US gov't to British court: We can kidnap Brits, it's legal
The US has told Britain that it is legal under US law to kidnap British citizens from the UK (ineed, anyone from anywhere) if they are suspected of crimes in the USA -- and that this can be done instead of using formal extradition procedures.
During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.Link (via Warren Ellis)Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.
He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”
the latest
latest episodes
I thought Timothy Leary demonstrated this back in the day or did it not count because he was merely a U.S. citizen physically in another country and not a non-U.S. citizen?
Whatever US law may think of it, the kidnappers and anyone who becomes an accessory (e.g. by imprisoning or trying the victim in the US) are committing criminal offences under UK law and will be liable to arrest and imprisonment if they ever visit any EU country for the rest of their lives.
Ah, thankyou AMERICA (fuck yeah!) Another little way to make sure that you are beloved in the rest of the world!
Never heard of Abu Omar, did you? http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n15/foot02_.html
Yeah, the SCOTUS ruled that this was legal back in '92. I was outraged by it then, and I'm still outraged by it.
Right. A kidnapping committed in Britain does not violate U.S. law, because the jurisdiction of U.S. law does not extend to Britain. Since U.S. courts are Constitutionally limited in jurisdiction to cases involving U.S. law, that a crime was committed under British law in Britain isn't an issue the U.S. court has the authority to address.
I mean, we could try the other approach, which is to assume that the laws of the United States apply in the United Kingdom. Where should we send the summons to Elizabeth Windsor for the hearing on tax evasion? She seems to have utterly failed to file a 1040 at any point in her life . . .
Why bother with any pretense of due process?
After all, the US has got a very favourable extradition treaty with the UK and it can lawfully demand the extradition of wanted people.
If the US is going to cut corners in bringing people to trial, the proceedings have no legitimacy.
How many US diplomats were PNGed in response to these abductions? That would slow things down a bit.
I'm reminded of all the good press Israel got when it abducted one of its citizens from Italy.
Also, payback's a mofo, yo. If it's OK for us to do it, we can't really object to them doing too. Let's watch the Chinese grab some expatriate dissidents, or the Saudis chase down some errant wives. Good entertainment for all!
A kidnapping committed in Britain does not violate U.S. law, because the jurisdiction of U.S. law does not extend to Britain. Since U.S. courts are Constitutionally limited in jurisdiction to cases involving U.S. law, that a crime was committed under British law in Britain isn't an issue the U.S. court has the authority to address.
OK, but it clearly did violate British law, and kidnapping isn't one of those slap-on-the-wrist offences. I presume there's a fairly broad extradition treaty between the US and UK. What would happen if the UK gov't filed charges, and formally sought extradition?
How is this legal?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Yes, this in Britain, but the Constitution applies to the government, and I notice it says "people", not citizen there. The Constitution uses citizen in very few places.
America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow...
--Trey Parker
How much do you want to bet that the founders of The Pirate Bay will end up renditioned to Gitmo in this fashion pretty soon? (TPB can, after all, be construed to be a non-state actor waging economic war against the US.) There probably are CIA teams watching them as we speak.
Rob @ 11
"How is this legal?"
It's legal because if the president say it's legal, it is. That's what makes Empire so much fun.
There has been a coup. The criminal gang in the White House are guilty of crimes, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
#10 posted by Johan Larson
I hope you're under the impression that this was a clandestine operation involving parachutes, night vision and several black helicopters. I hope that about everyone who has said something nasty about the US because of this article...
The guy went to Canada, the Canadians where told to hold him and they did (which is presumably legal under Canadian law), then Cory wrote a post that sounds really terrible, but if you think about it for a minute is completely reasonable.
It seems a kind of prisoner's dilemma. As soon as the US uses this technique, the UK can retaliate with the exact same technique to bring the captors back to the UK for kidnapping charges. If anyone uses it, everyone loses.
The particulars are not the story here Spoon. This is about arrogance and the abuse of power by the current administration. Their attitude is "We can do whatever the f*ck we want" is just typical for them. They are thugs. There is nothing "reasonable" about their position. It is an expression of shear power, nothing more.
"Canadians where told to hold him and they did (which is presumably legal under Canadian law)"
Try again.
Ottawa Citizen
Mr. Tollman successfully fought an attempt to extradite him in a quiet court case last year, when a judge slammed the actions of U.S. officials and made an exceptional ruling of "abuse of process," after a trail of e-mails and notes made clear their attempt to avoid Canadian extradition laws.
The reason that you have treaties with other nations is because if you run around violating their laws things can escalate into open hostilities. Of course, if you think you are sent by God to save the world, that you have no obligation to respect any other nation, that you have the right to do whatever you want... and you have the power to back that up. That has another name. It's called Imperialism.
Can they go to Brazil and kidnap Marco Fiorito? Please say yes.
OK, so here's what I've noticed:
The US rejects the UN as being contrary to national sovereignty....unless, of course, we want to ram something down someone's throat (ie. WTO, WIPO, etc.).
Instead of negotiating with countries for their natural resources, or to defuse a potentially dangerous situation, the US goes to war with them instead (ie. Iraq, Iran, sabre-rattling on N. Korea). In some cases, like Venezuela, the US tries engineering a coup instead.
Finally, the US has just now acknowledged that it can kidnap citizens of other countries with impunity, despite a formal process for requesting their extradition.
So...why does the US have a State Department anymore? It seems like they've all but abandoned diplomacy as a means of policy change. I haven't seen Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell doing anything to advance the cause of diplomacy (except when it's to put a multilateral face on a US-prosecuted war). So why even bother? To fool other countries into thinking the US is still committed to diplomacy? You'd have to be a complete moron of a world leader to believe that the US wants to negotiate with countries in good faith.
The US is an empire. The sooner they admit to that, the better.
PS to Mods: Would it be possible to get HTML list tags (ul, ol, li) on the approved list?
I would just like to remind the entire planet that because I happen to live in America, it doesn't mean I agree with America. You can hate America all you want, but be sure to focus that anger in the appropriate direction(s). I would live to travel to other countries, but I'm honestly afraid of getting pwned because of my stupid accent. (Also, you know, I'm poor.)
Oh, another thing: when you finally decide to nuke us, I would like to request that you email me in advance so I and my cats can flee to Canada. Thanks!
Johan@10: "What would happen if the UK gov't filed charges, and formally sought extradition?"
I imagine the same thing would happen as when Italy filed charges and formally sought extradition. That is to say, nothing.
@#18 posted by noen
No I'm pretty sure the post is about the quote “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.” which is understandable and reasonable if you think for a second.
Why should a court care about foreign laws that where broken when procuring a person charged with a crime in their locality? does a crime simply disappear when a law in another country is broken? Where in the world would a court not be legally allowed to continue with a case because the person charged with a crime was brought forth contrary to a law in another country?
I definitely have a problem with it not going through the official diplomatic channels, but that a law doesn't exist in the US that says something to the effect of "since the Canadians who handed you over broke a Canadian law, we wont here this case" isn't surprising in the least, and I seriously doubt it would be different anywhere else in the world.
This claim isn't just that someone who commits a kidnapping in London has to be tried under British rather than U.S. law, which would be reasonable. It's claiming that if the kidnappers bring the victim into a U.S. court, the U.S. court does not have the authority to free the kidnap victim. Think about that: they're not just claiming that government officials can violate foreign law with impunity, but that other government officials cannot intervene to help the victims.
If another nation made the equivalent claim--if, say, Saudi Arabia claimed that it had the right to snatch people off the streets of Washington and take them to Riyadh to punish them for blasphemy or bank robbery--Americans would be outraged.
Is this basically 'privateer' action, can it now be done by private contractors once they have a court judgment against a foreigner in a business dispute, or only by government employees in a political case?
I would just like to remind the entire planet that because I happen to live in America, it doesn't mean I agree with America. You can hate America all you want, but be sure to focus that anger in the appropriate direction(s).
I think someone needs to build a website where Americans who feel this way (as I do) can sign their names, and make it clear to the rest of the world that we're doing the best we can, via our totally broken and corrupt political process, to take our country back from these fascists.
If Saudi Arabia kidnapped errant wives or China kidnapped dissidents from the US, nobody in the government would blink. The US government only grudgingly accepts refugees, and certainly hates women. Look at the official US response to the bloody caning and imprisonment of a woman who was gang raped in Saudi Arabia - the verdict "causes a fair degree of surprise and astonishment." That's really telling them, boy howdy! People are just disposable commodities to be ground up and used as fertilizer for profit making industries. Until you can figure out how to pump petroleum out of your own body, you're worthless.
Wil@26: Well, much of the rest of the Anglosphere has something called Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition which is supposed to keep the government (i.e. the "administration") from attempting various shenanigans. Perhaps we should get one of those.
(Though we might want to change that name.)
Well I say that the UK should then send their "alternative extradition specialists" to the US to "extradite" the kidnappers and put them on trial for kidnapping and anything else they can think of including fleeing the country to avoid prosecution.
It would be tremendously ironic if agents sent on such a kidnapping mission found themselves shot down by local law enforcers in the attempt.
Hell of a diplomatic mess I can barely imagine. And to be true, I'd like to see it, which makes me feel a bit bad because it implies people are killed, and as a matter of principle I try my best not to wish such things.
Then there's the fiction option. So, I claim to any writer who'd read this and find they could use this as a plot element: feel free to do so.
The last two comments show why this is such a bad, bad idea. Because once crap like that starts happening and people start getting shot things can rapidly spin out of control. Bush is just a bully and this is how bullies think. Bullies don't negotiate.
There was a big cheer when Dog the Bounty Hunter went to Mexico and kidnapped the guy who was wanted in Chicago.
How is this any different
Are you speaking of the reason why Dog and his crew were arrested and prosecuted in Mexico? Yeah, fun stuff really.
So how it is different? Basically, it's not: just plain criminal.
Except that, when it's done by official agents on duty, it's pretty close to an act of war.
A few points to add:
- American bounty hunters have kidnapped people from both Canada and Mexico, but the US courts have treated the cases differently. The US tends to hand the bounty hunters over to Canadian authorities after such incidents.
- Of course, once a precedent is set with Mexico, the government can apply it anywhere it chooses.
- There was a case a few years ago where a Canadian was wanted by US authorities - and the American prosecutor *publicly* promised the Canadian that if he fought extradition, he could count on being raped in prison once the US got hold of him. The Canadian authorities halted the extradition process right then and there.
- Finally, could people please stop claiming that "it's not America that's wrong, just the current government". Sorry, it's far too late for that. You're a democracy. You didn't just elect Bush, you *re-elected* him after all the torture, kidnapping and stomping on the constitution in the first term.
You've had every opportunity to impeach him - but not only does the Republican party refuse to do so, even the *Democrats* refuse to do so. They haven't done so, because there simply hasn't been a popular outcry from Americans to do so. Heck, they've even actively prevented individual politicians from trying.
Nor did the FBI or CIA or military take a stand against extraordinary rendition and torture.
Kidnapping and torture IS the policy of America. The "it's a small temporary minority doing it" defense no longer works. It's America doing it.
@#34: Right on, Roger. You've hit the nail on the head.
The only way to send the message to the world that you aren't George Bush is to impeach him. Now.
Put down the videogame, close out of that porn site, turn off the TV, stop doing whatever the fuck it is we're doing instead of kicking Bush out on his crooked, morally bankrupt ass, and do whatever you can to make it happen. At the very least, raise a stink!
You could, for example, go to:
http://www.impeachbush.org/site/PageServer
and sign the petition there.
Or go to:
http://www.impeachbush.tv/
for help in contacting the judiciary committee.
Most of all, forward this info to anyone for whom the idea of impeaching Bush is new or seems farfetched.
...Hey, if this is the case, can we "extradite" Hugo Chavez and give him a long-term waterboarding vacation at SuperMax?
Finally, could people please stop claiming that "it's not America that's wrong, just the current government". Sorry, it's far too late for that. You're a democracy. You didn't just elect Bush, you *re-elected* him
Not true, in both cases the elections were stolen outright, and for the record I don't believe we are a true democracy. Probably haven't been for a long time.
You've had every opportunity to impeach him - but not only does the Republican party refuse to do so, even the *Democrats* refuse to do so. They haven't done so, because there simply hasn't been a popular outcry from Americans to do so.
As a Dem I am deeply disappointed with my party but you do have to understand that we do not have a parliamentary system. The Dems have one vote, one vote. That vote is Joe Lieberman, a GOP patsy. You are right to point out that Americans are not protesting. The media here is heavily censored though and many people are uninformed. The rest are stupid and vile human beings like "om" above.
Kidnapping and torture IS the policy of America. The "it's a small temporary minority doing it" defense no longer works. It's America doing it.
I understand your sentiments, I really do but it isn't a "small minority". It is deeply entrenched corporate power that has wound it's way into every aspect of government and daily life. In addition, the Bush family (and hence the GOP) is run like a Mafia crime family. Why are there so many closeted gays and fetishists in the GOP? Well, that is how you build loyalty. They are "made men". If you hold the photos and the videos of them doing their thing... that is a man you can trust to do as he is told. That is how you build a powerful machine and it is why no matter if millions were protesting in the streets, the GOP would not budge and would not vote to impeach. It probably includes a few Dems also, though many are bought off by corporate interests and this war has been extremely profitable. That is why impeachment cannot happen.
Still, there are hopeful signs. We may step back from the brink.
