US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

[jumpy]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2982640.ece

So basically this is a case of 'might is right'?
I have to say I find the article quite disturbing, not personally, but all the same it's a bit off considering the UK already has an extradition agreement with the US.

'Special Relationship'? hmmm, not half.

As unfair as it sounds I think that if we tried this on with 'kidnapping' a US citizen and taking them to the UK, it would not be long before we brits would hear the sound of bombs falling. Metaphorically or otherwise.

This is not 'america-bashing' before any of you start. I don't believe it is right for any nation to do this, but the simple fact is the US government seems quite comfortable with brushing aside any existing agreements with other nations when it suits them, either regarding foreign policy or civil matters, like bringing 'criminals' to stand trial in the US.

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.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

...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.” Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.
Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

I think this is wholly wrong and would not condone this action by my own country, let alone by one of our closest allies.
What do you guys think, can there be (outside of extreme circumstances) cases where one can say kidnapping of foreign nationals is acceptable behaviour by a nation who regards it own civil law as superseding that of other nations?

[AntEater]

The dangers of common law


Well, you have a statement of a british laywer hired by the US government to represent them, not a statement by the US government itself.
The most recent precedent was a mexican druggie kidnapped in 1990, other than that, the chases are centuries old.
And you can't really compare some Sierra Madre Padron to a downtown London corporate suit, can you
:rotfl:

Originally Posted by jumpy

This is not 'america-bashing' before any of you start.

I don't think you are trying to bash the US jumpy, the author of the story may be, however.

What is the British government's, or any other governments law regarding the apprehension of international criminals? I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.

I suspect that Britain has similar law yet hasn't been in a position to state it in open court.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I believe Clause Barbie was kidnapped from Argentina by operatives from another nation.

Wrong.

Adolf Eichmann was taken by Mossad in 1960.

In this case we are talking about a different time and Nazis on the run, 9/11 changed all the rules of today.

[U49]

Usually a country uses the proper international law to get hold of a "wanted" person who is hiding himself in foreign territory.

Kidnapping is called "terrorism" in another context... so state-sponsored kidnapping is very close to an act of aggresion. :hmm:

Originally Posted by STEED

Wrong.

Adolf Eichmann was taken by Mossad in 1960.

In this case we are talking about a different time and Nazis on the run, 9/11 changed all the rules of today.

OK it was Eichmann in 1960. Sounds like the rules haven't changed regardless of 9/11. Letters of marque are mentioned in the US constitution. This taking citizens from other countries is nothing new. See forced conscription of other nations sailors by the Royal Navy during peace time. Those folks weren't even considered criminal.

Again, how many nations have this law on the books?

[Iceman]

I think Dog the bounty hunter got thrown into a mexican jail for trying this.As was pointed out I think most wanted persons by the US if the country is an ally we would try to get him thru proper channels why would you not?....but also as was pointed out the US appears to have stuff on the books that regardless "how" a person was brought before an American court he will stand trial.

Who or what legitimate or law abiding country does not want criminals to stand trail anyways...wait don't answer that that was a loaded question.

[XabbaRus]

But once it starts it is a downward spiral.

So with your line of thinking Russia would be perfectly justified to kidnap Berezovsky and others and bring them to Russia for trial, the US wouldn't make a song and dance about it? Yea right.

The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.

How do you know that to be the case XabbaRus?

[Skybird]

Don't get me started on this topic.

Such behavior means the intended violation of the sovereignity of another state. If it is conducted without cooperation and/or knowledge of the target state, it means an act of war in my eyes. Attacking agents, no matter if american or Israeli or Belgian or Kenian ones, would - if being caught - get courtmartialed and executed on the basis of martial law and what it has to say on combatants not wearing uniforms, if it were up to me. No american agent from any of the american services has any right to enforce Ameeican laws on german/European/foreign streets, and if american law says somethign different, it still is only valid for the nation of the US, not Europe or any other nation worldwide.

US laws may not be permitted to overrule other nations laws, and the validity of US laws ends where the sovereignity of other nations begin - at the latest. Not accepting this is megalomania, arrogance, and an act of war - simply this. The world is not the rest of America. Bounty hunters may have been a tradition in the Wild West, but if they leave the Wild West and operate outside the Us, they are just gangster and criminals, needing to be locked away, or put down. f they are acting on behalf of orders from American authorities and offices, in my eyes they are commiting an act of war. And that means courtmartialing them for me (like spionage and sabotage in general is an issue not for civil courts, but military courts, since it is about attacks of one country on another). Interestingly, a longer while ago, one judge of the German constitutional court, once argued the same way on TV.

Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.

[DeepIron]

Tell Amercia that the Russians from now on, or the Danes, or Australia claims such rights in return, and attack America's sovereignity that way - and imagine what colourful, nationalistic reactions from america you would get immediately. America claims that right for itself only becasue it thinks america is allowed to do it, and it is allowed to do it becasue it is America. And that is a definitely too rich.

LOL! I can just imagine the furor that would ensue should a representative from any other nation enter the US with the intention of "removing" either a US citizen or a foreign national who enjoys US protection and/or immunity...

[fatty]

Originally Posted by DeepIron

LOL! I can just imagine the furor that would ensue should a representative from any other nation enter the US with the intention of "removing" either a US citizen or a foreign national who enjoys US protection and/or immunity...

This is the reason that the U.S. hasn't signed on to the International Criminal Court yet - because there is a risk that one of their citizens or soldiers may be tried in a foreign court.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

But once it starts it is a downward spiral.

So with your line of thinking Russia would be perfectly justified to kidnap Berezovsky and others and bring them to Russia for trial, the US wouldn't make a song and dance about it? Yea right.

The extradition treaty we have is one sided. It is much harder to get a wanted man from the US to the UK than vice versa.

That is correct sir

I have been involved in a few instances where extradition has been refused for robbery and rape, yet we allow extradition for similar offences/crimes.

[NEON DEON]

So, if I go kidnap Osama from Pakistan and return him to a U S court, the U S court can not prosecute me for Kidnapping.

KEWL!:p :p

Originally Posted by jimbuna

That is correct sir

I have been involved in a few instances where extradition has been refused for robbery and rape, yet we allow extradition for similar offences/crimes.

This started hundred of years ago and not with the US friends.