Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US Considers Extradition Concessions
Associated Press ^ | Dec 1, 2001 | CHRISTOPHER NEWTON

Posted on 12/01/2001 9:54:03 AM PST by CommiesOut

US Considers Extradition Concessions

By CHRISTOPHER NEWTON : Associated Press Writer

Dec 1, 2001 : 1:26 pm ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- In select cases, the Bush administration is considering making concessions on both the death penalty and the use of military tribunals to gain custody of suspected terrorists held in Europe, a senior U.S. official said.

It is the first indication that the United States might be willing to negotiate with other countries on how suspected terrorists will be tried.

England, Italy, Germany and Spain all hold suspected members of Osama bin Laden's terrorist organization, al-Qaida. Those nations condemn the death penalty and have signed a 1950s-era treaty that bans extradition to states where the death penalty might be used.

The treaty also contains language that some legal experts believe prohibits military trials.

Spain has already refused to extradite eight suspected terrorists.

"There is an effort to look at what things we might offer that would better provide for the extradition of suspects from Europe," said the U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"Each case will be negotiated individually, but it is possible that concessions will be made (on) how the suspects will be tried or punished."

One possibility is putting civilians in key positions on military tribunals, the official said. Another is allowing suspects to select counsel -- instead of having an assigned advocate.

The administration also is considering making a promise not to execute suspects who are not directly associated with the Sept. 11 attacks, the official said.

Officially, the White House declined comment and said the rules for tribunals are still being worked out.

The discussion of ways to make extradition more palatable is in recognition of the legal snares and moral problems that European countries face in turning over suspects to the United States.

More than 40 nations have signed the European Convention on Human Rights, which condemns the death penalty. Secret hearings, fewer rights for the accused, and U.S. military officers as judge and jury could also be seen as violations of the treaty, said Guy De Vel, director general of legal affairs at the Council of Europe, which enforces the treaty.

Bush signed an order clearing the way for such a court last month.

International law experts say that without concessions, none of the suspects arrested abroad will be extradited.

"The countries of the European Union have been incredibly consistent in their refusal to turn over suspects that face the death penalty," said Diane Orentlicher, an international law professor at American University.

Using civilians in important roles on a military court probably would not change attitudes, some experts said.

"Even if you turn to a few former U.S. judges or prominent former lawyers, you have an appearance problem," said Mason Digby, a professor of international law at Ohio State. "It will still look as though the United States has rigged the trial to gain a desired outcome."

The United States has brokered deals with European nations before to get around opposition to the death penalty.

In 1998, the Justice Department gained custody of Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, bin Laden's suspected finance chief, by promising Germany he would not be executed. He is on trial in New York on charges of helping plot the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa.

U.S. authorities also agreed not to execute Jens Soering, a German national accused of killing his girlfriend's parents and then fleeing to London.

As it became clear that some suspects in the terrorist attacks had operated in Europe, Justice Department officials realized that extradition would be a problem.

In addition to objections to the death penalty and the military tribunal, Spain also has a law against extraditing suspects to countries where they might receive more than a 30-year sentence.

Possibly because of Spain's position, the United States has not yet requested the men's extradition.

"The death penalty and maximum sentences are issues which can be overcome by mutual assurances but the law covering special courts appears to be an unsurpassable obstacle in this case," said a Spanish justice ministry spokesman.

The United States will likely seek custody of other suspects abroad.

Mounir El Motassadeq, 27, a Moroccan arrested Wednesday in Germany, is suspected of bankrolling some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

U.S. authorities have asked Britain to extradite Algerian pilot Lotfi Raissi, accused of training the hijackers. Britain has yet to rule on the request.

But several legal experts said the United States has never asked for the extradition of suspects for trial before a military court.

Indeed, the State Department regularly criticizes nations that use military tribunals.

"The military courts are less independent than the civilian judiciary, as the judges and prosecutors are both part of the State's executive authority," says the State Department's Web site, referring to Egypt's use of military courts in the trial of suspects in a 1989 anti-government riot.



TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 12/01/2001 9:54:03 AM PST by CommiesOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madrussian; malarski; Askel5; GROUCHOTWO; Zviadist; kristinn; Free the USA; struwwelpeter...
circus bump
2 posted on 12/01/2001 9:54:32 AM PST by CommiesOut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In select cases, the Bush administration is considering making concessions on both the death penalty and the use of military tribunals to gain custody of suspected terrorists held in Europe, a senior U.S. official said.

All this is about is comment by a "senior" U.S official. It doesn't even mention "administration".

My bet this "senior" U.S offical is former Clinton Sec. of State, Warren Christopher.

This whole article is conjecture and comment by someone not connected to the current administration.

