Tuesday - December 06, 2011

US/Brit Extradition Treaty … at loggerheads over fairness … your comments welcome

All I know is what I read in the papers and what LyndonB tells me on this subject.  The Brit/American extradition treaty.  Which some say is one way and only favors the USA. If that’s true they’re correct in the criticism.  I really don’t know and have no time to do honest and serious research on the subject.  But it has been causing a stir here, and this is some background.

A computer geek with a new age disease called Asperger’s Syndrome which I renamed Asparagus Syndrome, broke into American security computers and wrecked havoc for a time. 
His name is Gary McKinnon, lives a quiet life with mommy and is in his 40’s, I have read.  He is supposed to be a whiz with a computer.

Well, what Gary did was break into US puters which exposed our security as pitiful.
According to reports, we had no passwords and no firewalls. 
He was eventually tracked down, arrested and has been facing extradition ever since.

Further to the story, his defenders say he wasn’t tying to do harm but was trying to research and track down the “truth” about flying saucers and little green men etc.
Poor deluded Gary. 

Now I can not pretend to know a darn thing about the treaty that the Brits have with the USA on extradition.  From what I have been hearing due to this case though, is that it is very one sided and not only favors the USA, but does so at the expense of the UK.  And they are very unhappy.  If it’s true, one can’t blame them. 

So here we have this poor innocent (by way of his particular syndrome) young man facing possible jail in America if he is indeed turned over to the US.

Yeah well, little green men and flying saucers aside, that was not the subject of messages he left on American computers. Nope.
Perhaps one of the side effects of asparagus syndrome, is the ability to be very articulate which he was, it was originally reported.  He wrote anti-war tracts for the war mongering Americans to read.  Italics are mine.  He knew damn well what he was doing from the get go.  He was well written and one might even say professional in his approach. 

So for well over a year now, maybe two, the fight has been going on to save Gary from American clutches. And oh btw, his mommy said that Gary would kill himself if he had to go to jail in the USA. So now the campaign is not only to stop any extradition, but save his life as well.  And the Daily Mail has been campaigning on his behalf from the beginning, with headlines such as; GARY’S SUFFERED ENOUGH. DON’T LET US DOWN.  Well anyway, that was written by his mommy in a column yesterday in the DM.  Monday’s DM headline covered almost half a page with the words;

* DO YOUR DUTY FOR GARY AND BRITAIN.
* MPs VOTE ON UNFAIR EXTRADITION LAWS.
* AN AFFRONT TO BRITISH JUSTICE
* NEW HOPE FOR GARY AS MPs BACK RETHINK ON EXTRADITION

The hope is that Gary McKinnon if tried and found guilty, which he must be since he said he hacked in looking for the twilight zone, would be allowed to served his time in a Brit jail.  Apparently he wouldn’t try to kill himself there. Only in America. 

Which now brings us to the American response from the US Ambassador himself.

US - UK extradition treaty is fair and balanced

By Louis Susman

I want to state clearly the US position – and correct some of the myths, distortions, and inaccuracies that have developed. We believe that the existing US-UK Extradition Treaty works, is fair and balanced, promotes justice in both countries, and does not need to be changed.

We are not alone in this opinion. It is a view shared by a distinguished panel of UK legal experts appointed by the Home Secretary to review the fairness of the treaty and to ensure protection of Britain’s interests. That panel was led by the esteemed judge Sir Scott Baker and included two highly respected lawyers with significant experience in extradition proceedings – one from representing the accused; the other from representing governments.

Over more than a year, they solicited views from all interested parties – on both sides of the argument. Anyone holding a grievance was given the fullest opportunity to express their concerns. The panel received more than 200 written responses. Hearings and meetings were held with affected organisations and individuals, including officials and lawyers from the UK and the US. The extradition procedures of both countries were studied, and extraditions already concluded under the treaty examined.

Sir Scott Baker’s Commission conducted an exhaustive, meticulous and considered review. And it reached the only conclusion that could be supported by the facts: that the US-UK treaty in its current form is fair and balanced.

However, we recognise that the panel’s findings are not accepted by everyone. There have, of course, been vocal criticisms of Britain’s extradition arrangements aired for many years. We heard them again during last week’s Parliamentary debate and its subsequent press coverage.

Where there are concerns, they should not be confused with issues surrounding the European Arrest Warrant – a completely different agreement to our treaty. It should be clear that one has nothing to do with the other. As regards the US-UK Extradition Treaty, there appear to be two main criticisms. Neither is justified.
First, critics say that it is easier to extradite someone from the UK than from the US due to a different burden of proof. There may be some confusion because the standards of evidence for extradition under the treaty are different in terminology. But in practice, the UK’s “reasonable suspicion” test is the same as the US’s “probable cause”. They are the standards that police officers in our respective countries must meet to justify an arrest.

British citizens are also protected by the “probable cause” test since the US cannot make an extradition request to the UK until probable cause has been successfully established in a US court. So the standard of evidence that each country has to meet to extradite someone is the same. Plain and simple. In fact, it is worth noting that the United States has never denied an extradition request from the UK under the present treaty.

The second mistaken claim is that the treaty somehow denies British citizens British justice. In all extradition cases, the UK authorities always begin by considering whether an individual can and should be tried in the UK instead of being extradited. Once the UK authorities decide that the case should be tried in the US, all extradition hearings are then held in UK courts – as are subsequent appeals. It is only when these avenues have been exhausted – when UK prosecutors, the courts, and the Home Secretary have all affirmed that the request is proper – that an extradition goes ahead. Moreover, the Baker Commission’s report stated that UK extradition judges “could not think of any case already decided under the 2003 act in which it would have been in the interests of justice for it to have been tried in the United Kingdom rather than in the requesting territory”. These are not the only arguments used by critics of the treaty.

In fact, neither country can ask for an extradition if the crime allegedly committed is not a serious crime in both countries. Nor does the US get special treatment – the UK’s domestic extradition law is the same for Australia, Canada, Israel, Russia, and Turkey. And nor do we seek the death penalty for any individual extradited from the UK.

In an age of international crime syndicates, global terror networks and cyber attacks, my government strongly supports the US-UK Extradition Treaty as an essential tool for bringing criminals to justice. It is a treaty that has been tested robustly by the British and the US justice systems, and now has been validated by the Baker Commission’s review.

For these reasons we remain confident that the treaty is fair and balanced. Because the treaty is valid, we hope that it will receive the endorsement from Members of Parliament that it deserves.

• Louis Susman is United States ambassador to the United Kingdom

source

Posted by peiper     on 12/06/2011 at 10:26 AM   
Filed Under: • International • Politics • UK • USA •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner