US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

The US has extradition treaties with both the UK and Germany.

If you are a German citizen and you commit an extraditable crime in the US and flee to Germany, then be prepared to face trial in the US or sometimes Germany.

If Germany refuses to honor the treaty, anything goes. Afterall, you broke the treaty.



A site dealing with extradition law:

http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/firm.html

In order to brake a treaty, you must first tell your partner that there is a case, and ask him to comply. If you hide it from him, then you have no case to tell him he broke the treaty. And that is what it is about: that you honour the treaty yourself and first knock on the door before kicking it in, and not to think you must not take care of that treaty yourself.

Extradition treaties also cause problems when the partner country has a constitution that prohibits the handing over of suspects of it's own nationality. :hmm: Another limitation often is if the suspect could face death penalty in the country wanting him.

[jumpy]

I think I ought to reiterate my original sentiment to this topic:

This thread is not about America Bashing™ as I said in the beginning - some of you ought to not be so stuck on that.

America hapens to be the focus of the original article, yes, but I would argue the same point regardless of the nation in question. I even refered to the british taking advantage of such a loophole should they think they could get away with it.

Whilst I find the hyperbole amusing, nobody is saying america has 'special squads' on standby for the specific purpose of removing wanted foreign nationals from other countries, but you cannot deny what was stated openly in a british court: That 'extroadinary rendition' and the means of enacting this, extend not only to dealing with some seriously nasty people (as one might expect with bringing say a war criminal to trial who's sheltering in a country who's government has no diplomatic footing with, in this case, america) but to the ordinary citizens of an allied nation also!

In truth this has sod all to do with 'finger pointing' because it's 'cool to abuse america' - get over it and leave the chips at home.

The question I originally asked was

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?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

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?

You got the answer to that too, albeit indirectly. My vote is No, like Skybird's.

[Chock]

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?

Yup, absolutely. Nazi war criminals being the obvious example, when they were in a country that was harbouring them and preventing them from being brought to justice, snatching them was perfectly justifiable as far as I'm concerned. Not sure if I'd advocate the same kind of thing for fraudsters, although the fact that such was the example quoted, and not a murderer, does tend to point out that the law is often more concerned with going after people who commit big money crimes rather than people who knock a few fellow humans off.

Chock

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

While not disagreeing with the "a*sholeness" of a Nazi war criminal, I'd disagree here. AFAIK, the average leftover Nazi war criminal is not a current threat - they are living out the rest of their lives in secluded peace. It is thus not in extremis, and there is no justification to violate laws and the principle of sovereignty to arrest him. Remember that Hitler's disregard of sovereignty (albeit along with other factors) was the origin for the invasion of Czechslovakia, Poland, France, half of Russia ... etc.

[Chock]

Yup, I agree on that, I was referring to years ago - note that my post said 'when they were in a country that was harbouring them'

Chock

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

You got the answer to that too, albeit indirectly. My vote is No, like Skybird's.

ironically, I somehwat must swing onto August's line a bit when considering those "extreme circumstances", despite our latest quarrel. I referred to cases where the usual, ordinary, normal scales of jurisdiction are somewhat surpassed, by the sheer size of a crime, for example, and I mentioned Hitler and the Nazi, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung. I could add August's Bin Laden example as well. These examples are illustrating crimes on a level for which the usual rules somehow seem to be too normal indeed, too unappropriate, or - well, I do not know how to say it. August said "if you don'T like it, you always can wage war ", and somewhere else he said something like "isn't kidnapping a suspect not the better alternative to war?". He said all that in different contexts, I know, but if you slightly change that context, i think he has a point with both, although I personally would stick to a consequent line, ruling out the second quote, sticking with the first and say: if a country is shosting such people and protect them against you, you probably are not friend with that nationan anyway, and may feel free to threaten them with war if they do not hand such monsterous criminals over."

Which effectively is the story that led to the Afghanistan war.

But between that example, or the Nazis - and small everyday-criminals or managers being searched for fraud, is a difference wide as the abyss between planets. going to war over the latter is no option - nor is the violation of the sovereignity of other, friendly or neutral nations.

So, under not most extreme cicumstances, the answer to the initial question always must be No.

[NEON DEON]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In order to brake a treaty, you must first tell your partner that there is a case, and ask him to comply. If you hide it from him, then you have no case to tell him he broke the treaty. And that is what it is about: that you honour the treaty yourself and first knock on the door before kicking it in, and not to think you must not take care of that treaty yourself.

Extradition treaties also cause problems when the partner country has a constitution that prohibits the handing over of suspects of it's own nationality. :hmm: Another limitation often is if the suspect could face death penalty in the country wanting him.

Then you have no business signing a treaty if it violates your constitution.

BTW

When did the US kidnap German citizens from Germany and bring them back to trial in the US?:hmm:

[sparkomatic]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I thought the words read United Kingdom :hmm:

you never heard of the "British Empire"?...

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So, under not most extreme cicumstances, the answer to the initial question always must be No.

Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dunno how Germany feels about this but here in the US you cannot tailor laws against individuals. There can be no exceptions for "extreme circumstances". Either everyone is potentially subject to a particular treatment or nobody is.

