US law allows kidnapping British

[Metal_Jacket]

THE United States has told Britain that it can kidnap British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the US.

A senior lawyer for the US Government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under US 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 the US on fraud charges.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...05-2703,00.html

[Scubaman3D]

sucks for them...but don't try to convince me that Britain doesn't play dirty sometimes.

[Forrester]

If the US would kidnap UK citizens I'm sure the UK would cancel the signal processing from Echelon or something like that. It would leave the US blind...lol

[xG5kdo]

Welcome to the realities of international relations gents. In this game, everyone plays dirty every once in a while.

To put things in perspective, the British Empire once span 3/4 of the world. One does not achieve such feat by playing nice and honest.

[NoQuarter]

One mans failure to extradite is another mans aiding and abetting.

____

“This law may date back to bounty-hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.â€

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...05-2703,00.html

Note to Shami: Just who claimed we were civilised?

____

the British Empire once span 3/4 of the world. One does not achieve such feat by playing nice and honest.

Rule Britannia! Look at the mess they left for US to clean up.

[Metal_Jacket]

Please, lets not make this a US verses UK or UK verses US thread, that is not my intention, it’s the policy that is in question.

Lets say (purely hypothetical), if the Australian government implements a similar policy, if a person from Greenland says something bad about the Australian government, the Australian government can perceive those words as treason, whereas they then have the right to go to Greenland, kidnap him and trial him under Australian law, now that is frightening.

[Forrester]

The US threatened the Dutch before, when a US habitant should appear before the international criminal court in The Hague, the US kept the right they said to kidnap that person. (most likely with war criminals off course)

[Scubaman3D]

Lets say (purely hypothetical), if the Australian government implements a similar policy, if a person from Greenland says something bad about the Australian government, the Australian government can perceive those words as treason, whereas they then have the right to go to Greenland, kidnap him and trial him under Australian law, now that is frightening.

If it were about words, yes. But its not about freedom of speech and it hasn't been in the past. Hell, burning a US flag and then peeing on it to put the fire out is considered free speech here and nobody can touch you.

These are not military tribunals with national security hanging in the balance. These people are wanted for corruption or other corporate crimes which span multiple international borders and criminal proceedings are far more regulated than military.

Don't confuse us with Sudan and we are not moving in the direction of Putin's Russia

Everyone craps on America. How much criticism does China or Russia receive for restricting freedom of speech or assassinating journalists? THAT is scary!

edit: took out ##### and replaced with more acceptable words

Edited December 4, 2007 by Scubaman3D

[Parabellum]

This really isn't anything new. If you read the rest of the article, you'll see that the US has allowed this type of action since the 1800's. When you stand before a judge in the United States, he doesn't care how you got there. All that matters is that you're standing before him.

Welcome to the realities of international relations gents. In this game, everyone plays dirty every once in a while.

To put things in perspective, the British Empire once span 3/4 of the world. One does not achieve such feat by playing nice and honest.

That is so true.

[krise madsen]

[3.13] Political Discussions Topics relating to politics are not allowed, they lead to unneccesary problems ie. flaming and chest beating. All posts relating to politics will be deleted.

Maybe in light of this we shold agree that this is a discussion of international law?

Just a suggestion

Respectfully

krise madsen

[Scubaman3D]

I don't know Krise, everyone is playing nice.

But granted.

So here is my question:

What do you do if you would like to bring someone to justice if they have committed a crime in your country and his home country is not cooperating?

Kidnapping is an inflammatory word and it implies that the person being kidnapped is being victimized.

My point is to keep in mind that these are people that committed real CRIMES.

These are not people who simply said "death to America" or "F- Bush". If that were the case, most celebrities and half the US democrat party would be in jail

[xG5kdo]

I don't know Krise, everyone is playing nice.

But granted.

So here is my question:

What do you do if you would like to bring someone to justice if they have committed a crime in your country and his home country is not cooperating?

Kidnapping is an inflammatory word and it implies that the person being kidnapped is being victimized.

My point is to keep in mind that these are people that committed real CRIMES.

These are not people who simply said "death to America" or "F- Bush". If that were the case, most celebrities and half the US democrat party would be in jail

True that "kidnapping" is an inflammatory word. The U.S. State Department would rather use "rendition." In any case, in regards to your question, a nation has three options really:

1. To put in a 'red notice' with Interpol, in hopes that the resident country is a signatory and their police force will cooperate with you. This is a somewhat hazy procedure as many countries would rather try their own citizens for crimes committed anywhere. This has a positive and negative effect. A Saudi national who committed murder in the United States, for instance, would rather be tried in the U.S., where he'll serve his sentence in a federal prison. He'll suffer, but he'll live. In Saudi Arabia, he would be beheaded. Saudi may or may not want to extradite the person to the U.S., depending on the circumstances.

2. To demand for an extradition. This is most difficult if the target country does not have an extradition treaty with yours. Cliches like "Run to Mexico!" stems from this idea, although I am not conversant on U.S.-Mexican relations and have no way of knowing if this is still true. A more contemporary case is Indonesia and Singapore. A lot of our fugitives (usually corruption or embezzlement cases) ran and invest their money there. The Singaporeans would not give them up to us (go figure).