3 posted on 12/01/2001 10:04:29 AM PST by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dane
We should be very careful about making "concessions" on this. I spend a lot of time in Spain, and I can tell you that one of the reasons Spain still has trouble with ETA (Marxist Basque terrorist group that has destroyed the economy of the Basque Region and killed over 1,000 people in Spain in the last 20 years) is that they never punish them. Not only is there no death penalty, there's really no prison. These people - even terrorists with blood on their hands - stay in jail for a few years (usually near their friends, families and co-terrorists) and then come out and do exactly the same thing again. Some of them are even get to go home on weekends. Needless to say, this is no deterrent.

I think that we could make some distinctions: perhaps in the case of people where it can be clearly determined (by the United States, and not by the EU countries) that they do not have blood on their hands and perhaps were not really aware of what was going on, we could promise not to impose the death penalty. But in the case of the others, either we get to do what should be done to them - or they go back to the European countries that have been sheltering them.

I dearly love Spain, but if Spain is not willing to extradite those terrorists to us - so that we can deal with them and either kill them or put them away forever - then Spain should have to hold them in prison, under their lax and useless system. And they'll find out exactly how much fun that will be. ETA will look like kindergarten.

4 posted on 12/01/2001 12:02:46 PM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
Why do we concede instead of asking for a deal. Leave our soldiers alone and we will leave your terrorists "alone" (ie no death penalty for them in exchange for freeing our own soldiers).

Constitutional Rights Not Guaranteed to U.S. Troops Overseas

NewsMax.com
'); document.write(''); document.write(' Click here to visit our sponsor'); document.write('
focusIN Specialty Web Network'); //-->
Advertise Your Banner Here

December 01, 2001
Coming Collision: Military Tribunals vs. World Terrorism
 
Rosie to Campaign for Reno

'Al and Tipper's Country Cooking Diner' Not to Be

Ground Zero Firefighters Felled by Disabling Sickness, Weigh Lawsuit

Bush Trims Price of Clinton Haircut

Houston Mayor Stoops Even Lower Against Sanchez

GOP Stews at Dems' 'Shameful' Attack on Bush

Fanatics Can Pout: Santa Claus Is Coming to Town

Chef Al Gore Gives Hillary Head Seat at Presidential Table

DiGenova: Anti-terror Detainees Stay Secret by Choice

Bin Laden May Be Time's 'Man of the Year'

Jeffords and Lott Bury the Hatchet

More Inside Cover Stories


· War on Terrorism

· Bioterrorism

· Al-Qaeda

· Saddam Hussein/Iraq

· Homeland/Civil Defense

· Middle East

· Israel

· Media Bias

· Immigration/
Borders


· Bush Administration

· Clinton Scandals

· Health Issues

· Russia

· China/Taiwan

· Latin America

· United Nations

· Castro/Cuba

· North Korea

· Guns/Gun Control

· Missile Defense

· Great Speeches

· Sen. Hillary Clinton

· Janet Reno

· Elizabeth Dole

· California Governor's Race

· Panama Canal

· Hanssen Spy Case

· NewsMax.com Company News

· Cooled-off Hot Topics

Home · Columnists · Late-Night Jokes · Archives · Cartoons
 News Alerts · U.S. News Links · PriorityGrams · Int'l  News Links · MoneyNews
 Contact Us · NewsMax Store · Classifieds · Get Your Site Listed
Headline News
 
Constitutional Rights Not Guaranteed to U.S. Troops Overseas
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Nov. 28, 2001
Editor's note: This is part one of a series on justice in military tribunals.

"I’ve made my decision, and it is the right one,” President Bush said at a press conference this week. "I must have the option of using military tribunals.” The latest catalyst keeping the nettlesome issue alive: Spain’s reluctance to turn over terror suspects if their trials were held in the extraordinary wartime forums that provide no trial by jury and can be held in secret.

Criticism of the military tribunals for terrorists has come not only from heads of state, but from Congress, constitutional law eggheads and self-styled civil rights advocates. Bush insists that the tribunals are necessary to, among other things, protect American juries from tampering by the insidious terror network.

But military law experts also point to the irony that without the tribunals, terrorists would enjoy more rights than our own U.S. military men and women who run afoul of the law of a foreign country.

Hypothetical case in point: An American Marine stationed on the Japanese island of Okinawa shoplifts a small item from a store in Naha, the capital city. On the way out, the young son of the owners confronts the Marine. He makes the mistake of his life and shoves the boy out of his way, translating – under Japanese law – a simple misdemeanor into a serious felony robbery.

By one thoughtless act, the American serviceman has put himself in harm’s way of seven years confinement at hard labor in a Japanese prison.