While this "law" may technically allow common criminals like your crooked bankers to be abducted, it would never be used on such small fry because of all the damage to international relations that it would cause when (not if) word of the abduction got out. Let alone the problems it would generate if the agents were caught (see the Gary Powers incident) by a foreign government.

What I believe this is designed to do is to make sure that if we do manage to snatch some "extraordinary" criminal from a foreign country without following strict extradition law our own courts won't force us to let him go.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by NEON DEON

Then you have no business signing a treaty if it violates your constitution.

BTW

When did the US kidnap German citizens from Germany and bring them back to trial in the US?:hmm:

The last was al Masri, two years ago. several other examples exist, from germany and other european countries. Or just consider the secret CIA flioghts inEurope, bringing suspects to torture camps, sometimes kidnapping them from European countries (lioke Al Masri), and here not only avoiding legal notice of foreign nations, but even actively avoiding one's opwn American laws.

But that is not the point. the point is a statement of a principal right one nation is claiming to have, being allowed to overrule the right and the sovereignity of any other nation in the world, at it's own will, anytime, anywhere, circumventing "partners" of legal agreements, deceiving them and leaving them in the dark, if possible.

Signing those treaties still makes sense, because they include these exceptions from the beginning and make them known to the other side. If the other side does not like these exceptions - then it is not making sense indeed to sign that treaty. This is included in article 14 of the agreement between the EU and the US on extradition. And a separate article 15 rules for mutual consultations whenever a call for extradition is being made, to clear all formal issues and remaining questions. It says nothing about secret kidnapping and ignoring this treaty. And article 17 finally admits the principal possebility that a state rejects extradition for fomal reason deriving from it's constitution, and explicitly recommends mutual consultations not between the EU and the US, but the according European coiuntry and the Us if there are other reasons to reject extradition that are not covered by this treaty or any of the constitutions.

what I find bewildering is that the treaty lists quite explicit obligations and rules for the EU, but no explicit ones for america. Statistics say that far more extraditions are made from the EU to the US, than the other way around.

The last request by germany to the US over 13 CIA agents being engaged in secret abduction operations in Germany were shot down.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

Equal treatment under the law is a cornerstone of our legal system. I dunno how Germany feels about this but here in the US you cannot tailor laws against individuals. There can be no exceptions for "extreme circumstances". Either everyone is potentially subject to a particular treatment or nobody is.

While this "law" may technically allow common criminals like your crooked bankers to be abducted, it would never be used on such small fry because of all the damage to international relations that it would cause when (not if) word of the abduction got out. Let alone the problems it would generate if the agents were caught (see the Gary Powers incident) by a foreign government.

What I believe this is designed to do is to make sure that if we do manage to snatch some "extraordinary" criminal from a foreign country without following strict extradition law our own courts won't force us to let him go.

then my answer would be NO even with regard to most serious circumstances, and barbars like in the examples I listed: Hitler, etc. Because the American demand to be the judge of all world and being free to overrule any other nation's law and sovereignity at will is totally unacceptable - for principal reasons as well as for America not being in the moral position to ride the high horse, too.

[TteFAboB]

So if this is an American exception, does that mean that you can commit any crime you want in a country you have no citizenship for and get away with it as long as you leave and re-enter the country illegally?

[Jimbuna]

This thread is now starting to confuse the hell outa me

[Mush Martin]

If they want you they will come and get you
dont believe me ask Manuel Noriega.

The main difficulty is that america sees itself
through a distorted lens

in general the impression I get from the many
americans I have known and met over a lifetime
two miles from the border is this

they seem in general (excepting their true critical thinkers)
to feel that the world view of america should be the same
as their view of themselves.

well in this of course they dont percieve other cultures
distinctions. if you say im a canadian and I am critical of
the U.S. they will point to those parts of american culture
we have adopted and say your opinions not relevant you
want to be us.

which in general we dont.

I saw a USMC pilot in the first Gulf War who after a mission
came down and to the reporter said "its a great day.
I am proud to be an american over here to free these people
in the interest of the USA oh and by the way the worlds too.

they are noble sentiments and the USMC offers the best of
the american military but this fellows statement struck me
not for its patriotic nobility but for the supposition that his
interests and mine were the same.

we all see what we want to see and they will see it their way.
but might has always made right

Sancho Panza maybe.

(Sancho Panza steals my chickens Teddy Roosevelt steals my chickens
what do I care who is in charge)

I love the interview with Tariq Aziz on CNN during the first gulf
war where he says
" I have no doubt that you people can bomb my country to
dust tommorow but my country has been here ten thousand
years and it will still be here a thousand years from now."

the implication being that you may change to government their
but you cant change that they are a people or nation
borders change governements change policies change
but weve been willing to go over the border and pre emptively
defend ourselves since before the carthiginians.

the simple truth is that what causes this smugness and self justified
behaviour is the knowledge that we have the power to do so with
relative impunity. Once we find ourselves in that position we are all
tempted.

power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately.

who wouldnt if they had the power of relative impunity wouldnt use
it to make america behave better

so I ask are we really different men here in the future.
and inspite of the real cultural and national differences
are we different than they or any in this respect.

M