a UK court to try a case based off of US law. For a few reasons, first off, the jurisdiction is incorrect. Much like you wouldn't try a murder case that happened in New York State in Colorado. Second, UK lawyers and judges are not versed in US tax law...or US law in general. You very well can't try a case if you don't even know the relevant law or case law.
Second, whoever ends up being kidnapped from foreign soil by US government agents may have, in theory, a chance to argue two points, unlawful arrest and violation of Due Process rights. I'm completely unsure of the case law and how it would apply to this situation though.
Couple of points here. First, to echo Sam, the Natwest case *is* causing confusion. Those people *were* extradited, i.e. voluntarily given up by Britain to stand trial in the US. There was controversy over whether that decision to extradite should have been made, but it was made and thus was legal under UK law.
Second point, extradition treaties may exist between countries, but to my knowledge, that doesn't mean that any country must accede to any extradition request. Britain would be quite within her rights under the treaty to deny the request. The article in fact notes how an American lawyer had tried and failed to get an extradition from Britain.
The use of the word "kidnapping" in this case seems perfectly justified. This is not a country giving up her citizens to the US to stand trial (presumably after demonstration of reasonable evidence against them), but the US unilaterally deciding it will go ahead and take them, regardless.
Extradition and simply kidnapping other countries' citizens are not the same thing.
DW
Okay, yeah. If what DW says is right, then yeah, we're being jerks, again (I mean, couldn't we submit the case to Interpol or something?). Hopefully this sort of crap'll end once Bush and his cronies are out in 2008. I honestly don't think we had this sort of problem with Clinton. Incidentally, I don't think this has been so much as a blip on our own news radar, you'd think we'd at least see it listed on the international/business sections being labeled "extradition" or something.
<i>The use of the word "kidnapping" in this case seems perfectly justified. This is not a country giving up her citizens to the US to stand trial (presumably after demonstration of reasonable evidence against them), but the US unilaterally deciding it will go ahead and take them, regardless.</i>
Did that article actually say Britain refused? It used the word "kidnapping" so often I started skipping sentences every time I saw the word.
We aren't your CTRL F monkies >=0
I'll be your CTRL F monkey (those who already read this, feel free to skip):
"The US governments view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club..."
"The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.
"During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollmans nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005."
"In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.
"An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.
"A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a sinister trap and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain."
That should answer your questions. In the case in which the US view came to light, yes they had tried to get extradition. The fight is ongoing, but their nephew, who is also the subject of investigation and who the US failed to get extradited, was the subject of "an abduction attempt".
DW
Basically America talked Canada into arresting him and handing him over, but a Canadian judge stopped it?
Still a far cry from Big Bad CIA Agent in a sinister black van.
I wasn't aware we were talking about sinister black vans. The basic point here is that the US is saying it will ignore other countries' due process if that process conflicts with what it wants to do. Unlawfully arresting someone and detaining them (or having someone else do it for you) amounts to kidnap and I think that's the point that the article is aiming for. Of course being arrested is not kidnap when it's done under the laws of the country in question and all procedures are followed. And it would be a totally different thing if the US chose to arrest the guy under its laws on its territory. But it becomes a very questionable tactic if the US starts either arresting people in other countries or having other people do it for them, then demanding that said person be taken into another country against his / her will. That's what extradition treaties are there for: to provide checks & balances so that some form of persuasive evidence should be available before a country gives up citizens to another. In the Canadian case, presumably the attorney should have filed for extradition from Canada, not just inveigled customs into handing the guy over.
DW
