TheAgitator.com
U.S Stretches Rendition Power
Sunday, December 2nd, 2007Via “Lloyd” in the comments section below, the U.S. is claiming it can kidnap British citizens suspected of violating U.S. law, then whisk them back to America for trial—all without permission from the British government.
I realize the first thing people think of with extraordinary rendition is terrorism, and getting terror suspects out of countries with unfriendly governments. But don’t forget, this is the same administration that’s snatching up the foreign executives of online gambling companies at airports, then trying and imprisoning them, despite the fact that online gambling is perfectly legal in the countries where they operate, and where they are citizens.
You can’t help but wonder, what would the U.S. government do if another country tried to claim the power to kidnap U.S. citizens in their homes, then fly them out of the country to be tried on charges that aren’t crimes in the U.S.?
I don’t think there is anything to wonder what the US would do in that case. Obviously if any country were to do that to a US citizen inside the US it would be an attack on our sovereignty and we would make a huge stink about it and go through any steps we could to have them returned and the country who kidnapped them vilified. It is the same terrible double standard that the US exercises in all its foreign policy such as our expansive and unnecessary military bases thrown across the globe which serve no purpose other than to expand an empire than they do for safety. What would our response be if Great Britain or Germany wanted to build a military base in the US, you would get the same type of response for either the kidnapping or this issue and that is whats good for us is not good for you.
I think you’re both over-reading what was said. It has long been a principle of American law that once a defendant is in front of the Court, how the defendant got there is irrelevant (see, e.g. Manuel Noriega). The spokesman in question was reiterating that facet of the law. It’s not a power, and he isn’t saying that the U.S. has the *right* to go out and kidnap British nationals for fun and profit. What he is saying is that under U.S. law, the defendant has no standing to challenge his capture in a foreign jurisdiction once the defendant is before the Court. That has been true for 160 years, at least.
The arrest of the gambling executives, while a bad idea, is not something nefarious. They were within the jurisdiction and arrested here. They are charged with violating U.S. law. The legality of their actions in other jurisdictions, and where they might be citizens, is totally irrelevant toward exercise of personal jurisdiction this way. What they are charged with should not be a crime, but it is, but the criticism here lies with the Congress, not those executing the law.
Further, extraordinary rendition has zero to do with the story. Red Herring. An extraordinary rendition would not result in a defendant being brought to the U.S.
Cool. Then we can forcibly enlist the British Citizens so nabbed into our navy and finally get revenge for one of the stated reasons for the war of 1812.
John,
How do you know? The “Enron Three” were brought to the U.S. through rendition (admittedly, but only after the fact, with the blessing of British courts), even though British authorities declined to charge any of the three with a crime under British law.
Why don’t you think the U.S. would ever attempt to snatch up online gaming execs and do the same thing?
Incidentally, the gaming execs weren’t arrested under the UIGEA, but under DOJ interpretations of the 40-year-old Wire Act. They were also prosecuted not for taking bets from Americans, but for wire fraud–because their websites claimed to be “legal,” and could be accessed by Americans, which DOJ says constitutes felony fraud. The Neteller execs were prosecuted not for online gambling, but merely for allowing Americans to use their service, which could also be used for gambling.
So these arrests weren’t nearly as cut-and-dry as “these guys broke U.S. law, and were in U.S. jurisdiction, so we arrested them.” DOJ was pretty clearly trying to send a message.
You have comments????
Radley,
I don’t know. I just don’t think the spokesman’s statement here was some startling new claim of an expansive power to kidnap foreign nationals, like the author of that piece is making it out to be. I think it is a simple statement of a defendant’s rights under U.S. law once the defendant is in the courtroom.
I don’t think those British executives did anything wrong. Every one of those Enron/Worldcom/etc. prosecutions was total crap. They didn’t break the law, they just made a lot of money when other people lost a lot of money, and that’s apparently enough to make you a criminal these days.
As to the gaming executives. That sounds like a terrible case that the DoJ should be ashamed of. If the magistrate judge didn’t kick it, I can’t imagine that the District Judge won’t. I think the judge will tell DoJ to take a hike. Nonetheless, the arrest while in U.S. Territory is completely legal. If the same thing happened to a U.S. national at Heathrow, we’d have no claim to raise.
The arrests certainly are as cut and dry as you indicate. The difference is you interpret the law differently than the DoJ. That’s why we have judges, and their attornies will point out the weaknesses of the DoJ’s position, and I am confident the Judge will do the right thing (I am less confident in jurors). You are conflating your outrage with the charges with the validity of the arrest, I think.
You are flat wrong about the NatWest Three. Darby, Bermingham and Mulgrew were extradited to the United States last year , after a two-year long legal battle through the British courts, testing the 2003 Extradition Law. Extradition rendition.
Declare war and invade Canada?
This is one of many things on an increasing list that the average american is embarrased about. That the current administration doesn’t hide that fact that they openly spit in the face of common sense and hypocracy is mindboggling. I expect that the ‘new american standards’ are not something that americans would like to be subjected to in other countries. It’s long past time to stop looking the other way.
Maybe it’s because we’re not seeing the specifics of the U.S. argument, but at the very least, the specifics of this case don’t disturb me one bit. Isn’t this kind of arrest and extradition exactly why Roman Polanski refuses to go to the UK, for fear that the UK will arrest him and hand him over to the US? With Polanski, it’s France that’s refusing to extradite him, and Britain’s not obligated to oblige France’s wishes if the guy leaves France and goes to Britain. Presumably, with Polanski, the UK is willing to do exactly what it’s saying Canada shouldn’t do.
Radley says “what would the U.S. government do if another country tried to claim the power to kidnap U.S. citizens in their homes.” But that’s not at ALL what happened here. This guy wasn’t at home; he wasn’t even in his home country, the one that was protecting him. Heck, he wasn’t even on his home continent: he was in Canada, and Canadian officials detained him. Nobody violated anybody else’s sovereign territory. We didn’t “kidnap” him from his home or business or whatnot. He chose to leave the country that was protecting him, and he got caught. Would Polanski be home-free if he visited Canada too?
Heck, the exact same thing as this happened to a Swedish terrorist suspect who was arrested on a layover in Prague, and he sat in a Czech jail for two years before being extradited, and it didn’t raise allegations of the U.S. “kidnapping” foreign citizens.
One more thing: while the statements made by Alun Jones QC to the Court of Appeal aren’t exactly encouraging, I’m not sure to what extent we should assume that they are the official position of the US government.
Because Jones is not a high-ranking US attorney. In fact, he’s not a US employee at all. Or even a US citizen. He’s a private-practice British attorney, retained by the US for occasional foreign relation cases. So barring some statement from the Administration actually supporting his argument, it seems premature to declare that Jones’ statements represent some kind of broad new assertion of power by the US government.
what would the U.S. government do if another country tried to claim the power to kidnap U.S. citizens in their homes, then fly them out of the country to be tried on charges that aren’t crimes in the U.S.?
Start more SWAT teams, probably.
The thought experiment you mention–the likely U.S. reaction if any other state claimed similar rights–is much more broadly applicable.
The U.S. government is the only power in the world that claims the right to define an “aggression” or “threat” as what some other country on the other side of the world is doing within a few hundred miles of its own borders. In fact, most of the “threats” the U.S. military has been built to counter involve precisely that–what some other country thousands of miles away is likely to do within a few hundred miles of its own borders–for the very good reason that almost no other country in the world has the logistical capability to project conventional forces more than a few hundred miles. If the U.S. weren’t helpful enough to meet them more than halfway, it would be one of those wars where nobody came.
The U.S. government is the only power in the world that claims the right to define the “aggressor” power in any regional conflict anywhere in the world, and back up that assessment by force.
Come to think of it, that sounds an awful lot like the classic definition of a state: the U.S. claims, as part of its “legitimate right of self-defense,” a monopoly on the right to define the legitimate use of force anywhere in the world. So in practical terms it is the muscle of a de facto world state.
Just consider the likely reaction if any other power were to make such claims. Imagine China not only defining as “aggression” America’s countless interventions against the likes of Mossadeq, Arbenz, Sukarno, Allende, and the Ortegas, but maintaining the largest navy in the world to thwart such intervention. My guess is that the U.S. government would define that, not as “defense” (as it does in its own case), but as the world’s worst aggressive threat. As a matter of fact, I recall seeing a recent JCS chief saying (with a straight face) that China’s military spending–a tiny fraction that of the U.S.–went far beyond any “legitimate defensive needs.” Pot, meet kettle.