Extradition | ExtraditionUncertainty.Com

Does a judge presiding over a U.S. extradition hearing have the authority, or in fact the duty, to find facts and rule on whether or not an extradition is ‘politically motivated’ and therefore not capable of extradition? What if that political motivation is a political vendetta or infringes upon the fundamental right to free speech or assembly? When do we stop a runaway politically motivated extradition train? When and where do we uphold basic U.S. constitutional due process, free speech/assembly and equal protection for our citizens and nationals in the face of politically motivated extradition requests? At first instance in the U.S. courts, executive branch, or at last resort in the foreign courts? If we don’t uphold U.S. constitutional rights and safeguards in the U.S., are we violating the rights of our citizens and nationals? Is the law uncertain? Is the law simply untested in this area and in need of refinement? Do we need State Department or executive branch guidance to clarify and safeguard such fundamental rights? Do we need a new (interim) procedure to safeguard such rights?

ACLU WARNING TO PRESERVE POLITICAL OFFENSE EXCEPTION TO EXTRADITION:

ACLU Letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Urging Opposition to Ratification of the Revised United States-United Kingdom Extradition Treaty Signed by Attorney General John Ashcroft and Home Secretary David Blunkett (12/18/2003) | Hon. Richard G. Lugar, Chairman | Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Ranking Member |Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Quoting in part:

“While the treaty preserves the courts' role in reviewing whether there is probable cause that the accused committed the crime, the "probable cause" standard is a low one and depends on information supplied by the foreign government.  Such information may be difficult for the accused to rebut.  For an extradition hearing to be meaningful, the accused must also be able to submit information about the improper political motivation of the extradition request, and an American judge must be free to consider such evidence.

Preservation of the political offense exception is an important bulwark for freedom in the world.  Since the time of Thomas Jefferson, the United States has refused extradition requests for political offenses.  Indeed, in the Declaration of Independence, the colonists accused King George of "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences" That principle applies with equal force today, no less than in 1776.  No one in America should be sent to face trial in any foreign country without meaningful judicial review of all aspects relevant to extradition.” Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, Timothy H. Edgar, Legislative Counsel with cc:  Members of the Senate Foreign Relations Commit

UN Convention Treaty on Extradition

Note: UN Convention standard at Article 44 at number 4 states in part "A State Party whose law so permits, in case it uses its Convention as the basis for extradition, shall not consider any of the offences established in accordance with this Convention to be a political offence."

Article 44 at number 15 states: "Nothing in this Convention shall be interpreted as imposing an obligation to extradite if the requested State Party has substantial grounds for believing that the request has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person's sex, race, religion, nationality, ethnic origin or POLITICAL OPINIONS or that compliance with the request would cause prejudice to that person's position for any one of the reasons."

Extradition

From Wex, everyone's resource for law learning:

To surrender, or obtain surrender of, a fugitive from one jurisdiction to another. see, e.g. United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 US 655 (1992), and In the matter of Morris Strauss, 197 US 324 (1905).

Extradition under American law

The constitutional basis for state-to-state extradition is found in the Extradition Clause, Article IV section 2 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleiv.html#section2) of the US Constitution. The statute implementing extradition is Title 18, Sect. 3182 of the US Code. Further extradition guidelines are to be found in the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, adopted in many states.

Not surprisingly, extradition is an important and sensitive issue between sovereigns. It can be particularly controversial when the accused is removed to a jurisdiction where penalties are greater.

U.S. CODES: TITLE 18 > PART II > CHAPTER 209 > § 3182

§ 3182. Fugitives from State or Territory to State, District, or Territory

Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, the executive authority of the State, District, or Territory to which such person has fled shall cause him to be arrested and secured, and notify the executive authority making such demand, or the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and shall cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within thirty days from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged.

Concepts & Other Possible Issues:

Is the "probable cause" extradition standard too low and dangerously dependent upon the often failed integrity of information supplied by foreign governments that the USA knows has failed due process standards?

Lack of Transparency Violates US Law & Due Process Trends

Should a politically motivated foreign allegation be sufficient to deny an applicant US citizenship?

Does a foreign country have the power to interfere with our naturalization process with allegations made of mere suspicion?

Should an applicant be entitled to due process (notice and hearing) consistent with US evidence laws requiring his accuser to produce reliable evidence (i.e.: ‘preponderance’ or 'clear and convincing evidence' - if not ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’) subject to cross-examination, foundation and authenticity requirements in the US extradition court?

COMMENTS OR MORE INFO