http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Ahmad, 31, was arrested by British anti-terrorist police in August 2004 on an extradition warrant from America, which alleged terrorist fund-raising activities between 1998 and 2003, and he has been in jail ever since.

Just a question here since this is establishing a mighty interesting precedent in a system of common law whereby it now appears that British citizens can now be held to American law without ever having committed an offence on US soil. Slightly troubling and this dovetails nicely with the CIA kidnapping suspects abroad who are not US citizens and whisking them away. Is nothing sacred, not even the sovereignty of allies?

I understand what you're saying but I think I would attribute this trend to the very international nature of modern terrorism. To me it is a sign of international cooperation to meet the universal threat of terrorism and to eliminate a possible haven or loophole behind which these criminals could try to hide. The Brits are not forced to comply with the American request, they choose to cooperate. I'd like to think that the British law enforcement had proper authority within the laws of their own country. Was that not the case here? I would have no problem with the US doing the same for someone American or otherwise involved in a terror threat against the UK. Neither country wants to be seen as a harbor these people.

Was Ahmed a British citizen or was he merely living in the UK? The article doesnt say. The British have, or are about to, inact a new law that can strip Foreign born Terror suspects of UK citizenship. The French are about to do the same.

If Ahmed is not a citizen all I can recommend to him is that he choose 'the fish' when the air stewardess asks.

What he is coming under is international terrorism charges, they can apply in America from Britain so whats the fuss.

Just a question here since this is establishing a mighty interesting precedent in a system of common law whereby it now appears that British citizens can now be held to American law without ever having committed an offence on US soil.

Actually Bulldog, this precedent has existed for a long time. In international law you have the "subsidiary principle" if I translated this correctly. Under this principle any nationality can be arrested in any country for a crime commited against humanity.
Belgium still has this principle and indited Sharon for crimes commited in the Palestinian refugee camps back in the eighties. After the first Gulf war charges were made against Bush sr. and some generals.

In 2003 the US reacted with an amendement that any US citizen detained on charges against humanity can be freed "by any means necessary". This means that say if a leutenant massacered a complete village, for example My Lai, and he ends up in The Hague, the US sends in the marines to liberate him. This strikes me as rather odd since we have had a long and fruitfull relationship. And where I come from you don't threaten "friends" like you do to your little brother. Only things is we aren't America's little brother... they used to call us Ally. I just can't figure this one out!

What amendment was that Ted?

Ted, I'm fairly certain that the statute is not intended the way you are interpretting it. More along the lines of some nutty leader who despises the USA ... Fidel Castro for instance. He manages to somehow grab US personalle and then makes up charges however he sees fit, etc. We would attempt a rescue. I would be very surprised to see a US/Netherlands example of this because the Netherlands doesn't tend to make %&* up for excuses tor detaining American military personalle, citizens, etc.

"Amendment" is likely the wrong word. Those are very very rare and involve changing the Constitution of the United States

I don't see why a citizen from a democratic country should be trialled by foreign judges under foreign laws on foreign soil. Period.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

Slightly troubling and this dovetails nicely with the CIA kidnapping suspects abroad who are not US citizens and whisking them away.

The CIA shouldn't be targeting US citizens, that's pretty much what the FBI does... I expect the CIA to be snatching non-US citizens, I would be concerned if it where reversed.

Bush made it quite clear when he signed the American Servicemembers Protection Act (ASPA). This specifically targets the International Criminal Court in The Hague when US personel is being detained.

For the entire text you can go here:
http://www.state.gov/t/pm/rls/othr/misc/23425.htm

Two things struck me:

Members of the Armed Forces of the United States should be free from the risk of prosecution by the International Criminal Court, especially when they are stationed or deployed around the world to protect the vital national interests of the United States.

AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

I can't figure out where the reluctance comes from. If you invade a country to get rid of a tyrant, why are you afraid of international conventions regarding warfare. To what costs are you prepared to bring "freedom" and "democracy" if you are prepared to step over the boundaries of basic human principals. Where does it all end?

When you ignore all the countries you call allies and start signing unilateral treaties with, for example, Tadzjikistan regarding human rights... Well I start losing hope and think that things really have gotten strange.