Quote:
Originally Posted by Camille
Yikes. Sorry. I stand corercted in my initial statement. I mean the level of evidence required to apply for extradition to the US (and other EU countries) is less than the UK.
|
Ooooooohhhhh. OK. Now I know what you're talking about. This isn't actually about the US-UK treaty. It's about the UK law that implements it.
To bring all the other kids up to speed:
In 2003 the US and UK signed a new extradition treaty to update the one that had been in place for something like 900 million years. (Seriously, I don't remember how old it was but it was way old and out of date.)
In the US the treaty was signed by somebody in the Executive branch and ratified by the Senate and everybody was happy with it. No big deal.
In the UK, however, the Home Secretary didn't want to put it up before Parliament for some reason unknown to people like me not familiar with the inner workings of UK government. Instead of sending it to Parliament for debate and vote, the Home Secretary used something called a "Statutory Instrument" to effect the treaty - and that's where the trouble started.
The Statutory Instrument is roughly the equivalent to our "Executive Order". However, unlike an Executive Order, a Statutory Instrument becomes actual law unless Parliament formally objects to it. The UK uses the SI all the time for enacting minor legislation. They really have to use these things under their Parliamentary system because the Executive Branch isn't much more than the pussy-whipped bitch of the Parliament and the Prime Minister and Secretaries wouldn't get anything done without using the SI.
What's peaving people off in the UK is that 1) the Home Secretary rammed the new treaty through using the SI process much like what the Republicans did with the Patriot Act, and 2) the new US-UK extradition treaty changed wording concerning the level of evidence needed to start extradition proceedings from the UK to the US.
I can't comment on the whole SI thing as I'm nowhere near familiar enough with it to opine on whether it was appropriate or not. I have heard that the new treaty was signed in secret and that Parliament was given only a couple of hours notice of it before being asked to object to the SI. If that's true then I can see why that would piss the opposition off.
What I can say is that the other issue over the extradition language is really a tempest in a teapot. The new treaty calls for the US to present "reasonable suspicion" that a person committed a crime before they can be extradited. The UK, however, has to present "
prima facie evidence" of a crime before getting back somebody from the US. Some UK Politicians have made a huge deal over this semantic difference and have whipped up a storm about it over there. In reality the only reason that they wrote it that way was to make it compatible with the legal terms of art normally used in both country's judicial systems.
IMHO it's all a bunch of political hooey.
If there's one truism in extradition law it's that the courts are going to do what they feel like under the circumstances of that particular case. If you go and ask France to send out a suspected Nazi war criminal they'll pack him up and ship him same day. Request a national French hero like Polanski, though, and suddenly there are all kinds of reasons why good ole Roman shouldn't be subjected to such inhumane treatment as the American justice system.
The same holds true with both the US and UK.
The courts in both of our countries are going to look at what the other puts in front of them and do what they think is best regardless of the exact wording of the treaty. If a UK court wants to send somebody to the US they'll decide that there's plenty of "reasonable suspicion" available to do so. If they like the guy and don't want to ship them they'll interpret the language in a way that he gets to stay in the UK. The courts on both sides are going to do what they're going to do regardless of the exact words used in the treaty language.
On top of this is the reality that international extradition is only used in serious cases. The process involves the highest levels of both governments. You don't go bothering the State Department just to yank back a suspected car thief - and you certainly don't go bothering the State Department unless you've got far more than you need to obtain an extradition order from the other country's courts. If you show up to an extradition proceeding without the goods there's a pretty fair chance that you'll not only embarrass yourself but you'll also end up creating a very public international incident that embarrasses your government as well. It's a rare day when an extradition order is turned down for lack of evidence. Just look at the fiasco we created over Polanski and ask if the US is ever going to try something like that again. You need to be able to show something far more than either "reasonable suspicion" or "
prima facie evidence" or you're not going to be asking for international extradition in the first place.
So, despite all of the hand waving and outrage among the politicos in the UK, in the end we're talking here about something that might make a difference once or twice every century or so. Both countries are going to do what they want under the treaty no matter what the actual words are. That's just the reality of international law. The headlines will die down in a couple months and the whole thing will go away. I honestly think that if the Home Secretary hadn't rammed it through using an SI nobody would have even noticed. I predict that it'll all blow over before the snow melts next year.
Cheers,
Mazo.
A threat...
My Bio Page - Texas - Dallas
That was cute.
