Comments on: The problem is not that the US has not ratified http://www.owen.org/blog/542 Thoughts from Owen in Africa Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:02:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Carl L/LA http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2265 Carl L/LA Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:39:49 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2265 Well, all  warrants in the US require probable cause, including arrest warrants.    The US uses the grand jury system at the federal level.   Prosecuters to gain a felony indictment must request it from a citizen grand jury, a body that sits for a considerable term.   The jury evaluates his evidence and issues a 'true bill', or no true bill as the case may be.    So there is a sort of a independent review of the prosecutor's case.    Not all our states use it. Well, all  warrants in the US require probable cause, including arrest warrants.    The US uses the grand jury system at the federal level.   Prosecuters to gain a felony indictment must request it from a citizen grand jury, a body that sits for a considerable term.   The jury evaluates his evidence and issues a ‘true bill’, or no true bill as the case may be.    So there is a sort of a independent review of the prosecutor’s case.    Not all our states use it.

]]> By: Owen http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2264 Owen Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:52:40 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2264 Carl<br /><br />I think your analysis of "probable cause" and "prima facie" is correct.  <br /><br />Furthermore, it is not the treaty that is the problem, but the 2003 Extradition Act.<br /><br />The Extradition Act (which received Royal Assent in November 2003) is not linked to directly to this or any other treaty. Under the 2003 Act, no evidence is required to support a request for extradition from EU states.  Other ("Category 2") states are designated by the Home Secretary.   For these countries, prima facie evidence is required, unless the Home Secretary uses powers under section 84(7) to dispense with this requirement in respect of states designated for the purposes of that section. An order designating the USA has duly been made under this section.  That means that the US is <u>not</u> required to provide any evidence whatsoever - not <em>prima facie</em>, not probable cause - for a suspect to be extradited from the UK.   <br /><br />The UK is required to show probable cause for any extradition request from the United States, as required by the US constitution.  <br /><br />As I said earlier, it is not the asymmetry that worries me.  It is that we can deprive someone of their liberty by extraditing them without requiring evidence to do so.  The US Constitution is right to protect its citizens from this; and we should similarly protect ours.<br /><br />Owen Carl

I think your analysis of "probable cause" and "prima facie" is correct. 

Furthermore, it is not the treaty that is the problem, but the 2003 Extradition Act.

The Extradition Act (which received Royal Assent in November 2003) is not linked to directly to this or any other treaty. Under the 2003 Act, no evidence is required to support a request for extradition from EU states.  Other ("Category 2") states are designated by the Home Secretary.   For these countries, prima facie evidence is required, unless the Home Secretary uses powers under section 84(7) to dispense with this requirement in respect of states designated for the purposes of that section. An order designating the USA has duly been made under this section.  That means that the US is not required to provide any evidence whatsoever – not prima facie, not probable cause – for a suspect to be extradited from the UK.  

The UK is required to show probable cause for any extradition request from the United States, as required by the US constitution. 

As I said earlier, it is not the asymmetry that worries me.  It is that we can deprive someone of their liberty by extraditing them without requiring evidence to do so.  The US Constitution is right to protect its citizens from this; and we should similarly protect ours.

Owen

]]> By: Carl L/LA http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2263 Carl L/LA Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:14:15 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2263 I got interested on this issue in your dad's blog.   It took a while for the info on the thing to reach us, last issue of the Economist to be exact.    There is a confusion of terms here.  A <em>prima facie</em> case is one in which the evidence and testimony presented in court would be sufficient to convict the party of the crime if no defense were offered.  <em>Probable cause  </em>is sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime was committed and the party is likely to have committed it.   Under the US Constitution, probable cause is necessary and sufficient  for warrants and indictments.    Under the old treaty,  I understand that the US was bound to present a prima facie case to extradite.   The UK needed only probable cause, the necessary requirement of the US Constitution which is applied to all persons in the US.   The new treaty seems to have equalized the requirements on both countries. I got interested on this issue in your dad’s blog.   It took a while for the info on the thing to reach us, last issue of the Economist to be exact.    There is a confusion of terms here.  A prima facie case is one in which the evidence and testimony presented in court would be sufficient to convict the party of the crime if no defense were offered.  Probable cause  is sufficient evidence to indicate that a crime was committed and the party is likely to have committed it.   Under the US Constitution, probable cause is necessary and sufficient  for warrants and indictments.    Under the old treaty,  I understand that the US was bound to present a prima facie case to extradite.   The UK needed only probable cause, the necessary requirement of the US Constitution which is applied to all persons in the US.   The new treaty seems to have equalized the requirements on both countries.

]]> By: Ministry of Truth http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2262 Ministry of Truth Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:36:51 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2262 [...] Loans for peerages. Casinos for cowboy outfits. Too many immigrants, so its claimed. Foreign prisoners getting released and not deported when the should be - as if most of them are any more dangerous that our own home grown criminals. Sentences too short - who wote the sentencing guidelines? (Hint: not the judges). Dangerous offenders paroled too soon. A terrorist attack (and no public inquiry). An extra-judical shooting (and no one seemingly likely to be held to account). A hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty that, as Owen points out, will stay just as one-sided, even if the US ratify it. Internement and house arrest and dodgy deals on deporting alleged terrorists to countries where the torturers art remains in high demand. Turning a blind eye to ‘extraordinary rendition’ - or kidnapping as is should be called if you take away the euphemisms. [...] [...] Loans for peerages. Casinos for cowboy outfits. Too many immigrants, so its claimed. Foreign prisoners getting released and not deported when the should be – as if most of them are any more dangerous that our own home grown criminals. Sentences too short – who wote the sentencing guidelines? (Hint: not the judges). Dangerous offenders paroled too soon. A terrorist attack (and no public inquiry). An extra-judical shooting (and no one seemingly likely to be held to account). A hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty that, as Owen points out, will stay just as one-sided, even if the US ratify it. Internement and house arrest and dodgy deals on deporting alleged terrorists to countries where the torturers art remains in high demand. Turning a blind eye to ‘extraordinary rendition’ – or kidnapping as is should be called if you take away the euphemisms. [...]

]]> By: Ephems of BLB http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2261 Ephems of BLB Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:59:42 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2261 <strong>US-UK extradition: US ratification would make things worse, not better...</strong> As Owen has pointed out, the real objection to the US-UK extradition agreement is not that the US hasn’t ratified it or that it’s easier for the US to extradite from the UK than vice versa: it’s the agreement’s denial of basic r... US-UK extradition: US ratification would make things worse, not better…

As Owen has pointed out, the real objection to the US-UK extradition agreement is not that the US hasn’t ratified it or that it’s easier for the US to extradite from the UK than vice versa: it’s the agreement’s denial of basic r…

]]> By: Tim Worstall http://www.owen.org/blog/542/comment-page-1#comment-2260 Tim Worstall Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:51:17 +0000 http://www.owen.org/blog/542#comment-2260 Quite right. Well said. Quite right. Well said.

]]>