US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2007-12-02 06:41pm

havokeff wrote:
Einhander Sn0m4n wrote:This can't end well if it's upheld. How long until Saudi Arabia passes a law stating anyone in America, Britain, Europe, or anywhere else can be subject to kidnapping (or 'Extraordinary Rendition' as the Bushies call it) for crimes whether or not they were committed on Saudi soil? That's only a very tiny step beyond this law as it stands already.

Enforcing your law on foreign people who haven't agreed to live under it, pay taxes to support its originating government, or be represented is extremely wrong.

Darth Wong wrote: Ask a Sharia court in Saudi Arabia. Personally, I wouldn't want to go there and find out.
How long before they 'invite' you to a Sharia Court if this shit goes where it looks like it's heading? This is an extremely dangerous precedent.
I don't see it that way. This law is for people that break the law IN our country, not the laws OF our country. The British bankers, broke our laws while conducting business here that directly effected our citizens.

Then they should be subject to proper extradition proceedings, not this extrajudicial violent crime!

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-02 06:42pm

I hear you don't need extradition treaties when one side can just decide they're allowed to go into another state and kidnap people, right?

Of course, extradition treaties only exist to streamline an otherwise case-by-case thing which would be decided by the foreign office anyway. The staggering hypocrisy is what is truly amusing.

Clearly everyone should take a leaf of the the US's book and declare pre-emptive war on US kidnap squads in America.

Sorry, forgot the US could simultaneously do whatever the hell it wants and try to paint itself as a paragon for the rest of the world.

Why does Bear think laws only apply to 'bad guys'? If you enter a country illegally to bust vigilante ass on Nazis, you're STILL A CRIMINAL.

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2007-12-02 07:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Place armed guards around your subjects who are wanted in the United States and give them permission to use lethal force, I suppose.
The invasion of Panama would suggest that that wouldn’t be enough if we want the person badly enough.

I think it would be slightly more difficult to pull a Panama in Great Britain.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-12-02 08:34pm

Gullible Jones wrote:That's the thing, it may be US law but that doesn't matter - you're kidnapping someone within Britain's borders, and British law applies there.

WHich isn't the point of law the guy is mentioning. This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the person performing the kidnapping would be commiting an illegal act in the country where the act occurs. The point is that US courts, once faced with a prisoner in US custody does not have any legal reason to free them so long as the standard burden of proof neccessarry to bring trial can be shown.

Basically once the guy is in front of the judge US law doesn't care how he got there. This, however, still has nothing to do with the person(s) who got the suspect there.

Best recent example fo this would be the semi-famous US bounty hunter know as "Dog" and whose real name escapes me. There was a suspect living in Mexico that was wanted in the US on rape and some other charges. Dog picked the kid up out of mexico and got him back to the US (and thus the guy was subject to trial the results of which I don't know) the point being that the kid was tried in the US and how he got there played no part in those proceedings. YET the Mexican government drew up charges of kidnapping against "Dog" and he was eventually extradited and is set (or possibly already has) to stand trial in Mexico.

So long story less long the American lawyer was pointing out that any british subject who appeared in US custody would have no legal recourse to protest HOW he got there so long as there was a valid warrant or subpoena for him to appear. At the same time there is nothing stopping the British legal system from issuing an arrest warrant for whomever brought said subject into US custody if it violates their own laws for detention.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2007-12-02 08:45pm

Adrian Laguna wrote: I think it would be slightly more difficult to pull a Panama in Great Britain.

Wait for a few more rounds of spending cuts at the MoD and that will change, the Texas National Guard is already nearly as strong as there entire army. Anyway the article is about abductions outside the UK, presumably because if the subject is still in the UK then normal extradition treaties would apply.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2007-12-02 10:53pm

Stark wrote:I hear you don't need extradition treaties when one side can just decide they're allowed to go into another state and kidnap people, right?

Of course, extradition treaties only exist to streamline an otherwise case-by-case thing which would be decided by the foreign office anyway. The staggering hypocrisy is what is truly amusing.

Clearly everyone should take a leaf of the the US's book and declare pre-emptive war on US kidnap squads in America. Sorry, forgot the US could simultaneously do whatever the hell it wants and try to paint itself as a paragon for the rest of the world.

Why does Bear think laws only apply to 'bad guys'? If you enter a country illegally to bust vigilante ass on Nazis, you're STILL A CRIMINAL.

I don't I'm pointing out that both were illegal actions, and if your going to protect some one for his vigilante actions, or going to break international laws and prescidents some more. you had better have a damn good reason for it. And if you DO feel a need, please use some private group to do it for you, as the alternative is WAR.

someone remind our government that we don't really want to declare war on ENGLAND.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2007-12-03 03:21am

Shit....I've changed my mind three times before I read the end of this thread.

This is a tough nut. At the MOMENT, I'm going to say that kidnapping people in a foreign country should REMAIN illegal, and the governent should have every right to 'release' that person at their dicscretion if they are dicovered and they don't want to get involved.