3. To do what the thread is all about. Again full of pitfalls as "crime" and "criminal acts" are subjective to each government and their cultures. A man ran from Sudan, for instance, where he is under threat of prosecution for insulting Islam. Say he ran to the United States. In the U.S. such an act is not a crime, and thus unpunishable. In the Sudan, on the other hand, such an act has an article of its own in their Criminal Code. Is that man, then, a criminal? Can Sudan, then, "kidnap" the man because he is facing trial? Will the United States give him up if the Government of Sudan asks her to?

To say that its an international law discussion is, no offense intended, rather naive. These types of action are always political. Typically, it is conducted by politically powerful nations.

Edited December 5, 2007 by xG5kdo

[Gav80]

Surely it comes down to an issue of jurisdiction... As Parabellum said, the attitude of judges in the US is that they don't care how they defendant came to appear before them in court, so a US judge wouldn't be too concerned about US authorities "kidnapping" suspects for trial. If the suspect is "kidnapped" in the UK to be brought to the US for trial, however, such action would be illegal under UK law, and since the act would take place on UK soil, under UK jurisdiction, it would be UK law that took precedence... assuming it could be proved, of course. I'm not naive enough to suggest that this kind of thing doesn't go on (and not just by the US - as has been stated, Britain doesn't always play entirely by the rules either).

In short, strictly speaking, if the suspect was stupid enough to travel to the US, he could be arrested as soon as he arrived, but if he stayed in Britain then it would be illegal for US authorities to "kidnap" him and take him to the US for trial as they would have no jurisdiction to arrest him on UK soil. It would be a matter for the British police to handle and then extradite him to the US. We all know it doesn't always work like that, but if we're talking about what's "allowed"....

[Parabellum]

I don't know Krise, everyone is playing nice.

But granted.

So here is my question:

What do you do if you would like to bring someone to justice if they have committed a crime in your country and his home country is not cooperating?

Kidnapping is an inflammatory word and it implies that the person being kidnapped is being victimized.

My point is to keep in mind that these are people that committed real CRIMES.

These are not people who simply said "death to America" or "F- Bush". If that were the case, most celebrities and half the US democrat party would be in jail

True that "kidnapping" is an inflammatory word. The U.S. State Department would rather use "rendition." In any case, in regards to your question, a nation has three options really:

1. To put in a 'red notice' with Interpol, in hopes that the resident country is a signatory and their police force will cooperate with you. This is a somewhat hazy procedure as many countries would rather try their own citizens for crimes committed anywhere. This has a positive and negative effect. A Saudi national who committed murder in the United States, for instance, would rather be tried in the U.S., where he'll serve his sentence in a federal prison. He'll suffer, but he'll live. In Saudi Arabia, he would be beheaded. Saudi may or may not want to extradite the person to the U.S., depending on the circumstances.

2. To demand for an extradition. This is most difficult if the target country does not have an extradition treaty with yours. Cliches like "Run to Mexico!" stems from this idea, although I am not conversant on U.S.-Mexican relations and have no way of knowing if this is still true. A more contemporary case is Indonesia and Singapore. A lot of our fugitives (usually corruption or embezzlement cases) ran and invest their money there. The Singaporeans would not give them up to us (go figure).

3. To do what the thread is all about. Again full of pitfalls as "crime" and "criminal acts" are subjective to each government and their cultures. A man ran from Sudan, for instance, where he is under threat of prosecution for insulting Islam. Say he ran to the United States. In the U.S. such an act is not a crime, and thus unpunishable. In the Sudan, on the other hand, such an act has an article of its own in their Criminal Code. Is that man, then, a criminal? Can Sudan, then, "kidnap" the man because he is facing trial? Will the United States give him up if the Government of Sudan asks her to?

To say that its an international law discussion is, no offense intended, rather naive. These types of action are always political. Typically, it is conducted by politically powerful nations.

Lots of good stuff to think about there.

[Scubaman3D]

3. To do what the thread is all about. Again full of pitfalls as "crime" and "criminal acts" are subjective to each government and their cultures. A man ran from Sudan, for instance, where he is under threat of prosecution for insulting Islam. Say he ran to the United States. In the U.S. such an act is not a crime, and thus unpunishable. In the Sudan, on the other hand, such an act has an article of its own in their Criminal Code. Is that man, then, a criminal? Can Sudan, then, "kidnap" the man because he is facing trial? Will the United States give him up if the Government of Sudan asks her to?

I just don't buy this argument. I don't know if you believe this for your self but moral relativism does not work in the real world.

The crimes that these British people were wanted for are crimes in both Britain and in the US. Its just that the crime was not committed in Britain, but in the US. Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue and Iits interesting that you are arguing in defense of theocracy - because its THEIR society.

We have to use logic, and it is illogical to arrest a person for allowing Muslim students to name a teddy bear "Mohammad" and then subsequently demand her execution.

