Dealing with a rogue nation: US claims right to kidnap anyone it likes

[Mister Andersen]

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

[Krensky]

A senior lawyer for the American government has told the Court of Appeal in London that kidnapping foreign citizens is permissible under American law because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

Ignoring the slight sensationalist spin, this just means that either that the Sunday Times is cherry picking testimony, Alun Jones QC explained his position and the meanings of the cases involved very poorly or both. Possibly with a writer with typical modern journalistic virtue of not knowing anything about the topic of the story and no time to actually research it and tell the reader what any of it really means.

The referenced case is an application of a precedent called the Ker-Frisbee doctrine and it's relatively narrow. Essentially it says that the means used to bring someone before a court with jurisdiction over a crime does not effect that court's jurisdiction. It doesn't approve, sanction, or authorize kidnapping, it just allows a court to try the defendant.  The legality of his arrest and any violation of his civil rights are still valid defenses and potential causes for the case to be dismissed.  In fact, while I am not a lawyer, a cursory reading of the decisions say nothing about whether or not a court could declare a kidnapping illegal, all they say is that if a defendent is brought before a court, it doesn't matter how he got there, he can still be tried.  It doesn't even, as the article implies, force a court to hear the case.

[Mister Andersen]

However, you'll notice that the lawyer is saying that the US has no compunction about ignoring the rule of law in another country in the face of unfavourable extradition proceedings. In effect "once we decide we want someone, you will give them to us or we'll simply take them". Further, the inference is that the US would obstruct any and all attempts by the country where the crime took place to punish those US agents who broke its laws by committing the abduction (one after all only has to look at the massive fight the US put up over that incident in Italy recently).

I'd be fascinated to know just how many citizens of the US have been extradited to other countries to stand trial AND whether the US would be as blaise about another government kidnapping Americans to stand trial for their crimes.

[MilitiaJim]

I'd be fascinated to know just how many citizens of the US have been extradited to other countries to stand trial AND whether the US would be as blaise about another government kidnapping Americans to stand trial for their crimes.

Depends for what the other government wants to try the person in question.  One of the men in my Guard company was wanted by the Italian government, and the Italians were basically told where to put it.  (After the in-absentia trial began, the case was thrown out because the Italian government had no jurisdiction over the incident.  Any trial had to be in U.S. military or Iraqi courts, and those two had already cleared him.)

And I doubt that many people are ever kidnapped to stand trial in another country.  I struggle to imagine when it is worth the trouble.  Easier to just assassinate the person than kidnap them for trial.

[TheTSKoala]

Cost vs. Effect.  That's this whole thing.  Would another country risk the fall out by the American gov't for a snatch and grab?  Spin that around.  Is said country worth a diplomatic issue for a snatch and grab of a person who we want?  The problem with extradition is.. ..it's not about law.  It never has been.  It's about "Mr. X and his country" trying to have a bigger wang than "Mr. Y and their country."  Seriously, if it was about LAW, extradition treaties would exist in every country, communism wouldn't exist and America would be the world court house...

[Nepenthe]

Cost vs. Effect.  That's this whole thing.  Would another country risk the fall out by the American gov't for a snatch and grab?  Spin that around.  Is said country worth a diplomatic issue for a snatch and grab of a person who we want?  The problem with extradition is.. ..it's not about law.  It never has been.  It's about "Mr. X and his country" trying to have a bigger wang than "Mr. Y and their country."  Seriously, if it was about LAW, extradition treaties would exist in every country, communism wouldn't exist and America would be the world court house...

I'm not following you on that leap of logic.

[TheTSKoala]

LOL.  We're america.  We like to play Mommy and Daddy to the world.  Who better to host the World Courthouse?  "Do what I say or no dessert!  ...or aid if you get hit by a tsunami!"

[Nepenthe]

LOL.  We're america.  We like to play Mommy and Daddy to the world.  Who better to host the World Courthouse?  "Do what I say or no dessert!  ...or aid if you get hit by a tsunami!"

I'd go with Big Brother rather than Mommy or Daddy, but yeah...

[NekoMouser]

I might point out that extradition from the US occurs regularly, while as often as not it's the other way where the problem occurs. Try getting anybody out of Mexico, Costa Rica or Belize and see how that works for you.

Beyond the war on terror, we get stuff like this: http://people.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_1264916.php/Dog_The_Bounty_Hunter_loses_Mexican_extradition_battle

[TheTSKoala]

NekoMouser.  You're absolutely right.  If the US has good reason you've done a bad thing, you'll be on the first flight to where you did the bad thing.

[TheAuldGrump]

NekoMouser.  You're absolutely right.  If the US has good reason you've done a bad thing, you'll be on the first flight to where you did the bad thing.

Unless you work for Blackwater....

The Auld Grump

[TheTSKoala]

Hey. You can't be exported from America to America 2: The Iraq Adventure.  LOL

[MilitiaJim]

Hey. You can't be exported from America to America 2: The Iraq Adventure.  LOL

More like State really doesn't want to make Blackwater less effective.  How many years now?  And Blackwater hasn't lost a person their guarding yet.  Some of the stuff I saw contractors doing made me wonder how they didn't get themselves killed, but I guess it works well enough for them. 

(Stuff like driving against traffic on the highway instead of chilling with the slow traffic while keeping the Iraqi cars away so they can't blow you up.)

[TheTSKoala]

I'll give the boys with the guns that credit.  They do more than any sane military man ever would.. ..*thinks*.. is that a good thing? hehe.

[srl51676]

I have to disagree that if there is good reason to belive that you have done a bad thing the U.S. would turn you over for trial in a foreign nation. look at the case of Henry Kissinger wanted for war crimes in connection with his actions durring vietnam and in Chile read the last section "Pandora's Box?" at this link http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1966.html  and this article about Don Rumsfeld in france http://presscue.com/node/8596.

As for Black Water its real simple if these boys want to run around with that much fire power there is a place for it its called the US military No private company should be allowed to maintain its own military. The Gov. should just Nationalize the whole opperation and say welcome back to the army boys.