US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

[Andy Turnbull]

Times Online article link via Warren Ellis' blog

And the US government wonder why the rest of the world is so down on their administration?

Beggars belief.

Andy

[legios]

admin said:

Times Online article link via Warren Ellis' blog

And the US government wonder why the rest of the world is so down on their administration?

Beggars belief.

Andy

It is a bit scary isn't it. It is a quirk of US law I was dimly aware of - it is at the root of a lot of the work done overseas by organisations like JSOC and The Activity - when they went after that warlord in Somalia the plan was to do an "arrest in force" (and of course if he had resisted then they would have had the right to use force defend themselves...... ). The US have always reserved the right to go anywhere and grab anyone who they feel has broken their laws without recourse to local law. (They are not the only ones who do it mind you - Mossad have a long record of that kind of thing - but the American's are the only ones whose laws actively state that they can do it). I agree, it is a poor way to coexist on a small planet - "Our law says if theres a guy we want in your country we can take him, and our laws override yours". All part and parcel of an attitude that is not conducive to winning friends.

Karl

[The Doctor]

Good grief. I was aware of this previously but had assumed the law must have been repealed by now. Obviously not!

-Ralph

[rurudyne]

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.

First of all ... I call B.S. on my own government.

All other issues aside, the United States and England had extradition treaties that cover such instances (if someone faces charges or if they are fleeing conviction). If these persons live in England (and it says they do in the article) and the British government is not in the habit of shielding known criminals (which it certainly doesn't do ... careless health bureaucrats aside) then the legal agreements that exist take precedence and Rendition is right out.

Citing that instance with Mexico, a country that has offered criminals refuge if they pay off the right people (not to mention taking other positions hostile to U.S. laws), is self serving in the extreme ... since there is simply no way to compare England to Mexico in that respect.

But I would point to something that I would consider more troubling: the notion seen with international tribunals where persons are kidnapped to stand trial in nations without sovereign authority over the crimes committed (the next step in this chain of abused laws and sovereignty). I rather imagine that this move lends U.S. support to the notion that anyone wanted for any "crime" can be seized to be tried in whatever court will bring charges.

It remains to be seen how an American administration will behave if someone tries this with an American citizen (especially where there is a long standing relationship about extradition and all that), but at least with respect to Britain, I'd say the current administration has just allowed one country (England) that will (or should) get a pass.

Possibly Canada too, considering what was revealed in the text of the article.

After all, what's good for the goose and all that.

PS: the US Supreme Court has sanctioned a lot of things in cases where it had no authority to even rule, so saying SCOTUS says it's ok is a bit like saying that school yard rules apply. Or maybe exactly like saying that school yard rules apply.

[legios]

rurudyne said:

I'd say the current administration has just allowed one country (England) that will (or should) get a pass.

Well, that's ok for England. What about Scotland, Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom. :-)

PS: the US Supreme Court has sanctioned a lot of things in cases where it had no authority to even rule, so saying SCOTUS says it's ok is a bit like saying that school yard rules apply. Or maybe exactly like saying that school yard rules apply.

I think it is the mindset that troubles me - the thinking that says in effect that US Law overrides the laws of the country in question and the assumed principles (which are all International Law is at root) that are intended to govern the relationships between nations. It looks tantamount to a situation like - "yeah, we'll abide by the rules of the game as long as they are in our favour. When their not then we can make up any rules we like". Triue a lot of countries behave like that but fewer makeit a stated principle of their interactions with their neighbours.

Karl