Also, the point is that 1 and 2 failed to work. I doubt the US would "kidnap" citizens from our allies without at least asking the host country first. It doesn't make political sense.

I think it just comes down to this: If one believes that the US is an evil, corrupt country that takes pride on stomping on the little guy, nothing will change one's mind about it.

[xG5kdo]

3. To do what the thread is all about. Again full of pitfalls as "crime" and "criminal acts" are subjective to each government and their cultures. A man ran from Sudan, for instance, where he is under threat of prosecution for insulting Islam. Say he ran to the United States. In the U.S. such an act is not a crime, and thus unpunishable. In the Sudan, on the other hand, such an act has an article of its own in their Criminal Code. Is that man, then, a criminal? Can Sudan, then, "kidnap" the man because he is facing trial? Will the United States give him up if the Government of Sudan asks her to?

I just don't buy this argument. I don't know if you believe this for your self but moral relativism does not work in the real world.

The crimes that these British people were wanted for are crimes in both Britain and in the US. Its just that the crime was not committed in Britain, but in the US. Again, this is not a freedom of speech issue and Iits interesting that you are arguing in defense of theocracy - because its THEIR society.

We have to use logic, and it is illogical to arrest a person for allowing Muslim students to name a teddy bear "Mohammad" and then subsequently demand her execution.

Also, the point is that 1 and 2 failed to work. I doubt the US would "kidnap" citizens from our allies without at least asking the host country first. It doesn't make political sense.

I think it just comes down to this: If one believes that the US is an evil, corrupt country that takes pride on stomping on the little guy, nothing will change one's mind about it.

I apologize for not communicating my meaning well, and thus created a misunderstanding. Let me try to clear a few points up.

I did not speak of "moral relativism", what I speak of is the differences of legal systems between nations, which unavoidably were created based on the moral standards of each government or culture.

These differences are ultimately the cause of the many pitfalls of the suggested topic. The definitions of "crime" and "criminal acts" which I spoke of is the sole property of each country's legal system, which may differ. Moral relativity, or in this case cultural relativity, then plays a big part in international relations as each nation cannot be 100% pragmatic in formulating its policies. They interpret international events based on their belief structures, thus a lot of conflicts are created.

Contrary to your proposal, I do not defend a theocracy. I was merely providing a case example. As to my personal feelings about theocracies, well, I'm an atheist. I believe that that fact can speak for itself.

The point in my post is not on the fact that the action the men in the original post committed was a crime both in the United States and the United Kingdom. In that case, you did raise an important point that the men should be tried in the country in which the crime was committed. But even in these cases, problems often arise when nations insist on trying their own citizens under their own laws. The matter will, usually, be decided by a negotiation.

The point is that the system will be put to a real test if the men wanted committed a crime in one country, which is not a crime in another country. A government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. This is universally acknowledged. Thus it is the responsibility of a government to ensure that the citizen, if proven guilty in another country, to provide legal defense, or to refuse to give up its citizen if he/she is accused by another country of committing a crime there which is not a crime at home.

A classic example is the case of Salman Rushdie. The Iranians want him dead for his book "The Satanic Verses" (which is quite entertaining in my point of view). Imagine the outrage if Iranian agents showed up in London, for instance, and kidnapped him. Bear in mind that writing that book constitutes a crime in the Iranian legal system. It is not in the U.K. Thus Mr. Rushdie remains free to this date.

It is true that a legal system should be logical. Personally I agree with you that charging a person with a crime for allowing students to name their teddy bears Muhammad is illogical. However, one must also remember that "logic" is subjective at best. You were brought up under the judeo-christian definition of moral values with graeco-roman logic instilled. The nation where the teacher is incarcerated does not subscribe to this view. In their country, it's logical to punish her for sacrilege. I hope this case illustrates well how "moral relativity" may affect real-life international relations.

Finally, I do not believe that the U.S. is, as you say, "an evil, corrupt country that takes pride on stomping on the little guy", on the contrary, I often admire the U.S. for having the will to ensure the protection of its citizens by extending its legal system. I only wish my country is so inclined. I do not believe that the discussion was going that way to begin with.

[Papa6]

THE United States has told Britain that it can kidnap British citizens if they are wanted for crimes in the US.

A senior lawyer for the US Government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under US 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 the US on fraud charges.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...05-2703,00.html

Our governments Would NEVER lie to us would they?

<Start of Sarcasm>naw- lol </End of sarcasm>

[Gav80]

3. To do what the thread is all about. Again full of pitfalls as "crime" and "criminal acts" are subjective to each government and their cultures. A man ran from Sudan, for instance, where he is under threat of prosecution for insulting Islam. Say he ran to the United States. In the U.S. such an act is not a crime, and thus unpunishable. In the Sudan, on the other hand, such an act has an article of its own in their Criminal Code. Is that man, then, a criminal? Can Sudan, then, "kidnap" the man because he is facing trial? Will the United States give him up if the Government of Sudan asks her to?

...

Err... Why am I being attributed to that post? I never said that - it was xG5kdo who said that in the post above mine...

[Scubaman3D]

^oops sorry! must have hit the wrong "Quote" button