"A Threat To Irish-Americans"

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A Threat To Irish-Americans: The New U.S./U.K Extradition Treaty
By Francis A. Boyle

On March 31, 2003, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and U.K. Home Secretary David Blunkett signed a new treaty providing for extradition between the two countries of persons accused of crimes. The new treaty, which has yet to be ratified by the U.S. Senate, marks an unprecedented departure from two centuries of American extradition practice. America has always been a refuge for those fleeing tyranny overseas, and a 'political offense exception' to extradition has been an essential element of every one of our extradition treaties since Thomas Jefferson refused extradition of an opponent of the French Revolution.

Although the new treaty pays lip service to the political offense
exception, it removes that essential protection for those seeking refuge on our shores. Worse, it subjects U.S. citizens to extradition based solely on unproven allegations by the British government. Any American active in Irish affairs faces potential detention, and transportation to the United Kingdom, without any proof of guilt, and without judicial review. Never before in its history has the United States government subjected the liberty of its citizens to the whims of a foreign government. In summary, the new treaty:

1. Eliminates the political offense exception for any offense allegedly involving violence or weapons, including any solicitation, conspiracy or attempt to commit such crimes;

2. Transfers responsibility for determining whether the extradition request is politically - motivated from the courts to the executive branch;

3. Allows for extradition even if no U.S. federal law is violated;

4. Eliminates any statute of limitations;

5. Eliminates the need for any showing by the United Kingdom of facts sufficient to show the person requested is guilty of the crime charged-mere unsupported allegations are sufficient;

6. Allows for provisional arrest and detention for 60 days upon request by the United Kingdom;

7. Allows for seizure of assets by the United Kingdom;

8. Allows for extradition for one offense, and then subsequent
prosecution in the UK for an unrelated offense (thus eliminating the time-honored 'rule of specialty'); and

9. Applies retroactively, for offenses allegedly committed even before the ratification of the treaty.

No Irish-American activist is safe if this treaty passes. While the most immediate threat is aimed at those who reject the Good Friday Agreement, this treaty is a threat to political activists across the board. In fact, the treaty appears to be an effort by the U.K. government to set the stage for the breakdown of the G.F.A. , allowing extradition for alleged behavior occurring years ago by activists and organizations.

Attorney General Ashcroft appears to be trying to slip this treaty
through the Senate without fanfare, similar to the strategy used with Joseph Doherty. No more Joe Dohertys! Contact your Senators today and insist that they place a "hold" on this treaty until its full implications can be aired.


(emphasis mine)

miloauckerman (miloauckerman), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:24 (twenty-two years ago)

We're pretty pissed off about this in the UK too. Recently a british moslem was prevented from being extradited to the US because a british court found that there was no evidence. Now he will be open to extradition without any such hearing. It feels as if this treaty has been forced upon the UK by the US.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a threat to anyone in the US but particularly in the UK.

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:40 (twenty-two years ago)

god dammit

Millar (Millar), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

i am most disturbed by the fact that this registers an "eh" from me at this point.

jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

further erosions of habeas corpus for us all

Ed (dali), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, jess, I thought the same thing. I was like, this is unexpected? I don't get it, how is this even remotely a viable method of treaty? It's kind of like, why didn't the U.S. write "The U.K. Government is now our bitches!" and make them sign that?

Ally (mlescaut), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The UK is fucking insane if it signs along with this. What about the one (two?) British citizen(s) that were named as possible defendants in Bush's new s00per sekrUt court? With this, the US can snatch any UK citizen w/o evidence, take them to the US, try them in a s00per sekrUt court, and excecute them.

The US is scary right now.

fletrejet, Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, we do need more ter-roar-ists for Bush's publicity campaign. Why not the IRA, too?

donut bitch (donut), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

it's funny, while that Francis Boyle fellow sounds like some kind of unreconstructed provo, some of the points he makes are quite vaild. in particular, extraditing people without the production of prima facie evidence against them sounds like a recipe for handing people over to shaky kangaroo court justice. even unprovo-y Irish people like me have learned to be suspicious of the judicial standards in the UK, and if I was British I would be perturbed at my compatriots being handed over to a country with a lynchmob judicial system like the US.

DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 22:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Everybody who is not down with the Bush Doctrine is a terrorist, I thought everybody knew that by now

J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Tuesday, 8 July 2003 23:35 (twenty-two years ago)

http://image.pathfinder.com/Life/yip/1998/images/ireland.jpg

Dada, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

So fuckin' what, there shouldn't be borders anyway. Also, people who join 'suspicious' groups thrive on this dissident-persecution shit, and even if they don't it's the cost of doing business

dave q, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 08:31 (twenty-two years ago)

(like, if you were serious about your activism wouldn't you rather prove it by doing time in Camp X-Ray than by killing someone? unless you're a psychopath, or just lazy)

dave q, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 08:32 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm with Dave Q here. Justice respects no borders. Miscarriages of justice doubly so.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

sadly i doubt that the uk required that much leaning on here: a lot of the changes in domestic uk law blunkett is currently pushing through — abolition of double jeopardy for example — seem designed to equate accusation with guilt

mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 08:43 (twenty-two years ago)

WHy would anyone accuse someone if they weren't guilty!

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 09:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I ACCUSE DAVE Q! HE IS A WITCH! BURN HIM!

DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 10:03 (twenty-two years ago)

(I fear you have inadvertantly proved my point).

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 10:26 (twenty-two years ago)

'WHy would anyone accuse someone if they weren't guilty!'

Why does somebody have to be guilty of something before they're put away? fuckin' liberals

dave q, Wednesday, 9 July 2003 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I've long suspected this, but to actually read it, I mean - holy. fucking. shit.

Now where did I leave all of that dual citizenship paperwork?

Just what I need is more paranoia in my life.

Kerry (dymaxia), Wednesday, 9 July 2003 13:45 (twenty-two years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.