I was reading some forums and I saw a link to this article: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece . Now, I don't know about you, but it left me with a certain feeling that I can best describe as wrongness. First, I did not know that by US laws, as it seems, such practice is acceptable. Does anyone here know more about it - and whether it has been as controversial as I'd expect it to be?

The below is the text of the article and my opinion on the matter. You can skip it if you only want to answer the question.

snip
Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government’s view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through the British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman’s nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: “If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse — it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860s.”

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.
snip

I can understand (if not wholeheartedly approve) such rendition - or, to use plain English, kidnapping - in cases where it is paramount to national security and the government of state X is not cooperating. Yet in this instance, the man representing the US government essentially said that even if none of the above is the case, it would still be considered ok by US courts. The UK and the US are generally on very good terms, and I'd presume that there are functional legal channels (extradition treaty, for example) for a criminal wanted in the US to either be sent to court in the US or in any other way judged accordingly.

This situation seems wrong on at least several bases. If such "rendition" is fine*, then what is the point of having such treaties in the first place? Even worse, taking a citizen of country X in custody without an agreement of the country means infringing on its sovereignty - as it is the right and duty of any sovereign state to protect its citizens from by other states and make sure they are subject to no law but their own**. Plus, it's not a rogue state we're talking about here, but the UK - a frequent US ally and a respected international actor. If the US has so little respect for the law enforcement of Britain, then one can easily conclude that it it has no more respect for the law - and heck, legitimacy - of any other country. It may sound bombastic and even absurd, but to me this is a logical conclusion. I've read that the US has long been wary of entering international treaties that could limit its scope of action, but that seems a good deal worse.

*: that is surprising in its own. Remember the whole "extraordinary rendition" thing? I thought that it was taking someone from another country's territory that was the extraordinary part.
**: which may, of course, include cooperation with other countries on criminal matters.

Good lord. Is the US reintroducing Bounty Hunting? The problems this will cause are HUGE. I foresee political relation breakdowns. :bad:

Thats insane. Isin't that an open act of war?

Hey, y'all wanted us to be the world's policeman, and now that we're taking up the mantle, you're objecting?

Silly Eurocommies.

Given what they said before it's only consequent. It's legally quite questionable as far as international law is concerned, not that that would in any respect concern the current US administration. I do not expect the man to say that the theory that US law overrides International Law is simply false. Internationally the US law is only relevant as to judge criminality and court of jurisdiction inside the US. As a government employee he represents not his views but those of the current administration. Would he say: 'Oh, what we do is illegal, but we don't care!' he would not only be a bad employee, but stupid. It has to be put into this context.

That said, I do not think the view it is wise or sustainable. So it is probably one thing to say that, and another to do it. Looking at Italy, and the trial and political rumbling about the snatching of a Cleric by US agents off Italian territory and his subsequent rendition, there is a price for snatching foreigners, if that is only a lot of bad press and burned careers of the officials involved. Seen realistically, in their position of power the US are pretty much invulnerable, and too important to be isolated over such trifles as the fate of individuals. But such policies depletes precious goodwill. It's costly.

Mind, Britain is an ally. If they would give a piss about British sovereignty if they see fit, what do they to enemies?

Hey, y'all wanted us to be the world's policeman, and now that we're taking up the mantle, you're objecting?

Silly Eurocommies.

You mean we were asked? I knew I should have checked what that crowd was all about the other day.

Seriously, at this point I'm more confused/surprised/shocked that if I'm reading the article right, this isn't some recent development but something that has lurked in the US judicial system since the 19th century. At least, I'd have expected that if the US and Britain have an agreement on criminal cooperation it would take precedence over such practices.

I hope the American government realizes that any rights they claim to themselves, any other government on Earth may claim in reverse - that is, the British government may now claim the right to kidnap Americans and bring them to the UK to stand trial. Same goes for the governments of, for example, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, Venezuela, etc.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? I can't help but wonder if it would work that way, though. "Do unto others... " is a hard policy to follow when you can just bash the other guy's head in.

I have always found this law interesting. The act of kidnapping is a crime pretty much everywhere. So the U.S. is asking/ordering its employees to commit a crime in a foreign nation. This has always troubled me.

