As if there were not enough bad news about the overreaching of our administration, this morning comes news from Britain of one more extension of US law. The government lawyers are now claiming the right to kidnap British citizens charged in the US. The kidnap victim then may be brought to the US for trial according to the our administration's argument. The attorney making the argument in a British court did admit the American stance may not be shared by all around the world.
Not shared by all is a gross understatement. How are we in America to feel safe if our government feels entitled to kidnap foreign citizens for return to the US? Why would not a foreign government feel the same right toward any one of us in this country?
The current argument is based on a 1992 ruling by the Supreme Court in the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a Mexican national kidnapped in Mexico and brought to America for trial. In that case the Supremes found the extradition treaty in place between Mexico and the United States had not been violated and allowed the trial to continue. Though this first case involved drug trafficking and the current case involves financial wrongdoing, the principle remains the same.
Just how far does US law extend? Do we have a right to extend our laws into other countries and then deny those countries the same reach into America?
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
![[PDA - Pledge For Peace - Sign the Petition.]](http://pdamerica.org/images/ads/P4P_button.jpg)
18 comments:
Is this a reasonable extension of US law or is this another example of American arrogance?
Peace. Jerry
I say you are putting this in terms that are way too mild. The United States just declard war on the entire world. We can ignore this in the US, and move on to the next news blip, but I guarantee that the rest of the world hasn't missed it. Again, this is a declaration of war on the world.
We are moving closer to Global War every day. But we can stop it.
fillip,
Only Americans dismiss actions like this one. Right you are the rest of the world is taking notice. The story came from the British press. We will likely never see any mention in our media of any such controversy.
This mess will end with either impeachment very soon or an election in 2008 that puts a new set of faces and brings responsibility to government. Or the American people could awaken and put enough pressure on our Congress to take a real stand and take its rightful place in government and end these activities.
Whatever course is taken we need to stop immediately if not sooner. America is not the only nation in the world today. We need to live along side our neighbors and stop being the neighborhood bully.
Peace, Jerry
The horrible irony is that I think most nations in th world are eager for our us to be real leaders!! I think nearly everyone loves and respects our fundementals, especially the principles created by our (imperfect) founders.
What's the saying? The Prophet is not respected in his or her own country? We here in the US don't appreciate the fundemental treasures we have. "Oh, go ahead and search my emails and even my domicile without a warrant. I have nothing to hide!" Gee, I wonder what our founders would have said about that.
fillip,
Our Founders are spinning in their graves at the thoughts of today. We give up our rights without even a whimper. Those are the rights the Founders risked life and limb to establish. We take too much for granted what we have in this country. We must take notice or we will have nothing left one day.
Nations all around the world admire our founding principles and have done so for many years. If we were to return to those principles once again we would be a world leader. Until that time we are a bully to be ignored or resisted.
Peace, Jerry
' If we were to return to those principles once again we would be a world leader. Until that time we are a bully to be ignored or resisted."
NUTSHELL!
fillip,
The truth sometimes can be put in so few words.
Peace, Jerry
Like "don't treat other countries the way you would never put up with being treated"?
How would the US like it if Venezuela attacked the US and removed that guy we've been protecting who blew up a civilian airplain in Cuba, an act for which I believe the Venezuelan courts are ready to try him.
Yeah. That's right. WE ARE PROTECTING A TERRORIST WHO BLEW UP AN AIRPLANE FULL OF CIVILIANS.
There's really no level of hypocrisy this administration won't reach. They've now got Negroponte calling for reconciliation in Iraq. Negroponte was the guy who was there WHILE the Iraq security ministry started running death squads, helping start the sectarian conflict, death squads earily similar to the ones Negroponte seems to have had his fingerprints on in El Salvador and Nicaragua in the eighties.
But maybe, just maybe, Mr. Negroponte, the people are finally waking up and seeing that they've been had by a bunch of cutthroat thugs.
Here's another example:
"On November 26, 2007 the Venezuelan government broadcast and circulated
a confidential memo from the US embassy to the CIA which is
devastatingly revealing of US clandestine operations and which will influence the
referendum this Sunday, December 2, 2007.
The memo sent by an embassy official, Michael Middleton Steere, was
addressed to the Director of Central Intelligence, Michael Hayden. The
memo was entitled 'Advancing to the Last Phase of Operation Pincer' and
updates the activity by a CIA unit with the acronym 'HUMINT' (Human
Intelligence) which is engaged in clandestine action to destabilize the
forth-coming referendum and coordinate the civil military overthrow of the
elected Chavez government."
from mediachannel
How would we react if Chavez tried to manipulate or even overthrow our elections?
fillip,
Much of the trouble caused by America today is supported by people who ignore the thought of how they might react to the same action. We talk often on our street corners and in our homes about how different our lives might be today if we were invaded instead of invading.
