While I am opposed to the idea of rendition, the U.K. has scant room to talk... although the case I'm about to use as an example is extreme.
When former Coup Leader and Dictator of Chile, Pinochet was in London (I believe for medical reasons), he was ordered held on a French warrant -- just as in the example given here, an English citizen in Canada was ordered held on a U.S. warrant -- and France asked the U.K. to just put him on a plane and ship him over to face multiple war crimes.
England held its ground, not so much on legal grounds -- although of course that is what they said -- as on their government's tight relationship with Chile at the time, and having had promised not to let Pinochet out of their hands.
Eventually, the U.K. courts sent the old fuck back to Chile where he went on trail and stayed there till he died.
In the same way, how many of us would weep if Rumsfeld, were he to travel to London, were to be held on war crime charges, then transfered to Germany to face them? That could EASILY happen under the law today.
We'd be cheering I think.
The difference here is, the U.S. has a policy of, "It doesn't matter how you got in our jurisdiction. You're here. We're going to try you." This is true of all courts everywhere, as a general rule. I can't imagine a Germany court handing Rumsfeld back to the United States were he to show up, duct taped to a flag pole in Berlin.
They'd try his fat ass, and then throw him in prison for life. And richly deserved, thank you very much.
Again, I'm not arguing for rendition, but demonstrating that legally, the U.K.'s assumptions of moral superiority are so much hot air.
Especially from a country which kidnapped North Irish citizens out of their own country, dragged them into British courts in chains and gags -- hundreds of miles away from home with juries which were very much unlike those which knew them -- and then threw them (and still keeps many of them) in what can only be described as political prison, for life in many cases.
My point is not that the U.S. position on rendition is good -- I am opposed to rendition; people should only be taken across borders by their own authentically free will, or by all due legal process according to treaty, constitutional acts, and so on -- but that the U.K. has absolutely no moral high ground here.
Further we progressives need to be very careful to SEPARATE DOMAINS OF ACTION when we speak. There is a huge difference between the LAW as a legal domain, our MORAL JUDGMENTS on the law, and WHAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE LAW SAY. In this post, Hubris collapses all three domains.
Don't collapse domains.
No court I know of, would refuse jurisdiction of a prisoner in front of them. Rendition is a smoke-screen in the legal process of the Judiciary.
It is not a smoke screen in how we expect the EXECUTIVE to behave. Rendition can be explicitly outlawed there and should be. But the JUDICIAL branch by definition, must make rulings on all persons brought before it, including Habeas, which it could not do if it had to ignore people who were rendered.
Where the focus should be, is making rendition illegal as a matter of law, in all nations. It is not now illegal, and till it is -- till staying where you are without due process otherwise is a basic Human Right -- the U.S. attorneys are correct in stating the U.S. legal position, and should not be faulted for doing so. The fault lies in every legal system everywhere.
Where Hubris is correct is in this:
We have one of the few Executives in the world, which sends snatch teams around the world, to actively grab people and drag them back to its jurisdiction for trial. Israel does with war criminals. And we do. Mostly with drug dealers. And now with terrorists. But also with anything having to do with children. Because anything can be justified if it's to save "the children."
Other courts in other nations will accept jurisdiction of anyone in front of them. But no other nation actively encourages rendition as ours does.
Again, this is not a failure of the Judicial Branch, and the practice was in place LONG before the Bush Administration. For example, we dragged Noriega back from Panama as a POW and then convicted him in civilian court on multiple courts. He is over-due to be released, but we're about to, ironically, extradite him to France where he has already been sentenced to ten years in jail.
The fixing of the properly belongs in the Legislative Branch -- and ultimately with the United Nations.
This has nothing to do with the U.K.'s position. That's kind of my point. The U.S. Attorney was basically arguing that United States Law, is the one true law. Global Law.
It is global law.
The U.S. position is correct.
All courts will accept jurisdiction of the person in front of them. To do otherwise, is to not be able to invoke Habeas.
This needs to be fixed:
a) In the U.S. by the Legislative Branch, making it illegal to bring anyone into the United States knowingly to face criminal charges, except with a waiver given in the presence of their attorney, or after due process.
b) World-wide by an amendment to the U.N. to the statement of Human Rights.
Till then, the U.S. attorneys are correct.
What they're being sly about is, other than Israel going after war criminals -- which I would argue they have the moral authority and obligation to do (especially with the window of time remaining to bring the WWII criminals to trial alive shrinking literally day to day) -- the United States is the ONLY nation which actively encourages rendition. All nations will accept a rendered person. But we encourage it.
That is the point the U.K. court should have made, to which the U.S. attorneys could have had no answer.
They are arguing that they can come and take people. not that the person in the court, regardless of how they got there, can be tried.
Yes, that is what they are arguing.
As a matter of law, they are correct. It is not a violation of U.S. law for them to do so.
It may well be a violation of other country's law -- probably is. But it is not a U.S. violation.
Whatever we may think of this morally -- and I think plenty -- this is well-established law, going back over a century.
It is vital when talking about the law, not to confuse it with morality, justice, or what we want it to be. All those issues belong in the Legislative process, the Executive process, or even at Church. The LAW is none of that.
This one isn't even something to blame the Bush Administration for, although engaging in rendition to TORTURE is obviously illegal, and it is likely illegal under our law for us to render someone to ANOTHER country. (I'd need to look up the law myself to know, but probably it only works one way, bringing people TO the United States.)
What we can blame the Bush Administration for is for rendering people to be tortured elsewhere. Obvious criminal act, and everyone involved at every step is a federal criminal, as well as a war criminal.
But yeah, the U.S. attorneys in the U.K. are correctly representing U.S. law: We can go anywhere in the world and kidnap anyone we want, drag them back to the U.S. and try them, and that is not a crime under U.S. law, no matter how much it pisses off everyone else, or how many laws of everyone else were broken in the process. The kidnapping can be done by anyone -- it doesn't have to be done by a U.S. agent. A father reclaiming his 10 year-old daughter, and kidnapping his ex-wife for whom there is a warrant out on, is legally fine to do so, when he brings them back from Norway where they were hiding out.
No... we can't... the U.S. court thinks so. but the country we go into doesn't allow it. He was arguing this in a U.K. court room. not a u.s. one.
Doc' I understand the U.S. view of this. That it was argued in a U.K. court is the issue.
Especially from a country which kidnapped North Irish citizens out of their own country, dragged them into British courts in chains and gags -- hundreds of miles away from home with juries which were very much unlike those which knew them -- and then threw them (and still keeps many of them) in what can only be described as political prison, for life in many cases.
People from Northern Ireland are British citizens, just like people from England, Wales and Scotland. Some also hold Republic of Ireland citizenship, taking advantage of provisions in Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland.
I very much doubt that people from Northern Ireland were tried in England for crimes committed in Northern Ireland, since Northern Ireland is a separate jurisdiction. (There are three legal jurisdictions in the UK: England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.)
In fact, special jury-less courts, the Diplock courts, were established to hear cases of terrorist activity in Northern Ireland, to avoid the problem of jurors being intimidated by paramilitaries.
People suspected of committing terrorist acts in England were, of course, tried in England.
Hubris, we really can and we do.
Doesn't make it legal in the U.K.
I didn't say, in fact, I explicitly said it wasn't legal in those countries...
3:41 am ...the U.S. attorneys in the U.K. are correctly representing U.S. law: We can go anywhere in the world and kidnap anyone we want...and that is not a crime under U.S. law...or how many laws of everyone else were broken in the process.
Our lawyers are not arguing that for us to take someone from the U.K. is legal under U.K. law. They are arguing it is legal under U.S. law. And they are right.
It is obviously kidnapping and probably a bunch of other stuff under U.K. law. It would violate the law in ANY non-U.S. jurisdiction.
Not the point. The U.S. lawyers are answering the question correctly. This is what the U.S. law is, and has been for over a century.
If we want the law changed, we need to work Congress and the U.N. This is not the fault of the Bush Administration. They did not invent a century-old law.
Gag -
Thanks as always.
Coming from a country that invented "press-ganging," the Brits certainly have a right to compare notes. I seriously doubt the US Supreme Court has authorized this [I doubt published reports in general] and I suspect MI6 is complicit whenever these renditions do take place, although the lefties as usual are in a lather over what might be a teapot tempest.
Lots of hatred for that hegemonic power that invented the internet and the First Amendment which allows whiners to spew factitious mis- or disinformation.
Of course, Canadians are a special case as they seem to have no control over their terrorist youth, who tried to blow up Toronto's RCMP HQ and then were described by authorities as "normal Canadians," all of whom happened to have a variation of the name "Muhammed," all 21 of the "normal" Canadians!!
With a "country" like that on our borders, who wouldn't take extraordinary precautions.
So let me get this straight:
UK citizens, while in the UK, committed acts that the US government has determined were crimes against US law.
The US government holds that we can forgo the legal and diplomatic system (extradition), and just grab them off the streets of London, whisk them away to DC, and try them under OUR legal system.
Is that pretty much it in a nutshell? Cause let's see what happens if we change a few words:
US citizens, while in the US, committed acts that the IRANIAN government has determined were crimes against IRANIAN law.
The IRANIAN government holds that they can forgo the legal and diplomatic system (extradition), and just grab them off the streets of NEW YORK, whisk them away to TEHRAN, and try them under THEIR legal system.
Hm. I somehow doubt that that goose-sauce is intended to go on that particular gander.
daveinboca when you want to smear, at least get your facts straight, you daft bigot. the alleged plot resulted in the arrest of 17 initially, an 18th youth was later arrested. since then, charges have been stayed against one youth and the oldest of the suspects has been granted bail. charges have been reduced for some of the youths. oh, yes i keep writing youth, that would be because 5 of the 17 initially arrested in the sting were minors.
the alleged targets included csis offices, not rcmp headquarters, the toronto stock exchange as well as the cbc broadcast centre and the parliament buildings in ottawa and of course the cn tower because terrorists hate tall things. thus far they remain accused of terror related activities. there has also been some discussion up here in canada about the nature of the bust. the rcmp sting allegedly involved encouraging them to buy the fertilizer, which rcmp agents then sold them.
the proceedings against the accused have occurred under a publication ban so little is known about the state of the case as it works its way through the courts. beyond that there isn't much to say other than to note that you should take your lies and stuff them up your fat ass. and i only say that as a freedom loving canadian. by the way boca, you'll be pleased to note that someone in north america still appreciates the rule of law. a canadian judge has found that our authorities can not turn refugee claimants over to your government as a result of the criminal application of torture and renditions to torture states.
get your own house in order before throwing rocks at us you swine.
The ironic thing is that the people the US government kidnaps in foreign countries never get charged, so the point is largely moot. Kidnap them, render them to a foreign government or a CIA black site, torture them and then throw them out in the middle of Macedonia or ship their weary body back to Canada.
It is my understanding that there is nothing in US law that addresses this situation, though ever since the President has ruled by de facto decree it hasn't really been a stumbling block. Still diplomatically, it was quite inopportune to not couch such a declaration in vague and conciliatory language. Lawyers are usually much better at making such things largely incomprehensible to most people.
freedom loving canadian is hilarious, unless you live in a free country, as many of my neighbors in Boca flee the detestable weather & moronic citizenry---demonstrated by the ape mon iker. They have tales of PC madness & nanny-state ninnyhood the ape boy seems to personify.
Thank God we're watching the borders of the "country" called Canada, really just a collection of nanny-states called provinces.