I don't have a problem with the poor victim now being subject to a trial. I only have a problem with our government having to pull off a perfect crime so the local authorities can never figure out who committed it. Everyone will know it was the U.S. government, but as long as they can't finger the people who pulled it off, the local government will have a very hard time arresting and convicting the individuals involved.

Snook,
the problem is that they can finger the people who did it. The Italians did just that and put out arrest warrants for them. In that respect, the Italian case is a perfect example: Being criminals these US government employees can never again travel to Europe, because if they do, they'll be arrested and extradited to Italy to face trial. The kooks who cooked up this lamentable legal view don't get hit by the consequences of what they ordered these 'grunts' to do.
Even though ... I would seek legal advice before travelling overseas if I my name was Wolfowitz, Cambone, Yoo, Gonzales or Rumsfeld. Better safe than sorry. But for those lowly government employees turned wanted criminals, their careers are over. It's not an accident that CIA agents are trying to get additional insurance because they fear legal repercussions of what they were ordered to do, and because they don't trust the government to stand up for them. That's doubly embarassing.

This US law that allows for rendition makes some sense when one thinks of the stereotypical banana republic where corruption or political tutelage prevents 'bad guys' from being brought to justice. It makes sense as an exception only. Applied on the West, on allies, on countries with functioning legal systems it does not make sense. It is typical Addingtonian overreach: When applying that rule to 'the civilised world' as we shamelessly consider us to be a part of (as opposed to the 'Wild East & South') it is a statement of arrogance, and is understood just that way. It's a very stupid stance the US have taken in this case. It's not as if they don't already have a PR problem.

Shaman made a good point when he hinted toward the legal principle of reciprocity. It is not hard to predict the US reaction if European countries would set up laws allowing us to snatch US citizens in the US, bring them to Europe and put them to trial. The resulting outcry would (again) include the complaint that Americans would be brought to foreign shores and deprived their trial by jury (think star chamber, or military commissions). European concerns run pretty much along similar lines on the issue of where their subjects are supposed to face trial.

@Ragusa

I totally agree. I can see why the U.S. has this law as it makes our courts more effective. As you pointed out now we have some poor slobs who are wanted criminals in Italy and there isn't really anything the government can do to protect them.

However, the truly remarkable thing is that I have added to Ragusa's reputation. Who would have thought that would ever happen. :) It must be the X-Mas decorations around here have put me in the mood.

Yeah this is nothing new, every couple years we hear about a case where the U.S. has sent people into Canada to grab someone. The media makes a fuss about it for a couple days and then it dies away until the next time. It is not as if the U.S. is worried about the mighty Canadian armed forces retaliating to these little invasions and it is pretty easy for them to carry out these kidnappings given that our border is so long and for the most part unguarded.

Of course we all know that if we ever sent a team to kidnap an American citizen and bring him/her up to Canada for a trial that there would be hell to pay. Hmm, we have had a number of problems with the U.S. harbouring mothers who have been charged under Canadian law with kidnapped their children after the father has been granted cutody - wouldn't it be fun to see what the U.S. would do if we sent a team down to bring one of these mothers back for justice?

@JSBB

It would never work with mothers. In the U.S. mothers are assumed to be better for children then fathers. Now I would be more curious as to what would happen if Canada swooped in to arrest a deadbeat or kidnapping father. That would be interesting. I'm guessing there would be some outrage, but in the end many people would side with Canada.

...wouldn't it be fun to see what the U.S. would do if we sent a team down to bring one of these mothers back for justice?

Only from a safe distance. Switzerland should be far enough, I guess.

Yeah I know how the U.S. feels about custody right but it has always been a source of great irritation to Canada that the U.S. has flat out stated that it will not respect the decisions of the Canadian courts in custody matters. It is not as if Canadian courts favour the father's rights - the mother has to be highly unfit as a parent before a Canadian courts will award custody to the father. But this is all off-topic so I will shut up now.

It may be somewhat off-topic, but it resonates with the one thing that impressed me the most about this case: that such rendition would not be considered extraordinary. Such practices, as I have said above, imo show disregard for a nation's laws and even sovereignty. If these can be done for matters that I would classify as personal at best, and trivial at worst (parentage issues), I can't help but attribute it to an underlying current of disrespect for anyone or anything outside the US. If the other country was Cuba, Russia or Iran I could at least chalk it to issues such as freedom and civil rights, but if it happens to the UK or Canada I can only assume it's the way that any other country would be treated. I doubt that the statement of Mr. Jones was intended that way, but I think it is a logical conclusion.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to love the US, but love - like respect - works best if it's shared.