OK, but it clearly did violate British law, and kidnapping isn't one of those slap-on-the-wrist offences. I presume there's a fairly broad extradition treaty between the US and UK. What would happen if the UK gov't filed charges, and formally sought extradition?
Under the intended meaning of the extradition treaty, yes, the persons who participated in the kidnapping are subject to extradition to Britain and trial there. (Which won't stop the guy who was kidnapped from facing his trial in the U.S.)
The tricky clause of the treaty is:
"Notwithstanding the terms of paragraph 2 of this Article, extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politically motivated. In the United States, the executive branch is the competent authority for the purposes of this Article."
Which amounts to permission to refuse extradition for any reason at all; what action of a government could not be construed as politically motivated?
So, given the general context of US-UK relations, a compromise would probably be worked out in a back room between both sides. Britain might request extradition, or it might not. If Britain does, the U.S. agents might wind up extradited, or they might not. If not, there might be some sort of sanction against the U.S.; such sanction might possibly be a symbolic act negotiated in secret with a show of phony anger, or it might be real and made in true anger by the British government. If phony, the general public might learn that it was such someday, or the general public might never be told.
Yes, this in Britain, but the Constitution applies to the government, and I notice it says "people", not citizen there
Because actions occurring in Britain are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts. If the U.S. requests and is granted extradition through normal procedures, for example, it does not matter if the extraditing country ignores the provisions of the U.S. Constitution when arresting the suspect, even though the extraditing country's officials could be characterized as acting as agents of the United States in such circumstances.
It's claiming that if the kidnappers bring the victim into a U.S. court, the U.S. court does not have the authority to free the kidnap victim. Think about that: they're not just claiming that government officials can violate foreign law with impunity, but that other government officials cannot intervene to help the victims.
The powers of a U.S. court are limited to the court's jurisdiction; the seizure of the suspect happened outside the jurisdiction of the court; therefore the entire question of whether the suspect was legally seized is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. court. U.S. courts lack plenary powers to right wrongs.
Neon,
Saying that the country is run by a small mafia-like family plus cronies *IS* claiming that only a small minority should be blamed for US kidnapping and torture.
At what point is this claim no longer valid?
ONE) If Bush *wasn't* democratically elected the first time - theories and at least some supporting evidence started appearing in month one - why wasn't the election overturned? The cards are all on the table now. There were plenty of recounts. Either he WAS elected, or he wasn't and Americans are CONTENT to let him steal the election. Either way, the American people have spoken.
TWO) Extraordinary rendition (kidnapping) and torture were no longer a secret by the end of Bush's first term. The reasoning behind the Iraq was also proven to be a lie. The truth was already known about how the patriot act - and its abuses of constitutional rights - was passed. The list goes on. Still, there was no popular movement to impeach Bush. Considering how little it took to get the previous president impeached, we can deduce two things: There was far more than enough evidence to impeach Bush, and the American people chose not to.
Claiming that corporations or one (1) lone Democrat prevents impeachment doesn't wash. Politicians know which way the wind is blowing. If most Americans wanted Bush impeached, politicians in both parties would be racing each other to make it happen, corporations and illuminati be damned. They haven't done it. Again, the American people have spoken.
THREE) When the kidnapping and torture took place, the FBI, CIA and military ALL had the opportunity to say, "No, we don't do that sort of thing." Instead, they went along with it.
These are major institutions with a record of paying attention to the rule of law. Either the rules allow torture, or a whole lot of people in each organization have broken the law. Either way, Americans are OK with it. There's no popular movement to prevent the torture from continuing, or to punish those responsible. Again, the American people have spoken.
FOUR) After all of the above, the Americans re-elect Bush. Again, there are claims and evidence that he stole the election. Again, the cards are all on the table now. Either he WAS elected, or he wasn't and Americans are CONTENT to let him steal the election AGAIN. Either way, the American people have spoken.
FIVE through TEN) More instances of torture become public. The White House is on record as approving it. The mass wire-tapping of Americans becomes public. Entire cargo pallets of money - billions of dollars - is unaccounted for in Iraq. The Plame scandal leads right to the White House. The whole sordid Gonzalez scandal happens. Hundreds of thousands of White House emails illegally disappear - and we're asked to believe that all the backups disappeared too.
The Daily Show is about the only "news service" that reported on it. You'd expect Fox to ignore it all, but even CNN and the traditional networks consistently judged Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith to be far more important lead stories. And in a horrific way they're right, because there's no popular movement to demand answers or justice. The American people have spoken.
