US says it has right to kidnap British citizens

[grandpa]

Quote by: Praxius Simple, for security reasons and the protection of citizens, refuse any entry of law enforcement from said country unless proper information is provided. If someone is kidnapped during this process or during the period of the ban of law enforcement (Or whatever forces they plan on sending over) Then this would be either be proclaimed as a terrorist attack/act or a direct threat to national security and peace of the citizens in which the government is sworn to protect from outside invaders.

But any discussion will be skewed to the US angle, the ones who likely won't take "no" for an answer.

Grandpa h.

[Osborn F Enready]

Claims are meaningless unless supported by fact.

There are facts in any case that is legitimate. If those facts are legitimate, a nation will comply, especially if there is chance of those facts bearing public scrutiny among many nations in the attempts to get custody for trial.

There is no justice in any one authority that would justify having blanket authority to kidnap at whim.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval As expected...you believe bringing people to justice in the US is the same as terrorists kiddnapping COMPLETELY INNOCENT people and cutting their heads off. Nice.

Oh yeah.... twist the definition to suit your needs... you'd make a great Republican.

It doesn't matter what kind of way you nit pick your kidnappings, it's still kidnapping and by I think in just about everybody's laws around the world, Kidnapping isn't legal, as it is forcibly taking and holding someone against their will, regardless of your intentions.

And as expected, no, that's not the same as being arrested. And no.... your police officers and officials have no jurisdiction beyond your own borders, therefore even if they wanted to claim they were under arrest, they have no legal authority within another sovrign nation's borders to place anybody under arrest.... plain and simple..... which is why you get the country in question to co-operated.

It's not hard to grasp.

[Praxius]

Quote by: grandpa But any discussion will be skewed to the US angle, the ones who likely won't take "no" for an answer. Grandpa h.

I personally don't care what angle the US would wish to skew it, I state how it is and that's it.... the credibility of the US and how much power they have to skew things has just recently gone down the drain, and the US isn't the only country which has news, media and interviews of other leaders.... democracy is about the people choosing what is right and what is wrong, and if they want me to protect them from other countries form just snatching them up, regardless if they broke laws or not.... they are still citizens under my protection and diserve equal treatment as such.

If they broke the laws in another nation and they requested that they face the charges, They would have to prove there is a ligit case and that the crime is valued as serious enough to be extrodited to their custody.

And I believe Dieval tried to point out a difference between kidnapping innocent people and kidnapping guilty people...... Last I checked, Innocent Until Proven Guilty still holds true, and the decision would be based on the case and evidence provided.

I don't care who thinks who is guilty of what.... you don't let a group go and kidnap someone based on their own asumptions and try and seek vigilante justice.... which this is..... Global Vigilante Justice.. whereby the US doesn't have faith in it's allies and neighboring nations that they feel they need to cross into their borders and take those people as they see fit and put them under their own personal trial, while they were under the responsibility and care of another nation.

It's the exact same thing as a mob breaking into a jail, dragging someone out they felt was guilty and beating the snot out of them. They were under the care of the police who were going to try them in the court of justice..... this is quite similar in comparison.

I see no logic in permitting this sort of thing... esspecially towards your own allies. It's straight out pathetic. Follow the existing proceedures because I haven't heard any complaints before.

[Matt W]

Quote by: Dieval Good answer....for arguements sake, lets say they don't budge and still won't extradite. What now? That would be a good way to go, but what if you can't provide all the evidence until he's back in the states... what do you do? As expected...you believe bringing people to justice in the US is the same as terrorists kiddnapping COMPLETELY INNOCENT people and cutting their heads off. Nice.

Perhaps you have a little faith in our justice system and respect for your closest allies and let it slide? Or would that be too much to ask?

As it is, we have already extradited people due to a treaty signed with the US, who had yet to actually implement it into law at the time, which I find ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, a treaty isn't valid unless put into law by both parties - yet we bend over backwards to make you happy.

We aren't your subjects, Dieval, and the whole world isn't your hunting ground. Ask yourself what you would do and think if it was MI5 calmly stating that no American citizen was safe from British justice?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Matt W Perhaps you have a little faith in our justice system and respect for your closest allies and let it slide? Or would that be too much to ask? As it is, we have already extradited people due to a treaty signed with the US, who had yet to actually implement it into law at the time, which I find ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, a treaty isn't valid unless put into law by both parties - yet we bend over backwards to make you happy. We aren't your subjects, Dieval, and the whole world isn't your hunting ground. Ask yourself what you would do and think if it was MI5 calmly stating that no American citizen was safe from British justice?

I never said one way or the other what my feelings are on this. I just tried to point out that there may be cases that come up where justice is not served and extraordinary measures might be warranted.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius Oh yeah.... twist the definition to suit your needs...

How many times has the US taken hostages and cut off their heads?? Please, answer.
Now how many times have real terrorists taken hostages and cut their heads off? You'll notice that the numbers aren't equal. Equating the US to terrorists is completely invalid.

Quote by: Praxius you'd make a great Republican.

ROFL Nice insult..hahaha

[Praxius]

Quote by: Matt W Perhaps you have a little faith in our justice system and respect for your closest allies and let it slide? Or would that be too much to ask? As it is, we have already extradited people due to a treaty signed with the US, who had yet to actually implement it into law at the time, which I find ridiculous. As far as I'm concerned, a treaty isn't valid unless put into law by both parties - yet we bend over backwards to make you happy. We aren't your subjects, Dieval, and the whole world isn't your hunting ground. Ask yourself what you would do and think if it was MI5 calmly stating that no American citizen was safe from British justice?

Agreed... if this is how the US wants to treat other sovrign nations, including their own allies, then every other country in the world should have the same right to start hunting down any US citizen they want.

Now wouldn't that be fun? All of us will still seek proper extridition proceedures with one another, but the US will be free game for the rest of the world to go and kidnap right off their streets.

I'm sure that would produce quite the headache for national security in the US if they had to worry about every country prying into the nation to take who they please. Absolute chaos would ensue in the US if this was to occur..... but they would only have themselves to blame.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval How many times has the US taken hostages and cut off their heads?? Please, answer. Now how many times have real terrorists taken hostages and cut their heads off? You'll notice that the numbers aren't equal. Equating the US to terrorists is completely invalid.

If you keep with your limited and ignorant view on what a terrorist is and what hostage taking you plan on sticking to as your defense, although foolish as it sounds and looks.

Hostage taking occurs in bank robberies, extremist organizations, protests, family disputes, none of them are condoned by anybody as legal and acceptable practices, so I don't see where you find any sense in trying to justify the same actions by your own govermment.

But I also suppose you're all for torture and indefinate detention in squallid conditions for those you guys assume are bad guys, or guilty (Even though innocent until proven guilty still holds true)

We all know how great that US Intelligence is these days, I'll be damned if I'd allow your country to cross into my borders to capture/kidnap whoever you please based on your country's half assed intelligence.

There is no excuse to kidnap, I don't care if you plan on killing anybody or not... kidnapping is still kidnapping ffs and it's illegal.

ROFL Nice insult..hahaha

I wondered if you'd try and take that as an insult.... heck if you feel that's an insult by being labeled to a political party in your own nation, that's your concern not mine.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Praxius If you keep with your limited and ignorant view on what a terrorist is and what hostage taking you plan on sticking to as your defense, although foolish as it sounds and looks. Hostage taking occurs in bank robberies, extremist organizations, protests, family disputes, none of them are condoned by anybody as legal and acceptable practices, so I don't see where you find any sense in trying to justify the same actions by your own govermment.

You don't see any differences between bringing someone to justice and using them in a bank robbery, as an extremist tool, in protests, or family disputes??

Quote by: Praxius But I also suppose you're all for torture and indefinate detention in squallid conditions for those you guys assume are bad guys, or guilty (Even though innocent until proven guilty still holds true)

I smell herring..maybe, red herring?

Quote by: Praxius We all know how great that US Intelligence is these days, I'll be damned if I'd allow your country to cross into my borders to capture/kidnap whoever you please based on your country's half assed intelligence.

So you protect your borders now?
Yeah, we all know how bad our intel is, according to you...yet your conclusions don't match with what the truth is, such as the example you made in another thread about the Nuristan air strike in Afghanistan...completely false acusations on your part.

Quote by: Praxius I wondered if you'd try and take that as an insult.... heck if you feel that's an insult by being labeled to a political party in your own nation, that's your concern not mine.

It was obviously meant to be an insult or you wouldn't have mentioned it. Yet another lame insult on your part.

[Matt W]

Will you two stop your bickering and debate, please?

Dieval: in all seriousness - if any of those nations you considered your allies - the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, etc - said they had the right - and the ability - to kidnap US citizens on US soil - what would be your response, exactly?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Matt W Will you two stop your bickering and debate, please? Dieval: in all seriousness - if any of those nations you considered your allies - the UK, France, Germany, Japan, Israel, etc - said they had the right - and the ability - to kidnap US citizens on US soil - what would be your response, exactly?

In all fairness, this article is very misleading. The US won't expend the time or energy needed to pick up just anyone from the UK(or any ally), unless they did something SERIOUSLY wrong or were considered a huge threat. It's not like we're bringing people back to the US for jay walking.

Humberto Álvarez Machaín was involved in the 1985 kidnapping, torture, and murder of DEA agent Enrique Camarena Salazar by "prolonging Agent Camarena's life so that others could further torture and interrogate him."

Gavin Tollman was wanted for evading taxes on $29 million dollars as well as a $100 million bank fraud scheme....

As to your question, if some other country had said that in regards to the US, I wouldn't like it very much...But, ask yourself who is being targeted by this statement... Any of the countries you listed above wouldn't put in the time or effort to bring back just ANY citizens from the US. They would have to have done something extraordinary to be such a target, just like the US.

[Praxius]

Quote by: Dieval You don't see any differences between bringing someone to justice and using them in a bank robbery, as an extremist tool, in protests, or family disputes??

Kidnapping - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kidnapping, a word derived from kid, meaning child and nap (nab) meaning snatch, recorded since 1673, was originally used as a term for the practice of stealing children for use as servants or laborers in the American colonies. It has come to mean any illegal capture or detention of a person or people against their will, regardless of age. Since 1768 the term abduction was also used in this sense.

Seems as though you guys invented Kidnapping, now you guys wish to change what it means to suit your needs.

Do I see a difference between the above examples? No.... they are all kidnapping.

So you protect your borders now?

Seriously, Give It Up.

Yeah, we all know how bad our intel is, according to you...yet your conclusions don't match with what the truth is, such as the example you made in another thread about the Nuristan air strike in Afghanistan...completely false acusations on your part.

I think you're having issues with reality, as I already explained my case in that debate and debunked your link's information..... Stick to the topic at hand and don't carry other arguments into the equation.... follow the rules for once in your life.

It was obviously meant to be an insult or you wouldn't have mentioned it. Yet another lame insult on your part.

Good, get over it then and actually respond to comments and actual points which relate to the debate for once, rather then trying to side track with trivial points........

.....pretty please with chocolate sprinkles on top.

[Matt W]

Prax, that meant you too. Drop it.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

Dieval: The US has already kidnapped people from Italy - 2/3 years ago? I'll have to dig around to find the source. I can't recall if said kidnapee was actually brought back to the US for trial or detained in a 3rd country - I'll have to look around for the details. As it was, the Italians weren't particularly impressed, either.

This sort of thing isolates the US significantly. Damaging your alliances is perhaps the worst PR you could have for yourselves.

[Dieval]

Quote by: Matt W Dieval: The US has already kidnapped people from Italy - 2/3 years ago? I'll have to dig around to find the source. I can't recall if said kidnapee was actually brought back to the US for trial or detained in a 3rd country - I'll have to look around for the details. As it was, the Italians weren't particularly impressed, either. This sort of thing isolates the US significantly. Damaging your alliances is perhaps the worst PR you could have for yourselves.

Was his crime on par with the examples I listed?

[Milton Bradley]

Why aren't our allies helping with extradition cases like these?


Since they are not, can we infer that this behavior is sanctioned?

[Dieval]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Why aren't our allies helping with extradition cases like these?

I would like to know as well. Extradition ought to be the way things like this our done.

[jose]

ROME, Feb. 16 — An Italian judge today ordered the first trial involving the American program of kidnapping terror suspects on foreign soil, indicting 26 Americans, most of them C.I.A. agents, but also Italy’s former top spy. The indictments covered the episode in which a radical Egyptian cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, who disappeared near his mosque in Milan on Feb. 17, 2003, says he was kidnapped. The cleric, known as Abu Omar, was freed this week from jail in Egypt, where he says he was taken and then tortured.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/16/wo...=1&oref=slogin

Spanish court orders arrest of US soldiers for war crime

The judge stressed that the warrant was required because of the total refusal of Washington to cooperate in the Spanish investigation into the killing. Ordering their arrest, he said, “is the only effective measure to ensure the presence of the suspects in the case being handled by Spanish justice, given the lack of judicial cooperation by US authorities.”

Spanish court orders arrest of US soldiers for war crime Warrant issued in killing of cameraman José Couso

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

It would be reasonable to presume that failure to convince a UK court of evidence against the suspect means that the US should be more thorough.

Their failure in following due process and securing the person by rendition should be looked upon as a terrorist act and those involved in the kidnap tried accordingly including the persons sponsoring and issuing the warrant through the US judicial system.