It was a case involving Stanley Tollman, a director of Chelsea Football Club and his wife, Beatrice, who own the Red Carnation hotel chain and are fighting extradition to the United States where they are wanted for bank fraud and tax evasion. During the hearing Lord Justice Moses (yes honestly!) asked Alun Jones QC, representing the American government, about an attempt to forcibly abduct the Tollman's nephew, Gavin, from Canada, on related charges, in 2005.
It was here that Mr Jones quietly dropped his bombshell. He admitted that US agents felt they had carte blanche to kidnap anyone from another country who was wanted in the United States for a criminal offence. Mr Jones conceded that the United States was 'low key' about this particular activity because governments 'did not see eye to eye' with the US on this matter. The judges asked Mr. Jones for clarification of the American government position and he replied that apparently it was a federal law going back to the bounty hunting days of the 1860s and had never been rescinded.
The judges, clearly startled, asked about the impact of extradition agreements on this behaviour, as, of course, there is an extradition treaty in existence between the US and the UK and it is clearly expected that the proper channels will be pursued.
Mr. Jones replied that extradition was only one channel viewed as legitimate by the US authorities and, although it might be considered that forced abduction to the US without fulfilling such niceties was improper to say the least, the problem lay with the jurisdiction of America's Supreme Court. Once a wanted criminal was on American soil, the Supreme Court had no power to legislate whether consequent prosecution was legal because of the means of getting him there. This left the US Government free to pursue a covert operation across the globe...including the United Kingdom.
It is the first time that a lawyer representing the American government has made it clear that this policy can apply to anyone wanted for criminal offences anywhere in the world. The news came as something of a shock to politicians and to human rights campaigners. Before this announcement it was considered that 'extraordinary rendition' as it is called, applied only to terror suspects whose continued freedom posed a threat to American security.
There has been a hue and cry over those, particularly the rendition flights to Egypt and Turkey which have involved using British facilities en route but at least there was some understanding that the Americans perceived such people to be a danger to their lives. This is clearly not the case with bank fraudsters and tax dodgers and the revelation has created a wave of anger in the UK.
Patrick Mercer, a Conservative Member of Parliament has said, “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American law.” Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: “This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation.”
So far there has been no statement from either the British government or the US Justice Department but it seems to me that this situation is outrageous. It is not right for any one nation, particularly the world's most powerful nation, to go stomping round the globe ignoring protocol, ignoring the rights of anyone who has residence under another country's jurisdiction and dragging them off to the United States.
It's no wonder that the Americans will not participate in any International Court of Justice - because of course they would be in the dock on issues like this. The issue of terrorism is a very serious one and the issue of rendition of suspected terrorists is an issue which should be dealt with separately but when the criminals are clearly those who could be processed through the system without any risk to life and limb, then the Americans should stop this practice.
What is clear to me is that no civilised country does its reputation any favours when it continues to pursue a law coined 150 years ago in order to dodge the time and inconvenience of paper work in pursuit of suspects for 'civil' crime. It's not the way to behave and it's up to every individual country to make its representations to the United States on this matter, but I hope the British government does so forcibly and makes its own view clear that if any such shenanigans take place on British soil there will be rapid and serious consequences for the 'special relationship'.
No comments:
Post a Comment