ELEVEN) The Democrats and Republicans are still united in their refusal to impeach Bush. Again, because there's no popular movement for them to do so.
C'mon. It's time to retire that claim.
Ok ok, I concede. You know, there are a lot of us who are horrified by the past 7 years. This entire conversation would have been branded nutty conspiracy theory not long ago. Even now it's sort of on the fringe. I can explore these ideas here (liberal-ish blogs) but probably not too many other places.
Why oh why didn't I take the blue pill?
@30 Schmorgluck: You would be pleased to see the idea already used, in Ken MacLeod's "The Execution Channel".
FYI the people don't vote for the President. The electoral college does. Granted, the electoral college is supposed to represent the wishes of the masses, but they are not *obligated* to vote as such or even to the wishes of their political party.
Where we the people do have a direct vote nationally is the legislative branch by voting directly for our senators and representatives who populate Congress. This obsession with the President is partly the problem, IMO, with nothing getting done because a large part of the populace erroneously thinks that what amounts to a political statement is somehow going to affect real change in terms of power. Instead, it's a bait-and-switch tactic by the mass media and the corporations who control them to lure people away from how to really get things done.
Dennis Kucinich has the nuts to actually put forth articles of impeachment for what are most definitely war crimes and treasonous acts. Unfortunately, the Congressional representatives that Democratic Party voters voted in to do something about the war and the worst abuses of this Presidential administration are, for the most part, doing nothing about them, such as Pelosi, Feinstein.. pretty much all of them. Probably, this is to avoid rocking the boat to assure a smooth transfer of power to Hillary and her minions, who are just going to give us more of the same except with slightly less warmongering rhetoric.
Bottom line: talk to your Congress critters. Send them emails, signed letters and organize with other people to pressure them to bear out your will as that is their job. All this talk about the dog and pony show that is Presidential politics is not getting us anywhere - go back to your Civics classes and understand how the political process works before you no longer have that option.
Thank you, Veritaze!
The dog and pony show that many people love to complain about is being run by the people who aren't sitting around complaining about it. It ain't running itself, like some kind of evil Borg entity.
Here's an interesting article by Hendrik Hertzberg on the electoral college:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/03/06/060306ta_talk_hertzberg
Spoon: Every country has different laws, different court procedures, different penalties. Homosexual sodomy can get you two years in Singapore, ten years in India, and the death penalty in Iran. In the Netherlands, "soft" recreational drugs are legal if you're 18 or older. There are places where slavery is still legal, though they don't call it that. In many countries, you can be convicted of serious crimes on evidence that wouldn't stand up in a US court, and you're not guaranteed legal counsel or appeals processes. On the other hand, many countries wouldn't hold prisoners indefinitely without legal counsel, formal charges, or a trial, as we've lately taken to doing.
Here's the question: are we prepared to let foreign countries kidnap people in the United States -- no extradition hearings, just grab 'em and run -- if that country says afterward that they've been accused or convicted of crimes under the laws back home?
I can't imagine the answer is anything but "no." And if that's the case, then we don't have the right to do it to them, either.
But suppose we decided it was acceptable. Under that system, how would we distinguish between (1.) a legal kidnapping carried out by agents of a foreign country's judicial system, and (2.) a private kidnapping by thugs hired to grab (say) a wealthy ex-wife who's bailed on a bad marriage and is fighting to keep control of her dowry property?
The answer is that there's no way we could tell. It isn't a legal procedure; it's a kidnapping. It's only established as a legal procedure after the fact, when that other country's court system says that that's what it was. We could complain at that point, but if the person in question has been taken to that country and is in the hands of their courts, we'll have bleep-all leverage. If their courts didn't say it was legal, the kidnapped person would still be in unfriendly hands in a foreign country. It's just not good.
As Noen explained, Mr. Tollman successfully fought extradition in the Canadian courts. It was already clear that the US was trying to dodge Canadian extradition laws, which means they can't have had a good case.
Throwing in the part about how no US court can rule that an abduction was illegal and free the prisoner is (1.) pretty much an abrogation of our entire legal structure; (2.) further indication that their case wouldn't stand up under scrutiny; and (3.) an insanely bad legal precedent, since it doesn't allow for the correction of errors.
Don't let anyone tell you this is legit. We went to war in 1812 over less.
The underlying message to countries who object is obviously: "What are ya gonna do about it, punk?"
In other words, a rejection of the rule of law, the whole concept of international law, and of the rights of sovereign nations. We can do what we want, 'cause you can't stop us.
If you don't cooperate (are you listening, Frenchie? You too, you Paki bastards!) then you, too, are the enemy.