I, for one, would be a resistance fighter like so many in other countries. I was trained to use weapons of various sorts and grew up hunting small game. I am not pacifist enough to allow our country to be invaded by a foreign military force without resisting.
By the same token I am absolutely opposed to American intervention in foreign governmental affairs. For too many years the US government has backed various causes which turned to bite us in later years. Osama Bin Laden is only one example of that course. Today we see fighters in Iraq using American weapons or at least being funded by American money.
This must stop. We cannot impose democracy by military means. People in other countries deserve the same rights of self-determination we insist on keeping in America.
Peace, Jerry
This **** has been going on forever. I've been reading about Winston Churchill. To him, anyone in Africa or Asia who didn't automatically bend to British will was less than human. He thoroughly enjoyed killing them, personally or by his order, without a thought regarding whether or not the Brits had any business at all imposing their will all across the world. And he's been labeled the hero of the twentieth century, of all things.
I think Bush imagines himself as some kind of Churchillian hero, bravely fighting for empire against the forces of Chaos, as if the imposition of our will is the only way anything good can happen to the world, and if any natives get in the way, well too bad for them.
As for what they call peace in Iraq right now, it's really at best nothing more than a return to the level of violence of before, which was monstrous then. And who knows how much violence is really going on? The former insurgents, that we have now used cash and arms to 'befriend' (what a strategist that Petraeus is - 'hey, will you stop killing me if I pay you?') are running their own areas. Who knows how much violence they are perpetrating? Would any American choose to live under such circumstances? And it's pretty funny, in a demented way, that they call the surge a success, when it caused massive US and Iraqi loss of life and casualties, and produced the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad, and the utter collapse of anything remotely resembling a political process in Iraq.
I was just thinking this morning: the twentyfirst century is starting out worse, much worse, than the twentieth century. Isn't that incredible? And isn't it unbelievably frightening, considering what happened in the twentieth century, surely the bloodiest and most devastating century on record (other than the century of the Black Death).
I fear that what lies in the very near future is far worse than we can even imagine, unless we change our ways.
fillip,
I continue to have faith in humankind as a whole. We will one day see a new beginning and find a new world in the end. The 21st Century has a very good chance of being the time for that overall change.
The question is whether we will continue our militaristic course or find a new and better way in peace. The choice is for the people of the nation to make. We must stand steady and strong in presenting facts and insuring decisions are made from fact and not from emotion.
Peace, Jerry
The choice is clear. We saw the consequences last century of militarism. We know that the consequences this time around will be even worse than it was the last time. Once the nukes start flying, Jerry, they won't stop until they are gone and they won't be gone until every beautiful city on our beautiful planet is ashes. Half of humanity could be wiped out virtually overnight and the rest would have to live in an irradiated world, which would mean slow and agonizing death for many of them.
If we can't figure out NOW that warmongering is the wrong way to go, we'll never figure it out. But we WILL figure it out now.
fillip,
Many people around the world know the failure of militarism. The problem is in the heads of too many states who are drunk on power. As they try to gain more power the trouble starts. We need new leaders who are committed to a peaceful way of life.
Peace, Jerry
It's a different way of thinking about leadership, isn't it?
And it means The People need to think about leadership in a different way. I used to chat online with a guy who actually though that our leaders had to be tall so that they could physically intimidate other leaders. If enough people think that way, how can a peaceful leader succeed? Neither Ghandi nor MLK were tall, but who affected the world more than they did?
fillip,
What passes for leadership these days is more about success in wealth accumulation than any measure of real humanity. We need people to begin seeking leaders who show a way of life that benefits ALL the people. We need leaders who lead instead of leaders who use framing and fine words to obfuscate and mislead. We need honesty and openness for a change.
Now to get the people to understand those principles is the chore. There is much work to be done. The ripples are beginning but the real tsunami today is money and the resources held by opposition forces. We will win in the end but the struggle will be long and may not be an easy one.
Peace, Jerry
Is this not what extradition treaties are for?
And is this not an inherent repudiation of every such treaty the US has with every other nation?
Basically this is an "after the fact" or ex post facto law,
(which are explicitly forbidden in the Constitution, BTW)
to legalize the "extraordinary renditions" (kidnapping)that's been going on for the past 4 + years.
Un _ _ _ _ ing believable !!!
chris,
You took the words right out of my mouth. I usually do not use such strong language but this administration and their abuses of power push me pretty hard. Every new revelation is worse than the last. I wonder when this will ever end. Will a new administration be able to reverse the course? How long will we be under the shadow of this egregious history?
The Bush administration has always seen themselves as the ultimate power on the planet. They count themselves above the law both at home (look at all those signing statements) and in international relations ("enemy combatants," and the "quaint" terms of the Geneva Conventions). They should be brought to justice for crimes against humanity.
Peace, Jerry
Post a Comment