I trust your post was sarcasm, A Master.

Kidnaping? Torture? Secret Prisons? What's next? Extortion and Child Molestation?

Cernak,
I have an outlook for you, and it's not pretty:

Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege? Preposterous! Obsolete! John Yoo finds that the president has the right to order your child's testicles to be crushed to make you talk (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt1-eWU2Ii0) about a supposed terror plot (or any other vital national security issue?) Never mind the kid is a kid and a bystander. When the president sais it's legal it's legal. And you're supposed to not worry about it, after all the US is a democracy (with a recently unaccountable and secretive executive branch) whose heavy hand never errs and that never (has to) apologise(s) (because that would ease a later litigation and that again would set an bad precedent (and precedents where the government has to pay for malfeasance are always bad)). So what about individual justice? Exitus acta probat. I must not be that the government is held accountable. Accountability would deter the government to take the necessary means the next time and so would bind it's free hand.

Speedy access to trials? For evildoers? You gotta be kidding. If you want to go to court after you have been subject to a national security investigation the government will tell the judge first they can't tell him the secret evidence they have against you because of the state secrets privilege, and if they get naughty they'll add that the judge doesn't have the necessary security clearance anyway (at which point, I, if I were the judge, would find them in contempt of the court just to teach 'em).

Miranda rights? Hahaha! Procedures, schmocedures. When you're deemed an enemy combatant, you can be locked up infinitely, or, if you're lucky, after a couple of years and perhaps 'coercive interrogations' get your then nutty self being hauled in front of a kangaroo military commission. If you to your and everyone else's surprise are found innocent, forget about compensation. You'll get none.
And then, the commissions themselves are a joke: The evidence is secret, so an accused cannot confront it, and hearsay is allowed so the accused cannot confront witnesses: 'I had a friend, who's dead, but very credible, who said he heard him swear an oath to the devil!' Compelling testimony. Guilty! Let's burn the witch!
I last heard John Yoo has proposed an innovation to streamline the lengthy and torturous (spot the joke) evidence gathering process and speed up trials - by properly conducting waterboarding the classical (old school) way: If a terrorist suspect swims on water despite being tied up, he's undeniably guilty and has a pact with the devil, and if he drowns he's innocent. The increase in efficiency will according to conservative estimates increase tenfold the number of convictions per month.

Did I say outlook? That is all happening right now, and for years. So what's my point? Bush's crew has made overreach a principle. The next administration will have a vertiable Augeas' stable to clean out, if they care to - and if the next guy is Giuliani, he will wallow in the filth in delight and add to the crap - practically guaranteed considering that he is advised by the pod-person himself who is even kookier than Cheney, Bolton and Wolfowitz put together (and that means something). Romney? He promised to double Guantanamo. Yay! That'll really help.

I doubt that the next guy or gal to be come president has the proverbial balls to put the last administration on trial over their reckless lawbreaking. It's like, 'Oh, it will be perceived as a partisan attack' (which conservative and left shills alike will cooperatively guarantee). So Bush's crimes will likely be covered up by his predecessors. So, even if the next administration is concerned about Bush's overeach, it will likely at least take the larger part of a decade to roll back and repair the damage Bush excesses have caused domestically.

The UK is ruled by toothless dogs these days, who respond to Bush's every whim and never criticize their big brother.

The UK should rule the kidnappings as criminal, and arrest anyone responsible.

The UK is ruled by toothless dogs these days, who respond to Bush's every whim and never criticize their little brother.Fixed. The US is younger, after all.

Team America: World Police!

Really, though. This can't be legal.

Cap'n CJ,
according to international law it isn't legal.
According to English law it isn't legal.
According to US law it is legal.

Strikingly enough, the legal theory that US law would nullify international treaties is carefully not being voiced by the US official. He only refers to the US supreme court, but he certainly implies that. Well, lawyers (:p ought to :p) get it immediately, anyway. You only hear that explicitly from US right wingers like John Bolton and other certified kooks. Point is, it's simply wrong.