However....if the kidnapper is successful and they make it back to the country they are being tried in, then they should be forced to make it an international affair.

If they are being tried by a foreign court for some law they broke, then their originating country should have to pay them mind and 'represent' them if they deserve it...and this would be SO open to interpretation.

If you are being kidnapped back you your OWN country and broke it's laws, well...a much greyer area mucks about...For most crimes like premeditated murder, arson, rape, etc...there wouldn't be much sympathy, but what about situations like this teacher potentially threatened with torture and long-term imprisonment for a truly insignificant mistake by our standards of 'blasphemy'?

Countries have to be so particular with things that I think they really have to come up with an international agreement on this one. Is it just me, or is America not constantly pulling a John Wayne "That's how we do things in our parts" type of attitude lately with the entire fucking world? For all the insistence on Islam fundamentalism being a threat to democracy, they sure as hell seem to be doing a damn good job at declaring what they think is reasonable to make international policy and expecting it to be universally accepted without contention.

Resinence · Post by **Resinence** » 2007-12-03 04:13am

So long story less long the American lawyer was pointing out that any british subject who appeared in US custody would have no legal recourse to protest HOW he got there so long as there was a valid warrant or subpoena for him to appear. At the same time there is nothing stopping the British legal system from issuing an arrest warrant for whomever brought said subject into US custody if it violates their own laws for detention.

Which is absolute bullshit, and it's even more fucking enraging that the court doesn't care how someone got dragged to it, I would trust that fucking court about as far as I could throw it. The point people are angry at is that a citizen that never agreed to live under US or support US law can be kidnapped and held accountable to a legal system that is not theirs. And the US has a lot of "anti-terrorist laws" that make this situation a fuckload more ridiculous. Suspected terrorist? Don't need evidence, just issue a court order and send the kidnap teams. It is not the right of any country to prosecute those who are not under it's own legal system. If the US Government has a problem with that they should proceed through the proper channels and have them extradited. Not just "oh well our court doesn't care how he gets there, never has, we totally didn't send that dude to kidnap him or put a bounty on him". I just can't believe how fucking ridiculous it is. It doesn't matter if the british government can arrest whoever kidnaps him (through proper fucking channels, assholes) because some poor fuck is probably already sitting in a cell somewhere over terrorist or bullshit copyright laws.

Siege · Post by **Siege** » 2007-12-03 04:41am

The way I see it, nation A can try to get the person you want to stand trial extradited through the proper official channels, and if country B that the person is in refuses to cooperate, tough luck. This "we can do whatever the hell we want" attitude is utterly infuriating, not to mention extremely hypocritical: can you imagine the shitstorms and hissy-fits that would be thrown if some random nation were to kidnap, say, Henry Kissinger just because the USA refuses to extradite him? There would be calls for the invasion of the perpetrator before you could say "hypocritical jackasses".

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-03 04:58am

Resinence wrote:
So long story less long the American lawyer was pointing out that any british subject who appeared in US custody would have no legal recourse to protest HOW he got there so long as there was a valid warrant or subpoena for him to appear. At the same time there is nothing stopping the British legal system from issuing an arrest warrant for whomever brought said subject into US custody if it violates their own laws for detention.
Which is absolute bullshit, and it's even more fucking enraging that the court doesn't care how someone got dragged to it, I would trust that fucking court about as far as I could throw it. The point people are angry at is that a citizen that never agreed to live under US or support US law can be kidnapped and held accountable to a legal system that is not theirs. And the US has a lot of "anti-terrorist laws" that make this situation a fuckload more ridiculous. Suspected terrorist? Don't need evidence, just issue a court order and send the kidnap teams. It is not the right of any country to prosecute those who are not under it's own legal system. If the US Government has a problem with that they should proceed through the proper channels and have them extradited. Not just "oh well our court doesn't care how he gets there, never has, we totally didn't send that dude to kidnap him or put a bounty on him". I just can't believe how fucking ridiculous it is. It doesn't matter if the british government can arrest whoever kidnaps him (through proper fucking channels, assholes) because some poor fuck is probably already sitting in a cell somewhere over terrorist or bullshit copyright laws.

I'm pretty sure you have to have committed the crime within the US and it's territories (or have been part of a crime that took place in the US) for US law to even apply.

Elfdart · Post by **Elfdart** » 2007-12-04 02:45am

Actually, there are several crimes that have international jurisdictions: war crimes, genocide, slave trading, piracy, and torture. Anyone can be tried anywhere for committing those crimes anywhere against anyone. That's why Rumsfeld fled Paris with his tail between his legs. Many members of the Junta will have to remain inside the US because they could very easily find themselves collared like Pinochet.

White Haven · Post by **White Haven** » 2007-12-04 08:54am

Hoooboy.

