[Illirmpipse]

http://www.friendsextradited.org/

Make sure you show your support (or disdain) for the Natwest 3 at this site.

Remember Enron?

Article from Times Online

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...050584,00.html

Enron Three lose test case against extradition to US

NI_MPU('middle');The High Court in London today dismissed an appeal by three British bankers against extradition to the United States on charges relating to the 2001 collapse of Enron.
In a landmark judgement, David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby, all former investment specialists for NatWest, failed to overturn the extradition order made by a Bow Street district judge and confirmed by Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, last year.
The trio also lost an appeal for Britain's Serious Fraud Office to review their case.
The ruling has been criticised by representatives of the three men as further evidence of the British legal establishment caving in to pressure from the "aggressive" justice system of the US.
The trio - known as the Enron 3 - are accused of defrauding Greenwich NatWest, a Connecticut-based subsidiary of NatWest which is now part of Royal Bank of Scotland, of $7.3 million (£4.2 million) by investing in an off-balance sheet Enron partnership.
The alleged offences centre on the sale of Swap Sub - a NatWest subsidiary company - to Enron for a knock-down price. They came to light after the energy company's collapse into bankruptcy in the wake of a false accounting scandal which rocked corporate America.
The judgment marks the first test case of the Government’s 2003 Extradition Act and several other high-profile cases are awaiting the outcome.
Lawyers for Mr Bermingham, of Oxfordshire, Mr Mulgrew, of Essex, and Mr Darby, of Wiltshire, mounted a dual-pronged legal challenge against the Home Secretary's decision.
They argued that, as they are British and the alleged victim of the fraud is ultimately a British company, they should be prosecuted in the UK.
They also claimed that the offences do not fall within those covered by extradition legislation, adding that being forced to stand trial in the US was a violation of European human rights law.
Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Ouseley dismissed both challenges. Lord Justice Laws ruled the case "has very substantial connections with the United States and is perfectly properly triable there".
He said there was a significant United States dimension to the case and said that it would be would be unduly simplistic to treat the case as a domestic English affair.
Mr Justice Ouseley agreed, and both judges also ruled that the trio’s extradition would not be disproportionate when set against their rights to private and family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The new extradition laws were largely justified by the UK Government as a necessary response to the threat of terrorism after 9/11. Commentators have remarked on the irony that the first challenge, and many of those awaiting its verdict, involve white-collar crime.
A central change is that certain countries, including the US, no longer have to produce prime facie evidence - proof that there is a case to answer - in order to have a suspect extradited from the UK. US citizens cannot yet be extradited to Britain in a similar way.
After today’s ruling, Mark Spragg, the solicitor representing the three men, spoke of the wider consequences of the decision.
He said: "This judgment means that no UK person or body has to decide which country should prosecute an alleged offence involving more than one country. Whichever country gets there first will, whatever its motives, seize jurisdiction - however severe the effects on a defendant and his family.
"The USA justice system has a long and aggressive extra-territorial reach, and will increasingly apply for the extradition of UK citizens for allegedly criminal conduct committed against UK institutions. There appear to be no legal protections against this at all."
The judges certified that the case raised issues of general public importance - the first step in seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords, which must be lodged within 14 days.
The three men were ordered to pay legal costs, including £44,000 to the US Government. Other costs have yet to be assessed.
Speaking after the decision, Mr Mulgrew, 43, a single parent who has a 10-year-old son, said he felt he was "living in a parallel universe". He said fighting the case in the US could cost up to $2 million.
Outside the court, he said: "Frankly we are shocked by the verdict, bewildered. It is a historical verdict, but maybe historical for the wrong reasons. I think this is a worrying verdict for many people. It seems to be irrelevant that the UK authorities do not believe that there is a crime committed against NatWest.
"Even though we have the victims saying 'we are not a victim', we are still supposed to go to Texas to defend ourselves."
Mr Bermingham, 43, said the British Government had failed in its first duty, which he said was to protect its citizens. He said the three men were being used as "political currency" to "curry favour" with another government.
"This case is going to have a profound impact, not just on us, but many, many people, some who are already in the system," he said.
He added: "We ask one fundamental question of principle: If a British citizen can be accused without evidence by a foreign government about crimes allegedly committed in this country, should that citizen be able to defend themselves against those allegations in this country?
"If the answer to that question is no, as it would appear from today’s judgment, and if that was genuinely the intention of government when it passed this legislation, I can honestly say for the first time in my life today: I’m ashamed to be British."
Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, said the decision was "nothing short of a disgrace" and the trio were being traded like "sacks of parrots".
She said: "It is yet another supine step in this so-called special relationship ... this, I’m afraid to say, is all about politics and not at all about justice."
The men have claimed that if they are extradited and found guilty in the US they could face up to 35 years in jail.
The trial of former top Enron executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling began in Houston at the end of January. They are charged with fraud and conspiracy.
Andrew Fastow, former Enron chief financial officer, has pleaded guilty to two conspiracy counts and agreed to testify against his former bosses in exchange for a maximum 10-year prison sentence.



What do you guys think of the extradition of these men and the bringing to trial of those alleged to be involved in corporate fraud generally?

[cafeviahe]

These constant UK-centric threads are starting to resemble the relentless anti-Chinese government threads that were posted by Juna.

[f29sXS07]

Maybe. But what do you think about these guys being extradited to the US to face trial in these circumstances (they could have come from Antarctica for all I care).

[Kghikeds]

They're crooks and they know it, so they will get what they finally deserve (work with some people that knew at least two of them), the problem however is the failure of the US to allow the reverse to happen, ie Britain to extradite Americans to Britain to stand trial for aiding terrorist or other criminal acts.

The biggest target of course is weeding out IRA-sympathisers and funders, of which are embedded within the 'Irish American' community, apparently the list could run into the thousands of those who have actively helping the IRA in its bloody campaign that nobody in the Republic even wanted! Naturally the 'Irish American' lobby wasn't going to let that happen - cue some green backs and political favours and the result is that the US has lost face in not only Britain, but elsewhere in Europe for not returning the favour. Ironically, while these trials will be used to appease to the bible-bashing sun-belt, US foreign relations continue to mutter in the gutter.




Deep down though, we all know that GT is a closet Anglophile, but unfortunately this has led to resentment after he was turned down by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Each year he reapplies in the hope of getting in.

[BluewayAllere]

Deep down though, we all know that GT is a closet Anglophile...

Truer words were never spoken.

[deermealec]

I've noticed it's defence, harbour.

Does GT take a lift to the top floor?

[buchmausar]

^ Ha!



He gotcha, GT.

[MilenaJaf]

GT, the article presented a plethora of new legal issues that may be easy for you to handle, but not so easy for the layperson. I would have to analyze the new extradition laws in detail before I came to an opinion -- otherwise my opinion would be an uninformed knee-jerk reacton.

That article was dated February 21, 2006. An update of the Enron 3, (who are locked up in Texas):

NatWest Three press for evidence

By Iain Dey
December 30, 2006

Lawyers for the NatWest Three are to lodge documents with a Houston court in the New Year demanding that Royal Bank of Scotland release evidence they claim could prove their innocence.

Gary Mulgrew, Giles Darby and David Bermingham, three former NatWest bankers, were controversially extradited to the US in the summer to face fraud charges related to the collapse of Enron, the failed energy trading giant.

They claim that memos and e-mails held by Royal Bank of Scotland, which bought NatWest in 2000, could be used as part of their defence. If the court upholds the motion, the bank will be compelled to release the information.

The motion includes a request to interview a number of RBS employees who worked alongside the NatWest Three and were familiar with the transactions involved in the case.

While RBS has consistently said it would co-operate with any legal procedure, it has refused to release documents unless they have been requested by the US Department of Justice or the courts. Requests for information from the three men's lawyers have been rejected by the bank.

RBS is also included in a class action being brought by former investors in the bankrupt energy trader. The Scottish bank has repeatedly said that it reserves the right to take legal action against the three men.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...2/31/cnatw.xml

[oemcheapdownload]

Truer words were never spoken.

Nothing to say about that, except click on the picture...

[jokilewqs]

From the Blog of McNabb and Associates, Attorneys

http://www.internationalextraditionblog.com/2006/01/extradition-from-britain-to-united.html

Extradition from Britain to the United States—Ian Norris



Ian Norris, the former CEO of Morgan Crucible, is preparing to begin his High Court appeal against his ordered extradition from Britain to the United States.[1] Mr. Norris is facing seven counts of fixing the price of industrial carbon products in the US between 1989 and 1998, as well as two charges of obstruction of justice.[2] His hearing begins on Thursday, and two days will be spent appealing against the original decision in June to extradite him, and the next two days will be spent appealing against Home Secretary Clarke’s decision in October to uphold the court’s decision.[3]

Mr. Norris’s case took on new importance when Sir Digby Jones excoriated the UK about the ease with which the United States can secure extradition: “This is totally unacceptable,” he said. “It might be acceptable for the bloke who wraps Semtex around his body but not for a 62-year-old executive with prostate cancer. The process of justice is being abused. America is being an ignorant bully.”[4]

One aspect that makes Mr. Norris’s extradition case so compelling is that Britain did not have a specific price-fixing statute until 2002,[5] which was well after the time period that Mr. Norris is accused of doing the alleged act. Under the dual-criminality component of the existing extradition treaty between the US and the UK, an offense is extraditable if it is a crime in both countries punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.[6] However, both the British district judge and the Home Office felt that the alleged conduct “equates to the offence of conspiracy to defraud,” which both countries have criminalized.[7]

British District Judge Nicholas Evans, when he made his decision to approve extradition said that it would not be “unjust or oppressive” to send Mr. Norris to the US, and said that “if convicted and sent to prison … all Mr. Norris’s medical needs will be met.”[8]

We last mentioned Mr. Norris a couple of weeks ago in connection with stepped-up efforts by the EU to target price-fixing.

From the Financial Times today
High Court upholds extradition

By Nikki Tait,Law Courts Correspondent

Published: January 26 2007 02:00 | Last updated: January 26 2007 02:00

Ian Norris, former chief executive of Morgan Crucible, the engineering group, yesterday lost his appeal against extradition to the US over alleged white collar crimes, which could have wide implications for the business community.
The 63-year-old businessman is the first foreign national to be sought byUS authorities on antitrust charges. His case is also the latest high-profile extradition sought by the US under controversial new fast-track arrangements between the UK and US.

Two High Court judges yesterday dismissed his lawyers' arguments that the price-fixing charges Mr Norris faces in the US did not amount to a criminal offence in the UK at the time and could not constitute an "extradition offence".

Instead, they found the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud could en-compass cartel activity if an element of dishonesty were present. The judges acknowledged that no price-fixing case had been prosecuted as one of dishonesty in England and that it was not until the 2002 Enterprise Act that a statutory criminal cartel offence was introduced.

But they said: "Although previous competition law did not of itself criminalise cartel activity, it does not follow that it was not previously chargeable as conspiracy to defraud where circumstances might have justified and required it."

Mr Norris's lawyers will appeal to the House of Lords. "We continue to believe that the issues raised in this case need to be heard by theUK's highest court," said Alistair Graham, partner at White & Case.

"The question of whether price-fixing can be characterised as the old English common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud is an absolutely critical point of law, not only in this case and, therefore, for future potential extradition requests, but also for UK competition law and UK businesses in general," Mr Graham said.

"Any decision in this matter has significant ramifications for large numbers of UK businessmen and women, who will be potentially exposed to price-fixing charges in relation to the period prior to 2002."

Mr Norris is being sought by the US authorities for his alleged involvement, while at Morgan Crucible, in an international carbon products cartel, as well as on separate obstruction of justice counts. According to the charges, which he denies, the offences occurred be-tween 1989 and May 2000.
A furore erupted last year when three former NatWest bankers were sent to the US to face Enron-related fraud charges.

Yesterday, in an effort to defuse the controversy, Lord Goldsmith, attorney-general, unveiled a protocol for UK and US prosecutors dealing with cross-border cases. It focuses on early liaison and exchange of information.

"The fundamental issue is that British citizens can still be extradited to the US without prima facie evidence of an offence. The government has not addressed the concerns of business that this is unfair treatment," said Richard Lambert, director-general of the Confederation of British Industry."

I feel sorry for Mr Norris. Should I?

[yarita]

What has happened to these three family men who each banked over 1 MILLION POUNDS STERLING in an Enron meets Cayman Islands venture.

OH THE INJUSTICE!

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/..._white_co.html

From the Guardian last year:

ABOVE COMMON LAW

For now, the NatWest Three are innocent. But the fury at their supposed ordeal is not credible.

The term "white collar crime" was first used in 1939 to define "a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status". Which may explain why Britain, in love with hierarchies, is so very understanding of defendants. It is almost impossible to secure a conviction for some alleged offences, such as insider trading; others, like fraud, are notoriously difficult to prosecute.

I don't think this is just about the complexity of the cases. It is also about the perception that an upright-looking citizen, however much he or she may have embezzled, is less culpable than the young person who snatches an iPod or a mobile phone worth peanuts. The most extreme case is that of Zahid Mubarek, murdered in Feltham, the young offenders' institution to which he was sent for stealing six-pounds worth of razor blades.

Contrast his case with that of the NatWest Three. Their PR machine is as unsavoury as the notion they are above the law. The unratified extradition treaty with America may not ideal, but the charge against them - that they ilegally obtained £1.1m apiece - should clearly be tested in a court of law. The disgrace is not that the men have been extradited to America. It is that British justice seems so supremely uninvolved.

For now, the NatWest Three are innocent. They may well remain so. But the fury at their supposed ordeal is not credible.

Moreover, our skewed view of white-collar crime is not limited to these men. Lord Levy's horror at being arrested without charge as part of the cash-for-peerages inquiry is equally preposterous. No doubt he would have co-operated fully with the police without being treated roughly, like a normal person.

Kids suspected of creating a minor nuisance might be just as prepared to work with the police, but they are much more likely to be arrested than peers of the realm. In the normal run of things, Levy would be demonised by a media eager to have Tony Blair's blood. Instead, his case has generated a lot of sympathy.

The peerages scandal is referred to, euphemistically, as "sleaze", when we are actually talking about the investigation of a possible crime. The implication seems to be that prime ministers have sold peerages since time immemorial, and that it was simply Blair's and Levy's ill luck to be embroiled in their current troubles.

But this is about the workings of democracy; about how governments behave, and about how peers with a powerful voice in the enactment of legislation are chosen. It may well be that no charge is ever laid against Lord Levy and that he is wholly innocent of all wrongdoing, but he should still submit willingly to police efforts to find out what is going on.

The irony is that there has rarely been a government less tolerant of alleged wrongdoing in the poor, the hopeless, the drugged-up, and all those the courts are imprisoning in record numbers. Bring on Asbos and the respect agenda, while privileged citizens regard as impudence the notion that they should have their collars felt by the forces of law and order.

The UK has a history of tolerance of white-collar crooks. Robert Maxwell got away with his gigantic fraud for so long partly because he invoked libel laws against all who challenged him, but also because no one could quite believe he was capable of such felony.

Lord Levy is no and the NatWest Three are no Robert Maxwells, but when influential people find themselves in trouble with the law, they should not complain. British politics may be relatively clean, and so may British business, but neither could remain so without some boundaries. In America, where white-collar crime costs more than $300 billion a year, the authorities are much less tolerant.

There is much wrong with US justice - their prisons, for a start - but they have proved that they do not have one system for the rich and another for the poor. Britain needs to do the same

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And now:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rz9f1VfZNj8

[Metrujectiktus]

The biggest target of course is weeding out IRA-sympathisers and funders, of which are embedded within the 'Irish American' community, apparently the list could run into the thousands of those who have actively helping the IRA in its bloody campaign that nobody in the Republic even wanted!

What a slur on the good name of the millions of decent law-abiding Irish-Americans - talk about a sweeping condemnation Nicky boy! Just because many Irish-Americans wanted to provide humanitarian support to those oppressed by British violence you think its perfectly acceptable to denigrate them in this wholesale fashion - typical! The British suspended the normal courts of law in Northern Ireland and dispensed with trial-by-jury in favour of trial-by-judge, with what became known as the infamous Diplock courts. Suspected members of the IRA could be interned without any form of trial, just on the word of a police officer! Their families would be left to fend for themselves not knowing when their husbands/fathers would come home!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/north...843055,00.html

You state that "nobody in the Republic" wanted/supported the IRA campaign, this is incorrect. Sinn Fein/IRA won 5 seats, (previously they had only 1), in the Republic's 2002 General Election indicating increasing support.
The root cause for all the problems that have befallen Ireland lie with Britain for the way it has mistreated the country and its people over centuries. Britain should hang its head in shame at the terrible at the suffering and hardship it has caused to this small island.

[Cheeniandab]

Scary times .....

America has told Britain that it can "kidnap" British citizens in the United States.

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.

Rendition, or kidnapping, dates back to 19th-century bounty hunting and Washington believes it is still legitimate.

The US government's view emerged during a hearing involving Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice.

The Tollmans, who control the Red Carnation hotel group and are resident in London, are wanted in America for bank fraud and tax evasion. They have been fighting extradition through British courts.

During a hearing last month Lord Justice Moses, one of the Court of Appeal judges, asked Alun Jones QC, representing the US government, about its treatment of Gavin, Tollman's nephew. Gavin Tollman was the subject of an attempted abduction during a visit to Canada in 2005.

Jones replied that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. "The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared," he said.

He said that if a person was kidnapped by the US authorities in another country and was brought back to face charges in America, no US court could rule that the abduction was illegal and free him: "If you kidnap a person outside the United States and you bring him there, the court has no jurisdiction to refuse - it goes back to bounty hunting days in the 1860's".
Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be "honest about (his) position."

Jones replied: "That is United States law."

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "This law may date back to bounty hunting days, but they should sort it out if they claim to be a civilised nation."

The US Justice Department declined to comment.

[attractiveweb]

What a slur on the good name of the millions of decent law-abiding Irish-Americans - talk about a sweeping condemnation Nicky boy! Just because many Irish-Americans wanted to provide humanitarian support to those oppressed by British violence you think its perfectly acceptable to denigrate them in this wholesale fashion - typical! The British suspended the normal courts of law in Northern Ireland and dispensed with trial-by-jury in favour of trial-by-judge, with what became known as the infamous Diplock courts. Suspected members of the IRA could be interned without any form of trial, just on the word of a police officer! Their families would be left to fend for themselves not knowing when their husbands/fathers would come home!

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/north...843055,00.html

You state that "nobody in the Republic" wanted/supported the IRA campaign, this is incorrect. Sinn Fein/IRA won 5 seats, (previously they had only 1), in the Republic's 2002 General Election indicating increasing support.
The root cause for all the problems that have befallen Ireland lie with Britain for the way it has mistreated the country and its people over centuries. Britain should hang its head in shame at the terrible at the suffering and hardship it has caused to this small island.

A classic post of why drinking sea water is bad for forums! I never said anything of the sort, millions of Americans (with Irish ancestry) are perfectly fine law-abiding citizens, but with everything, there are also minorities who are anything but law-abiding, these same individuals should be extradited to the UK.

Humanitarian aid? I'm half Irish and Catholic...and even I know that is rubbish, I bet quite a few Muslims refer to it as 'humanitarian aid' when the money 'accidentally' turns up in the coffers of Hamas, al-Qaeda, etc...

The courts went both ways, as your article illustrates, one of the most notorious acts was committed by Loyalists on Catholics, you word your post as if it was a one way struggle, when clearly it wasn't. They were a necessary evil at a time when the area was engulfed in violence, it was that or enforcing a division with walls, eg Palestine. The right decision was made.

You don't keep up with Irish affairs do you? Sinn Féin lost a seat in the 30th (2007) Dáil elections, and while 4 seats might sound impressive, its around 2% of the entire chamber, meanwhile Sinn Féin has 1 seat (of a possible 60) in the Seanad. Also the reason why they went from 1-5-4 votes is nothing to do with the IRA (thats been a dead horse for 10 years now, the real issue was the Real IRA), but the socialist agenda that they espouse.

You don't read my posts, you don't even know what you're talking about and you're telling a country to hang its head in shame for the actions of some psychopath 400 years ago? Islamic fundamentalists use the exact same reasons for committing murder when they talk about the West and the Crusades. That doesn't resolve problems, it only shifts the blame and distorts solutions to making peace, its a core reason behind 11th September.

[v74ClzKY]

there are also minorities who are anything but law-abiding, these same individuals should be extradited to the UK.

A Statement in Opposition to the Ratification of the Proposed Extradition Treaty Between the United States and the United Kingdom (31 March 2003). Unfortunately, but predictably, his wise words were not listened to!

by Professor Francis A. Boyle
Before the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
United States Senate

21 July 2006


The United States of America was founded by means of a Declaration of
Independence and a Revolutionary War fought against the British Monarchy.
But under the terms of this proposed Extradition Treaty, our Founding
Fathers and Mothers such as John Hancock, George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, James and Dolly Madison would be extradited to the British
Monarchy for prosecution and persecution for the very revolutionary
activities that founded the United States of America itself.

Because of this American legacy of revolution against British Tyranny, we,
americans, have always been wary of efforts by foreign powers to transport
Americans and foreigners for prosecution abroad. In the Declaration of
Independence, one of the specific complaints against British Tyranny made by
Thomas Jefferson was directed at the British outrage of "transporting us
beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences." Such is the case for this
Treaty!

For that reason, several episodes in the early history of our Republic, such
as that of Citizen Genet under Thomas Jefferson, laid the foundation for the
uniquely American notion of the "political offense exception" to
extradition. Today, this bedrock principle of American Justice is now under
assault by means of this Treaty. Although it pays lip-service to the
political offense exception, the Treaty effectively eliminates it for all
practical purposes.

The political offense exception is eliminated for any offense allegedly
involving violence or weapons, including any solicitation, conspiracy, or
attempt to commit such crimes. As we Irish Americans have repeatedly seen
in Chicago, Florida, New York, and elsewhere, undercover government agents
infiltrate peaceful Irish American groups, suggest criminal activity to
them, and then falsely claim that innocent members of these groups agreed
with their suggestions. That is all it takes for a conspiracy to be
extraditable under this Treaty. Even worse, all it would take for any of
the people in this room to get extradited under this Treaty is a false
allegation from the British Monarchy that one of its spies overheard them
say something reckless about weapons or the armed struggle in Ireland.

In addition, this Treaty wipes out a number of constitutional and procedural
safeguards. It eliminates any statute of limitations, eliminates the need
for any showing of probable cause, permits indefinite preventive detention,
applies retroactively to offenses allegedly committed before the Treaty's
ratification, eliminates the time-honored Rule of Specialty in all but name,
allows for the unconstitutional seizure of assets, and permits extradition
under Article 2(4) for conduct that is perfectly lawful in the United
States. This Treaty retroactively criminalizes perfectly lawful conduct in
violation of the constitutional prohibition on Ex Post Facto laws set forth
in Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution as well as the basic
principle of public international law and human rights - no crime without
law, no punishment without law.

Most outrageously, under this Treaty, responsibility for determining whether
a prosecution is politically motivated is transferred from the U.S. Federal
Courts to the executive branch of government. This means that instead of
having your day in court before a neutral Federal Judge you will be required
to rely on the not-so-tender mercies of the Department of State, which
historically has always been studently pro-British, anti-Irish, and against
Irish Americans and Irish America. There are now over twenty million Irish
American Citizens, Voters, and Taxpayers, and we all especially like to
vote.

As the current U.S. Irish deportation cases show, Britain can easily return
Irish and British citizens to Britain. So why is the British Monarchy now
trying now to shift the extradition decision from the U.S. Federal Courts to
the State Department? Because you cannot deport a U.S. citizen. A U.S.
citizen has to be extradited. Article 3 of the proposed Treaty makes it
crystal clear that the British Monarchy wants to target Irish American
Citizens for persecution in Crown courts, which have a long history of
perpetrating legal atrocities against innocent Irish People. That is
precisely why the U.S. Senate deliberately put the so-called Rule of Inquiry
by a U.S. Federal Judge into Article 3 of the 1986 Supplementary Extradition
Treaty with Britain. This proposed Treaty eliminates the Senate's
well-grounded Rule of Inquiry. This Treaty has been designed by the British
government to overturn and reverse the delicately crafted constitutional and
human rights guarantees that were deliberately built into the 1986
Supplementary Extradition Treaty by the U.S. Senate.

Furthermore, unlike Article VIIIbis of the proposed Extradition Protocol
with Israel, for some mysterious reason Article 6 of the Extradition Treaty
with the British Monarchy eliminates any statute of limitations
requirements. So citizens of Israel get to benefit from a statute of
limitations, but we Irish American Citizens of the United States do not.
Why?

The answer becomes quite clear in Article 2(2) and Article 4(2)(g) of the
Extradition Treaty which renders extraditable an accessory after the fact to
an extraditable offense. Since there are no statute of limitations
requirements and the proposed Treaty is retroactive, any Irish American
Citizen who provided assistance to Joe Doherty would today be extraditable
under this Treaty as an accessory after the fact to Mr. Doherty. Such Irish
American Doherty supporters would be provisionally arrested and indefinitely
detained, and have their homes, businesses, cars, and other property seized,
sold and surrendered to the British Monarchy.

That is the real agenda behind this Extradition Treaty: British retaliation
against Irish American Citizens Voters and Taxpayers because of our near
universal support for Joe Doherty and other I.R.A. soldiers who fled to the
United States seeking refuge from fighting their own revolution against
British Tyranny in Ireland since the Proclamation of the Irish Republic on
Easter Sunday 1916. Just like America's founders did on July 4, 1776.

The British Monarchy has continued to maintain a colonial military
occupation regime consisting in part of about 15,000 soldiers in the six
northeast counties of Ireland in gross violation of the right of the Irish
People to self-determination under international law, including Article I(1)
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which the
United States, the Republic of Ireland, and the British Monarchy are all
contracting parties. These historical facts provide proof-positive of
precisely why this Treaty with the British Monarchy must be treated
completely differently from any other extradition treaty that the United
States might have with any other country in the world. All of these other
modern extradition treaties are inapposite to this proposed Extradition
Treaty because the British Monarchy obstinately continues illegally to
occupy Ireland militarily and to maintain a colony there in blatant
violation of the United Nations' seminal Decolonization Resolution of 1960.

Finally, this Extradition Treaty with the British Monarchy must stand alone
and apart from all other modern U.S. extradition treaties precisely because
we Americans fought a bitter Revolutionary War against the British Monarchy
to found this Republic. We Americans did not fight a Revolutionary War
against any other state in the world. So it is axiomatic that this proposed
Treaty with the British Monarchy must be quite carefully distinguished from
all of our extradition treaties with every other country in the world -- and
soundly rejected! Thank you. Humanitarian aid? I'm half Irish and Catholic...and even I know that is rubbish, Half-Irish & Catholic, so what? Does that make you an expert on all things Irish or Catholic? I think not Nicky boy! It doesn't even make you half-knowledgeable in my book!
NorAid, the primary Irish-American charity supporting the families of those imprisoned without trial in the concentration camps in Northern Ireland, was a registered charity under US law and as such was closely monitored by US authorities, no prosecutions were ever made, so if I were you I'd stop trying to infer something that you have no evidence of.

you're telling a country to hang its head in shame for the actions of some psychopath 400 years ago? To reduce the British repression of the Irish to a single individual's act 400 years ago indicates to me that you know nothing about Irish history! The repression and cruelty has lasted many centuries right up to recent times, and the mere fact that so many Irish emigrated to the US, (and elsewhere), during the 1800's provides a clue as to British policy towards Ireland and its people. You knowledge of Irish history is lamentable Nicky boy, may I suggest youcontact your local college and enrol in evening classes on a catch-up course in Irish history to bring you up to speed. Just trying to be constructively helpful old chap.

[IACJdKfU]

The Natwest 3 had to be dragged kicking and screaming. Only when they realized they had to face the music did they actually start acting decently.

They were simply dishonest. That and utterly the most blatantly arrogant criminals Ive seen in the media or irl in the last 10 years.