Oh, BTW, I exempt Alberta & parts of Saskat..n from that description, as vestiges of sanity remain there.
daveinboca - "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."
Do you want to get in a pissing match of a country's idiocy? I'll put up with a bit of PC fuckups...at least we talk about it here. As opposed to your numerous gargantuan "heckuva job" fuckups, which get swept under the rug of the Military Industrial Complex's entertainment wing. And "nanny-state ninnyhood?" - have you been fucking comatose for the last 6.5 years in your country? Illegal wiretaps, protected speech zones, tanks and military level lockdown whenever your leader decides to pay a visit. And we saw a horrible example of a decent man given an unplanned all expenses paid trip to that Mediterranean paradise of Syria. The Canada I behold strives for diversity, respect of legal process and being pro-actionary rather than reactionary on the world stage. In other words, I stand behind "Peace, Order and Good Government"
"Parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan" as vestiges of sanity...well yes we have to deal with our own jackasses like Craig Chandler, Ted Morton, Ezra Levant and Link Byfield - but at the end of the day even with them human decency wins out...even if their kool-aid is a little strong for them.
So keep your Stom Thurmond idolizing, cracker-loving GOP bigotry to yourself in Florida. Frankly I'm really surprised that you didn't get a hockey stick to the teeth the last time you visited.
Ha Ha Thor....
You had arguably the dumbest Prime Minister in the history of western civ, who makes GWB look like a brilliant pol, in that cretinous mealy-mouthed Chretien.
There are so many Canadians here in Boca that fled the preposterous moronic PC nanny-state collection of lushes and loonie-tune lefties up there in the frozen wastes.... they tell me more than morons like you and the ape-dude[tte] about what a bunch of specimens of cowardice and second-raters they left behind when they left a "country" to the north of the greatest nation in the world.
Temper, temper...
Don't make me get out the Gong of Doom (TM).
Yes, The ability and right of the US to arrest people - Overseas for breaking American laws, while Living Overseas seems perfectly sound - if you're a fascist.
I guess that means people living in Amsterdam can be arrested and brought to the US for smoking weed.
I guess that means the Saudi Diplomats should get arrested - and thrown in jail - for polygamy, after being arrested and brought to the US.
I guess the German and Dutch Prostitute Unions should be arrested en-mass and dragged to the US to face solicitation charges.
Arresting charging and punishing people living overseas, for breaking American laws, while living overseas, opens a HUGE can of worms - as Hubris pointed out.
This easily becomes a 2-way street... just like denying captured insurgents Geneva protections. When your guys get captured, they can expect similar treatment.
Just like those poor bastards in Iraq:
ast June, Al Qaeda militants abducted two US soldiers in nearby Yusufiya in an attack on a US checkpoint in which a third US soldier was killed. The mutilated and booby-trapped bodies of the two US soldiers were found days later.
Just more bush shit-baggery.
daveinboca - glad to hear that you're on the CPC mailing list. And glad to hear that you've nailed the ugly American stereotype to a 'T'.
By no means was Chretien perfect (and we don't deify our PMs anyway). But we took the time to investigate graft that infuriated all Canadians, while a similar level of graft south of the border gets put through as earmarks every single week - by both parties. And even after having Bell's Palsy (hence his mouth issue) as a child, he was more articulate in either English or French than Dubya isn't in English or Spanish - and I didn't even vote for the man...or those crazy NDP socialists (gasp!). Would Dubya be able to stand up to a Question Period like Chretien (or Blair for that matter)? I highly doubt it.
So dave (or is it Bill Orally or maybe little Annie Coulter ghostwriting), I won't stand in the way your wankerific delusions about Canada. If you take the time (that's okay I know you won't), you'll find that Canada is fairly centrist on the global scale (though Steve would like to crank the wheel to the right) - our mainstream lefties are still fairly centrist compared to other countries. And US Democrats for the most part would often be right-leaning conservatives in many countries.
To close, I'd like to extend my gratitude to you for giving me a lesson about Florida. I only heard the stereotype that it was full of retirees and crackers. I know now that at least one of the two is true.
Thanks!
ceabird - great post that gets to the crux of the matter.
About 6 weeks ago in China, a food and drug official was sentenced to death for bribery and allowing faked food and drugs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-...fic/
6286698.stm
Would China come to the US, enter offices and arrest US officials for their involvement with all the lead toys for example and then send them back to China for execution...?
It shows the idiocy of this. It is straight out of a Star Chamber.
Given the US's interest in controlling space (see various pronouncements aimed at hobbling the Russians, Chinese, Europeans, etc., etc.), you might say that American Law aims to become the Law of the Universe.
daveinboca sounds like he's in the right place then. I've been to Boca. Plenty of like-minded assholes.
Were I the head of state of any other country, my response to this would go something like:
"The government of the USA has claimed the right to send snatch squads into our sovereign territory to kidnap our citizens to be tried for violating US laws here, where US law does not apply.
This is absolutely fine. In fact, it's so fine with us that if we should happen to catch such a snatch squad, there won't be an international incident, there won't be any diplomatic protests, there won't be "representations" at any level, there won't even be any publicity.
You see, nobody will ever hear anything about it because nothing will ever be heard about, or from, them again."
Is CentCom going to arrest Maliki (and the Iraqi "parliament") if they won't cave on the sweetheart oil deal that bush so desperately wants them to rubberstamp?
Will they appoint Chalabi and/or Allawi as sockpuppet-in-chief?
Will the democrats running accept the flaming turd-baton from the warpimps for their anchor-leg of the clusterfuck 440?
Stay tuned.
"Don't make me get out the Gong Of Doom [tm]".
Is that anything like Kanjar Ro's Gamma Gong? 
Greatest country in the world, eh Dave? Your heros wouldn't even pass health care for CHILDREN, you fucking pissant dipstick bush lover!
"Don't make me get out the Gong Of Doom [tm]"
I'm a pinko lefty canuck socialist 
- is that like the Bong of Doom?
The Gong of Doom (TM) is a large, Chinese gong, smuggled to America over a hundred years ago by Marines.
It has been protected by the women on my mother's side of the family (members of the DAR) ever since (although due to an inter-family squabble, I ended up receiving it instead of my Aunt's eldest son whom it should have gone to). Additionally, it is protected by trained vicious Attack Squirrels who will destroy anyone not a family member by blood who approaches the Gong of Doom.
The Gong -- when struck firmly -- can rupture arteries, cause heart attacks, knock airplanes and helicopters from the sky, crumple buildings, and with enough force, cause the earth to split open and magma to pour forth. It is for professionals only.
There is no truth to the rumor that the 1989 Bay Area earthquake had anything to do with the Gong of Doom (even though I lived there at the time.)
http://images.google.com/imgres?...QPX0KmlDQ&
prev=
The photo above shows a very small gong, being struck by the then Prime Minister of Canada. The Gong of Doom is much larger. Were I to strike it here in Seattle, weather patterns on the East Coast would be impacted for days, from Washington D.C. to Toronto.
I did not ask for these powers, and I wield them with restraint.
My eldest daughter has yet to prove herself worthy of these powers. But I have three daughters and a son. So we shall see whom shall inherit and protect and keep the world safe. And occasionally, buy the Attack Squirrels a tasty treat. (I accept fresh sushi on their behalf. And chocolate.)
One more thing... the Brits stopping our ships on the high seas and "impressing" random sailors who "looked English" was one of the reasons we got into the War of 1812.
We didn't like it when people pulled that shit on us, people sure ain't going to like it when we pull it on them.
And for people who are convinced that the US military will protect them now and forever... I know a Chinese sub captain who knows otherwise...
Commenting by HaloScan
