New UK-US Extradition Treaty....This is really extraordinary.....

[Flabbergasted]

The extradition issue explained in legal terms!




http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/jul/25ukus.htm

New UK-US Extradition Treaty



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- removes or restricts key protections for defendants
- signed and adopted without any parliamentary scrutiny

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Special Report is also available in "pdf" format to download: Analysis no 18

On 31 March, David Blunkett, UK Home Secretary, signed an Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK with his United States counterpart, Attorney General Tom Ashcroft, ostensibly bringing the US into line with procedures between European countries. The UK parliament was not consulted at all and the text was not public available until the end of May. The only justification given for the delay was "administrative reasons", though these did not hold-up scrutiny by the US senate, which began almost immediately.

The UK-US Treaty has three main effects:

- (1) it removes the requirement on the US to provide prima facie evidence when requesting the extradition of people from the UK but maintains the requirement on the UK to satisfy the "probable cause" requirement in the US when seeking the extradition of US nationals;

- (2) it removes or restricts key protections currently open to suspects and defendants;

- (3) it implements the EU-US Treaty on extradition, signed in Washington on 25 June 2003, but far exceeds the provisions in this agreement.

An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US Treaty - follows below, together with a number of relevant cases and issues that raise serious concern about the new agreement (and those between the EU and US).

Ben Hayes of Statewatch comments:

"Under the new treaty, the allegations of the US government will be enough to secure the extradition of people from the UK. However, if the UK wants to extradite someone from the US, evidence to the standard of a "reasonable" demonstration of guilt will still be required.

No other EU countries would accept this US demand, either politically or constitutionally. Yet the UK government not only acquiesced, but did so taking advantage of arcane legislative powers to see the treaty signed and implemented without any parliamentary debate or scrutiny.

Guantanamo Bay, the failed extradition of Lofti Raissi and US contempt for the International Criminal Court make this decision to remove relevant UK safeguards all the more alarming"

[dipsydoodle]

1. David Blunkett isn't Home Secretary

He resigned back in 2004. That article is dated 2003 and has now been in force for 3 years.

[Flabbergasted]

2. Neither is Ashcroft AG but some of the language is really extraordinary.

Notice the use of the word state instead of country or nation. I know this use of diplomatic language has been around for a while, however the simple exchange of words in a political document is very significant because the documents are meant to be extremely precise because they are "legal".

[dipsydoodle]

3. Yes

I do appreciate that. Here's a similar link on the subject :
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2003/apr/07euusauk.htm