National sovereignty (also over the nation's subjects) is as ius cogens internationally accepted and beyond any doubt. Because that is such a fundamental principle, one of the pillars of the international order, it wouldn't make any sense to allow individual states to circumvent their obligations under ius cogens (or under international treaties they signed) by issuing contradicting national laws. So the national laws are considered irrelevant as far as legality under international law is concerned. That would also apply to US re-interpretations of the Geneva conventions and the like. So the Supreme court can decide all day long about legality under US law, it will yield nothing but a yawn internationally - weren't it for the coincidental fact that they are the US supreme court.

The current US administration's point of view that actions being legal after US law is enough, is legally false, quite outrageous even, but correctly reflects global power relations. Try sue a country that doesn't recognise the jurisdiction of the international court of justice and will veto any UN resolution proposed against them. So what the rest of the world does in response is to protest, and bear it, while quietly starting to be less cooperative, leaving the onus (deservedly so) on the US.

I bet you in about 3 months the world will forget about it. Then the US will go after someone else, kidnap them, wait a few months and start again. No one will stand up to the US government, and the US is so used to getting it's own way I bet you they'll be shocked if anyone does. Politics and law? No. Just the USA belief that they know whats best for the world. Goodbye International Law (unless it works in favor of the US, in which case they'll keep it as an excuse :rolleyes: )

The way it is, the actions described are kidnapping, which is a criminal offence. That's not just political or international-law liability of the government. The agents performing the kidnapping committed, as persons, a crime on the territory of the country from which they abducted the suspect. Therefore, they may be prosecuted and extradition treaties may apply. There's nothing, nothing legal at least, to shield them from this responsibility.

And I certainly would like to know what the US government would say if, let's say, British agents kidnapped someone on American soil. I'm not quite sure it would reflect the rights it claims for itself with regard to rendition of suspects from other countries.

Chev,
you led me to an interesting thing: The extradition treaty is an international treaty. I have no doubt that kidnapping is on the canon (just in case there is one) for offences covered by the extradition treaty. So, in case the Brits (or the Italians) would demand the extradition of an American national it would be relevant.

When considering the case, the US court would then have to look at the extradition treaty and the rendition act, both federal laws, and decide which one is pre-eminent. This is a systemic conflict where you have two laws of equal rank, that contradict each other. One of the two, quite obviously, is incompatible with international law, whereas the other conflicts with national law.

The correct answer would be to ignore the rendition act and rule to extradite the US national because there is no escape into national law from obligations under international law. The same will be said about Yoo's and Gonzales' efforts to re-interpret as non-torture what clearly is torture.

:shake: Now how come I feel this isn't going to happen? :shake:

Because you hate freedom.

Because he's a Pessimistic person.

Because he's a Pessimistic person.

Nooo, it's trickier than that. He's pessimistic on the wrong issues, so he must hate freedom. If he were pessimist on the right issues, he'd be a realist.

There was a forum I frequented some time ago where it was very easy to see the difference. For example, being pessimist on whether welfare state recipients would use their benefits to improve themselves and look for a job and being a pessimist about a certain administration's capacity and willingness to do a decent job would lead to very different responses and epithets.

Still, AMaster, I'm genuinely surprised. I thought the "you hate freedom" phrase fell out of fashion, like, years ago.

OK already, AMaster was being typically sarcastic (and funny), but the thread has been derailed enough. Let's keep to the point.

Ragusa,

International law ranks above statutory law under the level of the constitution itself. However, extradition treaties generally carry some double-punishability clauses, meaning if the act isn't a crime in the extraditing country, extradition won't happen, or some such. I suppose cops are covered under most laws - what they do at work is protected from national laws, meaning the act is not a crime, therefore it won't fulfil the double-punishability clause, so extradition will be blocked. Absent such provisions, well, yeah, British authorities could apply for the extradition of those agents who kidnapped a British citizen.

Now how come I feel this isn't going to happen?

Yeah. :D

ChevInternational law ranks above statutory law under the level of the constitution itself.You're of course right. Worse, I actually know all that :doh: I stand corrected :bad: What I had in mind was the implementation act.

Kidnapping ought to be punishable in both Britain and the US. But the US official has been absolutely correct. As there is no criminality in the US as those spies kidnapped on official orders, and the US, as every other country, won't extradite their spies, and double-punishability for spy activity sure doesn't apply, that's the end of the story, unless one of the guys is stupid enough to get himself caught in Europe. 'It's legal according to US law' is a very dry way to say all that.