Monday, 27 February 2012

The not so special relationship

Last week this blog had a posting regarding the then imminent unfair extradition of Christopher Tappin to the USA, based on what looks some very unsound evidence, as you can see in the posting below. At the time of this posting Christopher Tappin has been hauled off to the USA, forced to dress in a bright orange prison jump suit and manacled. He now awaits an uncertain future.

Although this fiasco was put in place by Tony Blair during his disastrous time as our hard Labour Prime Minister, Christopher Tappin now firmly and squarely blames his plight on the Conservative Party and its useless, two faced, lying Prime Minister, David (don't trust my promises) Cameron. Nigel Farage of UKIP has spoken out in defence of Christopher Tappin.


Edward Spalton said...

It used to be a legal principle that you could not be extradited from Britain for something that was not a crime here. The EU arrest warrant overrode that. A British historian who disagrees with the French interpretation of history could be extradited to France for denying the massacre of Armenians by the Turkish empire in 1915. (They just passed the law!)

I am not sure whether supplying Iran with arms was a crime here at the time of the alleged offence. Of course, the Americans refused to extradite suppliers of arms to the IRA years ago.
Has that changed?

Illicit arms trading is a serious matter and is often conducted by people of outward-seeming respectability who are real "merchants of death". We do not know the strength of the case against this man. There used to be a fairly high standard for prima facie evidence. We have no reason to trust the fairness of our own courts now because they are the servants of foreign courts.

Before the EAW, the Germans wanted an IRA suspect called Roisin McALiskey. She was being bundled off without regard for her rights. The late Norris McWhirter intervened. He said the law's protections were for everyone. The fact that Norris's twin brother Ross had been murdered by the IRA did not weigh with him. That is a standard of principle and probity which would be hard to find now whether in politicians, judges or police.

Anne Palmer said...

I have no idea which Extradition Treaty has been used in this case because there is more than one. However, I am aware that in the House of Lords on 18th June 2003 (GC 287) The House of Lords were to debate that day an Extradition Bill yet they were made aware that an EU-US Extradition Agreement/Treaty had been made without any debate in either House of our once wonderful Houses of Parliament.

In fact in the sitting of Tuesday 1,3 June 2003 Antonio Vitorino was telling the EU Parliament "This assessment has to be made taking due account of the fact that this is, as the president mentioned, the very first Union agreement in the field of Justice and home Affairs, and it will be an historical precedent."

I ask, what is the point in voting and paying for a Government for this Country when Extradition Treaties can be made without any debate in our House of Commons. This man has been sent to a country where the Death Penalty still applies.

Our Government could not even STOP the EU from making this Extradition Agreement on our behalf and it was made whether we liked it or not. Too many Treaties have been signed on our behalf and will continue to be so until the people realise that there is no point in having a national Government, but just the EU REGIONS that have just been set up through the Localism Bill. But then PERHAPS THAT IS WHAT THE EU WANTS WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE?