Welcome

InternationalLawUncertainty™
ExtraditionUncertainty™
Uncertainty may govern the laws that govern your fate.

“No one in America should be sent to face trial in any foreign country without meaningful judicial review of all aspects relevant to extradition.”

“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.”

[Quoting in part: 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]

Whether you are Dog Chapman, an executive in a multinational company, or the target of a political rival with a political vendetta, the world is at your U.S. doorstep. It has been said that a U.S. judge acknowledged that the state of international law may allow the publisher of the New York Times to be extradited upon the bare oath of a foreign treaty country (without a prior durable testing of evidence in the U.S. courts). That’s right, sent to a foreign country (with knowingly failed due process procedures) to receive a “due process” trial. That should cause every American and national to stand up and demand that the U.S. refine Treaty, Trade, U.N. and U.S. laws. Currently, “uncertainty” governs the laws that govern your fate. New guidance or acts of Congress are needed to bring “certainty” and equal due process (EDP) to the ever growing frontier of international and trade relationships. Meanwhile, the executive branch and the U.S. State Department bear the burden of safeguarding your protections from cases of wrongful (political) extradition.

Senator Biden and Senator Lugar (Hon. Richard G. Lugar, Chairman | Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Ranking Member |Senate Foreign Relations Committee) offered groundbreaking advancements in international law and due process guarantees while protecting the USA from terrorism with their work on the UK/US Extradition Treaty. Is it time we apply such lessons in all of our international treaties (Free Trade Agreements, Extradition Treaties, Conventions, etc.)?

LESSONS FROM THE 1986 UK-US SUPPLEMENTARY TREATY

The “EXTRADITION SUPPLEMENTARY TREATY” invoked critical due process safeguards in an attempt to preserve judicial review in the Courts. Whether similar safeguards as offered or placed in the US-UK Supplementary Treaty should be placed in all treaties remains a question of uncertainty in international law and the US goal of “social justice”. Secretary Condoleezza Rice reminded us that “...advancing social justice is the focus of U.S. policy in the hemisphere today.” For The Full Speech Click Here.

“The Senate Foreign Relations Committee described the 1986 Supplement Treaty as a successful "effort to balance anti-terrorism concerns and the right of due process for individuals."[2]  Senator Biden explained, in a colloquy with Senators Kerry and Lugar that was adopted in the report accompanying the treaty, that the Senate intended the Supplemental Treaty to allow for broader judicial review:

      [T]he defendant will have an opportunity in Federal court to introduce evidence that he or she would personally, because of their race, religion, nationality or political opinion, not be able to get a fair trial because of the court system or any other aspect of the judicial system in a requesting country, or that the person's extradition has been requested with a view to try or punish them on account of their race, their religion, nationality or political opinion.[3] {emphasis added}

      In summary, the Supplementary Treaty (UK/US 1986):

      (1) limits the political offense bar to extradition; (i.e.: for violent crimes)
      (2) it authorizes judicial inquiry into the motives behind an extradition request; and
      (3) it allows an individual sought by the British to be heard by the court on the issues of probable cause and dual criminality.

      For more information review Article 2 and Article 3.

      The Senate Foreign Relations Committee which added Article 3 to the Supplementary Treaty explained its extraordinary dimensions:

        Article 3, part (a) contains two distinct concepts, First, it authorizes a court to deny extradition based upon a persuasive factual showing that the requesting party has trumped-up charges against a dissident in order to obtain his extradition for trial or punishment. Second, it authorizes a court to deny extradition if the person sought for extradition can establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he would be prejudiced at this trial, or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty because of his race, religion, nationality or political opinions.

      Article 3(a) adapts language found in Article 5 of the European Convention on the Suppression of terrorism to which the United Kingdom is a party. . . .

      During the June 12 business meeting the following colloquy with respect to article 3(a) took place:

    Extradition Uncertainty Remains in 2007: The 2003 Treaty’s pruning of the improper motivation clause leaves only political motives suspect and expressly removes the issue from the courts.38Uncertainty remains over whether or not the US courts have the duty or power to hear evidence and exercise their discretion to decide whether the extradition is a “political offense”, (“politically motivated”; “of a political character”, or the result of a “political opinion”). “The political offense exception, however, has proven more troublesome.20 The exception is and has been a common feature of extradition treaties for almost a century and a half. In its traditional form, the exception is expressed in deceptively simple terms.21 Contemporary treaties often seek to avoid misunderstandings in a number of ways. They expressly exclude terrorist offenses or other violent crimes from the definition of political crimes for purposes of the treaty;23 they explicitly extend the political exception to those whose prosecution is politically or discriminatorily motivated;24 and/or they limit the reach of their political exception clauses to conform to their obligations under multinational agreements.25 (Library of Congress, CRS Report for Congress; Updated Sept. 30, 2003)

    The U.S. Department of State Fact Sheet, August 3, 2004 with respect to its position on the U.S.-U.K. Extradition Treaty states that:

    UK/US Extradition Treaty Lessons Re Article 4: “    Critics have claimed the new Treaty threatens the due process rights of Americans by eliminating the role of the courts in reviewing whether extradition should be denied because the offense for which the fugitive is sought is a political offense. This criticism confuses the "political offense" and "political motivation" provisions in that Treaty. Under the new Treaty, as under the existing treaty, U.S. courts will continue to assess whether an offense for which extradition has been requested is a political offense. This inquiry is undertaken when determining whether the offense for which a Requesting State has sought a fugitive’s extradition is an extraditable offense. In contrast, under the new Treaty, the Executive Branch would determine whether an extradition request is politically motivated. This change makes the new treaty consistent with U.S. practice with every other country around the world with which we have an extradition treaty.” {emphasis added} For more detail re the thinking of State see State Fact Sheet August 3, 2004.

    Continuing Uncertainty in 2007: The implementation in late 2006 of the UK/US treaty revoked the 1986 supplementary treaty work and related 1972 extradition treaty. Whether the statements adopted in the Senate Report are still valid or whether the above State comments are accurate or not, the US judges do not seem to understand what is expected of them. We should review all treaties and make sure that each contains due process provisions that uphold the American standards found in the Bill of Rights and preserve the judicial review of these critical issues, including “political motivation”. We should simplify the allocation of duties so the courts and State are clear as to what their respective role is concerning extradition, especially those of a political nature. The US extradition legal practice should seek guidance on this issue and make the bar and judiciary better aware of its duties. We fear, each thinks the other is doing what they are not.

    Continuing and quoting in part: ACLU Letter (id.):

    “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.” 

    Senator Biden has recently outlined four steps to make America safer. Quoting in part: “To make this country safer, we must recapture the totality of America’s strength – wielding our political, diplomatic, economic and moral might, together with our military power. Senator Biden would:

    · Create a homeland security trust fund to implement all the 9/11 Commission recommendations and invest in local law enforcement
    · Intercept threats abroad through a comprehensive prevention strategy
    · Restore partnerships and build effective alliances
    · Advance democracy, bolster failing states, engage and win the war of ideas.”

    All treaties and international conventions affect the advancement of democracy around the world! Is it not time we got tough, practical but fair and hold all countries with treaties to the highest due process and equal protection standards guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights, instead of the known failed “due process” standards of certain treaty members? Is is not time for U.S. leadership to demand that the world meet minimum standards consistent with the U.S. Bill of Rights? Is it not time for America to live up to its promises?

    Remarks at the White House Conference on the Americas: Secretary Condoleezza Rice reminded us at the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Crystal City, Virginia on July 9, 2007 that:

    “Democracy, at its best, is not a status quo idea. It is a radical idea, capable of sparking individual revolutions in the human condition - of transforming people's lives through self-improvement and social mobility. But to do so, democratic leaders must govern justly, they must fight corruption, and they must invest in their people. They must reform their state institutions to be more transparent, and inclusive, and accountable. And they must build dynamic, resilient economies that adapt to change, that harness the opportunities of regional and global trade, and that hold out hope to the poorest and weakest among us. That is how democracy leads to social justice.

    Democratic citizens and the true democratic leaders of the Americas have made that commitment, and whenever they look to the United States for partnership, they are finding in us a dedicated friend. We want to play a supportive role, an effective role as all of our nations work to adapt to the challenges of the 21st century - and we all work together to build here, in the Americas, a community of sovereign nations that are successful, competitive, and free - that meet their peoples' needs, and help to unleash their tremendous creativity and their industry. That is why advancing social justice is the focus of U.S. policy in the hemisphere today. “ {emphasis added} For The Full Speech Click Here.

    IF WE ARE ALL COMMITTED, AND IT APPEARS WE ARE, THEN WHY ARE THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS STILL SO “UNCERTAIN”? WE NEED HEARINGS TO EXPLORE “CERTAINTY”, CONSISTENCY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, and “SOCIAL JUSTICE IN LAW”!

    Extradition 

    Bribery

    Rendition Detainee Cases

 

NOTICE: THIS SITE IS NON-EXHAUSTIVE AND MAY NOT BE RELIED UPON FOR LEGAL ADVICE. THIS SITE IS INTENDED TO PROVOKE THOUGHTS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF SOCIETY.

BuiltWithNOF
[1 International Law Uncertainty] [Extradition] [Dual Criminality] [Bribery] [Immigration Naturalization] [Due Process]