Three British financiers, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Derby, whose activities were caught up in the Enron case, are threatened with extradition to the US, under the terms of a treaty devised after the 9/11 terrorist attack. It was intended to simplify the transfer of terrorist suspects from Britain to America.
Ironically, this treaty was never ratified by Congress, because it might have required the transfer of IRA terror suspects from America to Britain.
It is a bizarre anomaly that is allowing three British businessmen, accused of a crime that allegedly took place in Britain, to be handed over to the American criminal justice system.
Even more bizarre that it is being carried out under anti-terrorism provisions and the British government is supporting the move.
Britain refused to allow their citizens to be subject to detention at Guantanamo Bay, or face US ‘kangaroo court’ tribunals, yet they will allow this strange extradition in a civil case.
There do not event seem to be any substantive allegation that their activities impinged on the Enron scandal itself, which would be the only legitimate grounds for American prosecution. However, that they deny the charges is not the issue. This extradition itself is, in principle, should raise serious doubts.
The alleged crimes occurred in Britain, not the US. What is wrong with the British justice system, that they are not facing charges at home? Are the charges so thin that they would not stand scrutiny? Does Britain lack appropriate civil laws to deal with the case?
I admit I don’t know the answers to those things. The real concern, one raised repeatedly over the past few years, is that anti-terrorism is being used as a blind by governments to enact prohibitive laws which would never get through any other way.
No comments:
Post a Comment