What is more, the American military member must now run the gauntlet of the Japanese justice system that provides for no indictment by grand jury, no speedy trial, no trial by jury and no absolute right to confront and examine witnesses – all in the name of the exigencies of military service.

The Marine knew what he was in for if he violated the laws of the host country that retained "concurrent jurisdiction” over offenses occurring off post or involving citizens of the host country. Counseled on the rigors of the Status of Forces Agreement, or SOFA, he had accepted the proposition that part of the risk of his deployed service was the potential loss of key rights.

Whether in Japan, Germany, South Korea or elsewhere, American GIs are perennially caught in the SOFA trap and are subject to criminal justice systems alien to the defendant-friendly American judicial system. Like Japan, Germany, for instance, provides no juries to hear cases – only one judge or a panel of judges, depending upon the seriousness of the crime alleged.

The point the military law experts make in defending military tribunals is that terrorists, like our own military members serving in foreign climes, should assume the risk that some of their rights may be compromised.

Perhaps even more telling say some experts is the fact that if given the opportunity, the errant military member would most likely choose an American court-martial over trial in the foreign country.

As for our troops poised to fight the war on terrorism in places such as Uzbekistan, they too are potentially in harm’s way.

Originally, Uzbekistan, which is on the northern border of Afghanistan, demanded that the U.S. negotiate a complete Status of Forces Agreement before it permitted use of abandoned air bases, once used by the Soviet Union.

Such a complete SOFA would detail how exactly to handle crimes committed by Americans stationed there, as well a myriad of other details concerning movement of troops and vehicles through the country, reparations for property damage, etc.

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a special trip to the region to talk his way to a quick agreement with Uzbekistan to use the country as a staging area for American operations in Afghanistan. The hammering out of a complete SOFA with the country would have taken time the U.S. did not have.

In practical operation, however, the lack of an adequate SOFA could operate to the detriment of the American military personnel. At least with a complete treaty, the American trooper in trouble with the local authorities would know, for instance, if his pretrial confinement would be in an American military brig or the local lockup.

Bush’s executive order allowing for the tribunals defines broadly the "individuals subject to this order,” saying that they include people who have "aided or abetted” terrorists or aimed "to cause injury to the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy or economy.”

"It is not practicable,” the order says, to apply "the principles of law and the rules of evidence generally recognized in the trial of criminal cases” in the United States to these military trials.

Next: an explanation of the limited nature of the extraterritorial jurisdiction of U.S. federal courts, another dilemma that explains why the concept of military tribunals was created in the first place.

Also see: Special Forces Presence Could Present Legal Problems

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

War on Terrorism

A product that might interest you:
Have an Opinion About This? Send an URGENT PriorityGram Today

--> '); } // --> -->



Ruddy
Limbacher
Mike Savage:
FREE E-mails
George Putnam:
'One Reporter's Opinion'
Malzberg:
Sign Up for Steve's FREE E-mails!
Frisa :
Desperate Dems
Bill O'Reilly:
In the Magazine!
LeBoutillier:
Strange Disappearance
Hirsen
Perry:
Who's Next?
Michael Reagan:
In the Magazine!
Smith - CyberWar:
FBI-CIA Cyberspace Battle
Irvine:
Another Black Mark for Tenet
Limbaugh:
In the Magazine
Lunev:
Peculiar Friends
Farber
Boortz:
Hillary Does a.m. Shows
Alden
Gallagher:
Sign Up for Mike's FREE E-mails
Madison
Rohrabacher
Jack Wheeler
Lucom

Ivins
Novak
Elder
Irvine
Williams
Snow
Sowell
Cockburn
Chavez
Roberts
Weyrich
Bowles
Feder
Liebmann
Farrell
Brown
North
Bozell

More Columnists

E-Mail News Alerts

Sign-up for your FREE e-mail news alerts from NewsMax.com


Your e-mail address will be used for News Alerts only.
No spamming or sharing e-mail address with others.


NewsMax Store
News & Political Products

Magazines
All at super discounts!

swissamerica.com
Click Here

America at War banner
Click Here

goldline.com
Click Here

eteamfirm.com
Click Here

Home · Contact Us · Financial News · Late Night Jokes ·  Article Archives · Employment Ops.

NewsMax.com Privacy Statement

All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com

5 posted on 12/01/2001 2:01:20 PM PST by lavaroise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CommiesOut
It would be interesting to know who gave Bush this advice. Here we are with $60 billion/year spent for intelligence and some bozos are afraid that there will not be enough evidence to convict.
6 posted on 12/01/2001 2:13:13 PM PST by GROUCHOTWO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson