Holy shit! Think I will have to cancel that trip to Cuba.

US says it has right to kidnap British citizens.

If the link doesn’t work for you try going to http://www.timesonline.co.uk and look up the story from there.

This just blows me away. It is possible I am making to much of the story, but still the implications seem extreme.

David Leppard

AMERICA has told Britain that it can “kidnap” British citizens if they are wanted for crimes 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.

The admission will alarm the British business community after the case of the so-called NatWest Three, bankers who were extradited to America on fraud charges. More than a dozen other British executives, including senior managers at British Airways and BAE Systems, are under investigation by the US authorities and could face criminal charges in America.

Until now it was commonly assumed that US law permitted kidnapping only in the “extraordinary rendition” of terrorist suspects.

The American government has for the first time made it clear in a British court that the law applies to anyone, British or otherwise, suspected of a crime by Washington.

Legal experts confirmed this weekend that America viewed extradition as just one way of getting foreign suspects back to face trial. 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 a 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 the 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 1860s.”

Mr Justice Ouseley, a second judge, challenged Jones to be “honest about [his] position”.

Jones replied: “That is United States law.”

He cited the case of Humberto Alvarez Machain, a suspect who was abducted by the US government at his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, in 1990. He was flown by Drug Enforcement Administration agents to Texas for criminal prosecution.

Although there was an extradition treaty in place between America and Mexico at the time — as there currently is between the United States and Britain — the Supreme Court ruled in 1992 that the Mexican had no legal remedy because of his abduction.

In 2005, Gavin Tollman, the head of Trafalgar Tours, a holiday company, had arrived in Toronto by plane when he was arrested by Canadian immigration authorities.

An American prosecutor, who had tried and failed to extradite him from Britain, persuaded Canadian officials to detain him. He wanted the Canadians to drive Tollman to the border to be handed over. Tollman was escorted in handcuffs from the aircraft in Toronto, taken to prison and held for 10 days.

A Canadian judge ordered his release, ruling that the US Justice Department had set a “sinister trap” and wrongly bypassed extradition rules. Tollman returned to Britain.

Legal sources said that under traditional American justice, rendition meant capturing wanted people abroad and bringing them to the United States. The term “extraordinary rendition” was coined in the 1990s for the kidnapping of terror suspects from one foreign country to another for interrogation.

There was concern this weekend from Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP, who said: “The very idea of kidnapping is repugnant to us and we must handle these cases with extreme caution and a thorough understanding of the implications in American 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.

Now that is journalism!

A recent BBC article titled Fox News ‘propaganda’ says mogul, has Ted Turner commenting on the Fox News network.

“There’s one network, Fox, that’s a propaganda voice for them,” the 66-year-old media mogul said.

“It’s certainly legal. But it does pose problems for our democracy when the news is ‘dumbed-down’.”

Not to have their good name bashed, Fox News, maintaing their journalistic integrity, responded by saying:

“Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind – we wish him well.”

Arguably, one could say that it is up to the individual to keep themselves informed, so that they might be an effective member of the democratic system. However it is sad, when the major voice in America chooses not to keep the public informed, by only reporting half the story.

A lie of omission is still a lie.

Use of force

Taken from ABC news online

Police Taser Children
MIAMI-November 14, 2004 — Miami-Dade police have acknowledged using a stun gun on a second youngster. It comes just weeks after an officer subdued a 55-pound first-grader with a 50,000-volt shock.

In the second instance, a 15-year-veteran officer used his Taser to immobilize a 12-year-old girl who was playing hooky from school.

Police Director Bobby Parker says he can’t defend the decision to shock the girl on November fifth. But Parker says the use of the Taser was justified in shocking a six-year-old boy October 20th because the boy was holding a piece of glass and threatening to hurt himself.

Parker says the department will review its policy on the use of the weapons.

(Copyright 2004 by the Associated Press. All rights reserved.) 

Quite a disturbing story (I purposely avoided the use of shocking). Maybe these officers lack proper training or guidelines on the proper use of force. However, I can not even begin to understand how any police officer could justify the use of taser on 12 year old unarmed girl nevermind a 6 year old boy. Something is wrong with the system.