What a fucking mess...all I can say is that I eagerly await the first US kidnapping team to end up in some mixture of 'dead on the street' and 'in a Brittish prison cell,' if the US follows through on this. The shitstorm would be truly epic in scale, and for once, totally unambiguous in all respects.

The Grim Squeaker · Post by **The Grim Squeaker** » 2007-12-04 01:04pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Place armed guards around your subjects who are wanted in the United States and give them permission to use lethal force, I suppose.

You mean, put them in prison?

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2007-12-04 02:31pm

Elfdart wrote:Actually, there are several crimes that have international jurisdictions: war crimes, genocide, slave trading, piracy, and torture. Anyone can be tried anywhere for committing those crimes anywhere against anyone. That's why Rumsfeld fled Paris with his tail between his legs. Many members of the Junta will have to remain inside the US because they could very easily find themselves collared like Pinochet.

And kidnapping war criminals so they can stand trial is a bad thing?

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2007-12-04 03:13pm

You know this is actually fucking hilarious given how much shit gets to slide in the US with their "fruits of a poisonous tree" nonsense, but apparently how evidence turns up at the court is of far more import than how the defendant does...

I mean, if you kidnap the victim and drop them off at the court do you even have to inform them of any of their rights, or does the court not give a fuck about that either, just that they've been delivered...?

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2007-12-04 04:23pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:You know this is actually fucking hilarious given how much shit gets to slide in the US with their "fruits of a poisonous tree" nonsense, but apparently how evidence turns up at the court is of far more import than how the defendant does...

I mean, if you kidnap the victim and drop them off at the court do you even have to inform them of any of their rights, or does the court not give a fuck about that either, just that they've been delivered...?

You have to admit, though, that it's a different issue. If the defendant suddenly shows up in the court's jurisdiction where a warrant for his arrest had already been issued, why shouldn't he be arrested and tried? I can see bigger problems if we were to encourage our police to perform these sorts of functions abroad, and that would be an actionable violation of the defendant's rights. (Being kidnapped and forcibly deported is also a violation of a person's rights, but I can't see that being the problem of the court if they honestly had nothing to do with it.)

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-12-04 10:50pm

Resinence wrote:
So long story less long the American lawyer was pointing out that any british subject who appeared in US custody would have no legal recourse to protest HOW he got there so long as there was a valid warrant or subpoena for him to appear. At the same time there is nothing stopping the British legal system from issuing an arrest warrant for whomever brought said subject into US custody if it violates their own laws for detention.
Which is absolute bullshit, and it's even more fucking enraging that the court doesn't care how someone got dragged to it, I would trust that fucking court about as far as I could throw it. The point people are angry at is that a citizen that never agreed to live under US or support US law can be kidnapped and held accountable to a legal system that is not theirs. And the US has a lot of "anti-terrorist laws" that make this situation a fuckload more ridiculous. Suspected terrorist? Don't need evidence, just issue a court order and send the kidnap teams. It is not the right of any country to prosecute those who are not under it's own legal system. If the US Government has a problem with that they should proceed through the proper channels and have them extradited. Not just "oh well our court doesn't care how he gets there, never has, we totally didn't send that dude to kidnap him or put a bounty on him". I just can't believe how fucking ridiculous it is. It doesn't matter if the british government can arrest whoever kidnaps him (through proper fucking channels, assholes) because some poor fuck is probably already sitting in a cell somewhere over terrorist or bullshit copyright laws.

Following on to what Flagg pointed out...I made the point that the court will not object so long as there is either a valid warrant or subpoena for the individual. Thus you cannot be brought before a US court unless you committed a crime that is within that Court's jurisdiction. Aside from a few matter involving international law which are dicey the ONLY way to run afoul of this is to commit a crime in US territory. Simply put the reach of US courts does NOT extend beyond the sovreign limits of US territory excepting those cases where it is a court of convenience for matters of international law (Which is, again a whole different and dicier situation).

So again to your point the only people being prosecuted are those who have engaged (or of whom there is reasonable enough suspicion to bring them to trial) in criminal activities on US soil/airspace/territorial water. By placing yourself on foreign territory you subject yourself to the law of the land. Lets take for example the retarded US tourist who went spray painting graffiti around Singapore(IIRC). He was, by matter of being in that country, subject to the local laws. Had he returned to the US and then been brought back to Singapore we certainly would raise a stink but it would not change the legal validity of punishing him according to the law of the land.

Conversely were a British tourist to stop off in the US and hijack a car then fly back to the UK then be brought back to the US his trial would be on firm legal footing and would be subject only to arguments about whether or not the crime was actually committed.

Lastly my use of the phrase not caring how they got there doesn't fully capture the point. Should the defendant have been denied any right afforded to other defendants they would still be able to file motions to dismiss (and probably win) on those grounds. The point is that the court does not care who executed and where an arrest warrant was executed only that it was executed in a way that affords the defendant their constitutional rights.