Re: Wireless security

On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 21:40:51 +0000, Howard Neil
<hneil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Peter Duncanson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 18:08:30 +0000, Charles Francis
<charles@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

The treaty is here. Parts of it are indeed pretty outrageous.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/USExtradition_210503.pdf

It is not yet ratified apparently.

That document is dated 2003.

The treaty is now operational in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,630-2052205,00.html
The Times February 22, 2006
Patience Wheatcroft
Perils of doing business with America

THE "reciprocal" treaty on extradition with the United States,
which Britain signed three years ago, has still to be signed by
the US. Such is the nature of the "special relationship" that
Tony Blair's Government values so highly.


I am still not sure of the status of this treaty. The Times article
states that the treaty has been signed by the UK but not America. The
document posted by Francis clearly shows that the treaty was signed by
both America and the UK, so the Times article is flawed from the start.
The question is whether the Treaty has been ratified yet. It needs to be
ratified by both sides before it can be used. The 2003 document shows it
was not ratified at that time but I would have expected this process to
have been completed by now.

The writer of the article is the Times business editor - not a lawyer.
She may have written "signed" where "ratified" would have been the
correct term.

I know you are good on research. Can you find out the current status of
this treaty, please?

The Extradition Act 2003 permits extradition without the need for prima
facie evidence.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030041.htm
Specifically
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30041--c.htm#69
PART 2 EXTRADITION TO CATEGORY 2 TERRITORIES

70 Extradition request and certificate

(1) The Secretary of State must issue a certificate under
this section if he receives a valid request for the
extradition to a category 2 territory of a person who is
in the United Kingdom.

(2) But subsection (1) does not apply if the Secretary of
State decides under section 126 that the request is not
to be proceeded with.

(3) A request for a person's extradition is valid if-

(a) it contains the statement referred to in subsection (4),
and
(b) it is made in the approved way.

(4) The statement is one that the person-
(a) is accused in the category 2 territory of the commission
of an offence specified in the request, or
(b) is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction by
a court in the category 2 territory of an offence
specified in the request.
...

The Act was brought into force by:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20033334.htm

2003 No. 3334
The Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories)
Order 2003

This designates various countries including the USA.

The House of Lords debate on an unsuccessful motion by Lord Goodhart to
remove the USA from this order is at:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo031216/text/31216-04.htm#31216-04_head3
or
http://tinyurl.com/rbbad

Lord Goodhart's speech included:
We object for three reasons. The first is the fact that there is no
reciprocity. We are told that the reason for that is that the USA
would need to change its constitution to be able to extradite people
without the need for supporting evidence. Of course we are all aware
that changes in the American constitution are extremely difficult
and take sometimes decades to achieve, if they can be achieved at
all. However, reciprocity is an important principle. If the United
States believes in the constitutional principle that people cannot
be extradited without evidence, it should not expect or ask us to
extradite people to it without evidence.

It appears to me that the Act was brought into force regardless of the
state of ratification of the treaty.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from ukba)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wireless security
    ... New UK-US Extradition Treaty ... An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US ... State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Wireless security
    ... New UK-US Extradition Treaty ... An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 ... State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Wireless security
    ... New UK-US Extradition Treaty ... An analysis of the new UK-US Treaty - which will replace the 1972 UK-US ... State provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Re: Wireless security
    ... Perils of doing business with America ... THE "reciprocal" treaty on extradition with the United States, ... three British former investment bankers moved one ...
    (uk.business.agriculture)
  • Malaysia wants ASEAN members to adopt extradition treaty to deter terrorism
    ... Malaysia - Malaysia wants Southeast Asian countries ... to adopt a multilateral extradition treaty by next year to bolster the ... "The initiative will form a foundation for a better ASEAN," Radzi was ...
    (soc.culture.cambodia)