Britons Now Subject to US Law ??

bulldogg

bulldogg

Milforum's Bouncer
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...17.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/11/17/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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
bulldogg said:
Slightly troubling and this dovetails nicely with the CIA kidnapping suspects abroad who are not US citizens and whisking them away.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I agree with the above mentioned ASPA sections. In Italy we have over-politicized judges and prosecutors. Why should the US let any judge from any country decide on how legal the actions of a US soldier are?
Besides, the Armed Forces Chief is the President himself. Does that mean he could be called to testify and defend himself only because any Garzon (Spanish judge) decides to act politically against single operations?
I really disagree with that view.
 
Well if you read your link Bush is not the only one who would not sign. Clinton also would not sign and they are pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.

Also with all the appeasement babble, wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth going on in Europe about the bad, bad, USA. I could forsee a kangroo court issuing indictments just because they can.
 
I see no problem with the American Servicemembers Protection Act either. I can understand the strong reaction by somone in the Netherlands. The US voted against the formation of the ICC by voting against the Rome Treaty that established it in 1998.
The legislation actually prohibits any US Government cooperation with the ICC as long as the United States has not ratified the Rome Treaty. Under the legislation, US military personnel must be protected from ICC jurisdiction before the US participates in any U.N. peacekeeping operations; no direct or indirect transfer of classified national security information and be made available to the ICC; and no US military assistance could be extended to any country that has ratified the treaty with the exception of major US allies. The legislation also authorizes the President to use all means necessary to release any US or allied personnel detained against their will or on behalf of the Court.
It makes complete sense to me protect American and allied military personnel, elected officials and government representatives from unfair prosecution by that Court.
Under the terms of the Rome Treaty, the ICC will have the ability to prosecute the citizens of any country, whether a party to the treaty or not!
It was Sen. Jesse Helms who raised the threat of unfair prosecution of Americans by citing an investigation by the chief prosecutor of the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia concerning possible NATO criminal actions in Kosovo. While the prosecutor closed the investigation without bringing any charges against NATO officials or any members of the allied governments, Helms warned that NATO cooperation with the investigation had created "an extremely dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt the United States." I think he was correct to be concerned about the scope of the ICC.
Although it may be a small possibility given the scope of the "intended" jurisdiction, I'd hate to see the day when an American could be brought before the ICC as a result of frivolus accusations.
Besides, the reference you made to the May Lai incident would never have fallen within the scope of the ICC which by definition would or should be concerned with genocides and mass exterminations.
 
Back to the subject at hand, this person is a british citizen. He has been accused of fund raising and then funneling those funds to fundamentalist islamic groups. There has been no evidence presented per the MP's comments deriding the home secretary for accepting these charges prima facie. He was never on US soil. He has been charged under US law not international law. He is not accused of any crimes against humanity. I must further echo the point being raised in England, why is he not being tried under British law in a British court if he has committed a crime. He is not a war criminal who has committed genocide or any such crime.

This raises a dangerous precedent. Part of the sovereignty of a nation is that you have finite borders and within those borders YOUR laws apply and no one else's. In exceptional cases like genocide or ethnic cleansing exceptions should be made but this is no such case and in my opinion opens the door to further violations of sovereignty and rights.

I most certainly support IG's opinion that a citizen from a democratic country should not be tried on foreign soil on foreign charges before a foreign legal system. Full stop.
 
The subject at hand? You seem to be getting your skivvies all in a bunch again over nothing. International cooperation in thwarting terrorism that respects no nation or people is fine. Nobody is subjecting any Brit to American laws. All that has really happened is that the US has sought extradition, period. He is not being tried in absentia. The US has even promised that this piece of garbage will not be subject to the death penalty which is the truly objectionable part of this scenario.
This guy is accused of committing a crime against America so yes he will be subject to American justice when he gets here.
He is facing terrorism charges in America. Ahmad ran several Web sites, including Azzam.com, which was used to recruit and raise money for al-Qaida, Afghanistan's ousted Taliban regime and Chechen rebels.
He obtained classified documents discussing a U.S. Navy fleet's vulnerability to attack.
In April 2002, a U.S. extradition bid against Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi, who was arrested shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and accused of being a lead trainer for the suicide hijackers was dismissed. The judge ruled that the United States had offered no evidence to link Raissi to terrorism.
The same year, U.S. authorities failed in a bid to extradite Egyptian Yasser el-Sirri, who allegedly funded terrorist activities targeting the United States, after the British government decided there was not enough evidence.
In my personal opinion, it's about time at least one of these terrorists get what's coming to him. It's just too bad he won't be subject to the same fate he wanted to sentence innocent people to.
 
I am not in disagreement with the end, just the means. I think there could be a better way to handle this. Why isn't Britain handling it? I believe they are letting the US be the lightning rod, trying to shirk the storm that will ensue and just let this add onto one more reason why Muslims hate the US. If this is not the case why are they not charging the bastard themselves?
 
I think the US must have provided some serious information in order to get the UK to agree to this, especially considering the previous cases that I mentioned. I think time will tell whether or not this was the best course of action.
 
I would think obtaining classified documents on the US Navy's vulnerabilities would be reason enough all on its own.
 
Your acting like this has no precedence. There are examples of this recently.
The Lockerbie bombers never committed a crime on US soil.
Pablo Escobar
Jorge Ochoa
David Ochoa
Manuel Noriega
Most leaders of the Cali Cartel
And to my knowledge Osama Bin Ladin never himself committed a crime on US Soil.
Warrants and indictments were issued for all.

If an individual threatens presents an danger to the safety and security of a nation. Why should the Nation not attempt to remedy the situation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top