US Double standards on extradition and terror - warning. Political thread.

[oggbashan]

The Times reports today:

Here

The US has not ratified its side of a joint treaty on extradition with the UK although it is using the treaty for purposes for which it was not intended.

For years, the US had allowed overt fund-raising for the IRA even though it recognised that the IRA was a terrorist organisation. The IRA killed innocent people throughout the UK for years while US citizens funded their organisation. Is Irish terrorism different from other terrorism and acceptable? Now Irish sympathies appear to be blocking ratification of a treaty designed to allow terror suspects to be extradited between Britain and the US.

Does the US senate only recognise terrorists that wear Middle Eastern clothing? Does it protect sex offenders?

Extraditing someone for ATTEMPTING to bribe a US politician is seen as important, yet sex offences are not.

How can one be accused of 'attempting to bribe a US politician'? I would have thought it impossible to 'attempt'... Or am I just being cynical?

What have we done to the US that we are regarded as an unsuitable country to extradite to, while other countries are allowed?

This is not helping the US's image in the UK. Why should we cooperate with the US on anything in future when this treaty is used in such a one-sided way?

Og

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You don't understand. Og.

I. When the US is dealing with rebels against a government we support, they're terrorists.

II. When we're dealing with rebels against a government we don't like, they're Freedom Fighters

A corollary to I. says that if the terrorists are represented by a sizeable block of US voters, than the whole situation is pretty much ignored as much as possible, and hidden by a lot of flag waving and grand language. The truly important thing is to guard the self-serving hypocricy that's behind most pronouncements of Noble Principle.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

The Times reports today:

Here

The US has not ratified its side of a joint treaty on extradition with the UK although it is using the treaty for purposes for which it was not intended.

For years, the US had allowed overt fund-raising for the IRA even though it recognised that the IRA was a terrorist organisation. The IRA killed innocent people throughout the UK for years while US citizens funded their organisation. Is Irish terrorism different from other terrorism and acceptable? Now Irish sympathies appear to be blocking ratification of a treaty designed to allow terror suspects to be extradited between Britain and the US.

Does the US senate only recognise terrorists that wear Middle Eastern clothing? Does it protect sex offenders?

Extraditing someone for ATTEMPTING to bribe a US politician is seen as important, yet sex offences are not.

How can one be accused of 'attempting to bribe a US politician'? I would have thought it impossible to 'attempt'... Or am I just being cynical?

What have we done to the US that we are regarded as an unsuitable country to extradite to, while other countries are allowed?

This is not helping the US's image in the UK. Why should we cooperate with the US on anything in future when this treaty is used in such a one-sided way?

Og

I believe the difference is that the IRA-terrorists are white. Hence, they aren't really terrorists, they are "freedom fighters".

 

[R. Richard]

Og:
There is a sizeable Irish population in the US, particularly in the East coast. They vote, therefore they are.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm going to go outon alimb here, but I think the current administration is making a real effort to piss off every one of our traditional allies. I'm not sure what the purpose is behind it, but it does seem to be deliberate.

Turkey, for example, has been a strong ally for a long time. We have prettty much shit all over them, for no reason I can see. We've antagonized Japan, the UK, Germany. Again, no reason I can see.

It's almost as if the current administration is laying the ground work for making unilateral military action, the only option we will have left avialable to us.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do have a pretty strong idea of the history involved and of which contries have been longstanding allies. Pakistan is a damned poor replacement for Turkey. there is no replacement for the UK.

I'm not sure if I'm more comfortable with collosal incompetance or a boneheaded plan.

 

[matriarch]

I'm going to go outon alimb here, but I think the current administration is making a real effort to piss off every one of our traditional allies. I'm not sure what the purpose is behind it, but it does seem to be deliberate.

Turkey, for example, has been a strong ally for a long time. We have prettty much shit all over them, for no reason I can see. We've antagonized Japan, the UK, Germany. Again, no reason I can see.

It's almost as if the current administration is laying the ground work for making unilateral military action, the only option we will have left avialable to us.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do have a pretty strong idea of the history involved and of which contries have been longstanding allies. Pakistan is a damned poor replacement for Turkey. there is no replacement for the UK.

I'm not sure if I'm more comfortable with collosal incompetance or a boneheaded plan.

They've also seriously pissed off Pakistan, for signing a nuclear agreement with India, involving the sefl-same terms that they refused to sign with Pakistan.

Interesting.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

They've also seriously pissed off Pakistan, for signing a nuclear agreement with India, involving the sefl-same terms that they refused to sign with Pakistan.

Interesting.

Taken as a whole, it does give some creedence to the "Project for the New American Centruy" conspiracy buffs.

 

[rgraham666]

I'm going to go outon alimb here, but I think the current administration is making a real effort to piss off every one of our traditional allies. I'm not sure what the purpose is behind it, but it does seem to be deliberate.

Turkey, for example, has been a strong ally for a long time. We have prettty much shit all over them, for no reason I can see. We've antagonized Japan, the UK, Germany. Again, no reason I can see.

It's almost as if the current administration is laying the ground work for making unilateral military action, the only option we will have left avialable to us.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but I do have a pretty strong idea of the history involved and of which contries have been longstanding allies. Pakistan is a damned poor replacement for Turkey. there is no replacement for the UK.

I'm not sure if I'm more comfortable with collosal incompetance or a boneheaded plan.

See if you can find a copy of the book Future: Tense by Gwynne Dyer, Colleen.

According to him it is a plan. The neo-cons in the administration regard the U.S. as 'the essential nation'. So they see no reason to play nice.

There's also a concise history of the Islamists in that book. And it draws out how similar the Islamists and the neo-cons are, and how they're playing into each other's hands.

According to Mr. Dyer, we're returning to the way things were before WWI, where there was a complex and fragile set of alliances between Great Powers. And no international law. We remember how that turned out, don't we?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

See if you can find a copy of the book Future: Tense by Gwynne Dyer, Colleen.

According to him it is a plan. The neo-cons in the administration regard the U.S. as 'the essential nation'. So they see no reason to play nice.

There's also a concise history of the Islamists in that book. And it draws out how similar the Islamists and the neo-cons are, and how they're playing into each other's hands.

According to Mr. Dyer, we're returning to the way things were before WWI, where there was a complex and fragile set of alliances between Great Powers. And no international law. We remember how that turned out, don't we?

I've seen several people postulate it's according to design. Most tend to follow the "method to their madness" modle. The thing is, I haven't seen anything out of this administration in the foerign policy realm that nullifes Occam's Razor.

Grossly oncompetant is the most obvious answer.

 

[rgraham666]

I've seen several people postulate it's according to design. Most tend to follow the "method to their madness" modle. The thing is, I haven't seen anything out of this administration in the foerign policy realm that nullifes Occam's Razor.

Grossly oncompetant is the most obvious answer.

Oh, they're that, too. If they were competent, everyone else in the world would think being fucked up the ass was their idea.

But most of the players in the administration know nothing about the world and see no need to. The concerns and sensitivities of other nations are of not the slightest concern to them. Other people do what they're told and don't whine, in their minds.

 

[oggbashan]

Thank you for the replies.

Irritating your friends seems unfortunate when there are so many enemies already.

Og

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you for the replies.

Irritating your friends seems unfortunate when there are so many enemies already.

Og

No Oggs, it's not unfortuneate. It's just plain old stupid. Abjectly stupid. British understatment is appreciacted as is restraint, but sometimes you just have to call em like you see em. And we're acting like horse's asses way too often.

 

[Liar]

Turkey, for example, has been a strong ally for a long time. We have prettty much shit all over them, for no reason I can see. We've antagonized Japan, the UK, Germany. Again, no reason I can see.

Oh, there are good reasons to give Turkey a solid round of slapping. Just ask the Kurds.

Not that that seems to have been a concern for either the US or Europe before.

 

[Liar]

And we're acting like horse's asses way too often.

"We"? Hey, don't guilt-by-associate yourself, luv.

 

[Pure]

With due respect, Colly,

--and making allowance for the mass of human stupidity-- I don't think it's stupidity or incompetence. i more agree with rg.

consider the issue of 'executive power.' it turns out that the plan was to increase this, *even before the Iraq* resolution. why were the courts bypassed, when they approve almost every wiretap, even after the fact
(an operating secretly, as needed).

take this on a large scale: the US is to be the hegemon--the predominant world power; it is to exercize that power (else where is it).

it follows that taking action in an essentially unilateral manner is necessary, indeed intrinsic. allies like Britain and Turkey have to realize there is no "partnership." (just as a parent is not a partner of her child). if they are like good children they will follow along (the coalition of the willing).

so i think the 'slights' and 'provocations' are often intended, and that's their message.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

--and making allowance for the mass of human stupidity-- I don't think it's stupidity or incompetence. i more agree with rg.

consider the issue of 'executive power.' it turns out that the plan was to increase this, *even before the Iraq* resolution. why were the courts bypassed, when they approve almost every wiretap, even after the fact
(an operating secretly, as needed).

take this on a large scale: the US is to be the hegemon--the predominant world power; it is to exercize that power (else where is it).

it follows that taking action in an essentially unilateral manner is necessary, indeed intrinsic. allies like Britain and Turkey have to realize there is no "partnership." (just as a parent is not a partner of her child). if they are like good children they will follow along (the coalition of the willing).

so i think the 'slights' and 'provocations' are often intended, and that's their message.

It could be j.

But it faces the same Occam's Razor argument I put forward. The Bush foerign policy has no coups, no triumpshs, not indication to me that they aren't bumbling idiots.

The only argument I can see against it, is even an idiot does something right now & again. By the law of averages they should have done something right.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Oh, there are good reasons to give Turkey a solid round of slapping. Just ask the Kurds.

Not that that seems to have been a concern for either the US or Europe before.

Dunno Liar.

But I can say we arrogantly assumed they would let us use turkish bases, we then got the famous bush petulant when they said no and in reguard to the Kurds and Iraq, we are detabilizing their borders.

We have enemies we haven't screwed over so throughly.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Being pagan, I have a different take on it. It's hubris, plain and simple. Pride can be good, but when it becomes unrestrained arrogance, trouble is certain to happen. Remember how tough the President seemed when he was campaigning and first in office. He was all determined to "lead". When, if this is his idea of leadership, I would consider Gore as the lesser evil. Boring, wrong-headed on several issues, but not likely to get us into THIS kind of mess. And to stab an ally in the back who has been loyal to us for decades, far more than France or Germany, is simply unthinkable. The man is the epitome of hubris. So is his cabal of oilmen and "chickenhawks".

Oh, and the Turkey thing still sounds like the only thing that Europe and America can agree on these days: prejudice against Islam. Well, not all Americans share it. Turkey is a secular Muslim country, much modern and cosmopolitan than the rest of its brethren. It doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the "axis of evil".

 

[Liar]

Oh, and the Turkey thing still sounds like the only thing that Europe and America can agree on these days: prejudice against Islam. Well, not all Americans share it. Turkey is a secular Muslim country, much modern and cosmopolitan than the rest of its brethren. It doesn't deserve to be lumped in with the "axis of evil".

The aversion towards Turkey by many Europeans is definitely not because of Islam. I don't care if they're muslim or not. In fact, Turkey has been governed in a rigidly secular way for a long time. Even now, with an islamic party at the reins, they are fairly moderate. But that doesn't make them angels. They have for some fourty years now systematically been segregating a huge ethnic minority (who are also mainly muslim, by the way) in a manner that makes Apharteid look like a walk in the park. Modern and cosmopolitan? Perhaps. Undemocratic, oppressive pricks? Most definitely.

 

[oggbashan]

Another irritant for Brits is the entry requirements being introduced for tourists to the US.

We will have to declare the address in the US at which we will be during our first night - difficult if we hire an RV - and we must do that long before check-in or else we won't be allowed on the flight.

Brit kids are already going to Eurodisney instead of Disney in Florida because of the previous restrictions.

We ought to think about reciprocation by introducing stringent entry requirements for US citizens but we won't. US citizens are still welcome to travel to the UK. The US is still our ally.

Og

 

[oggbashan]

The aversion towards Turkey by many Europeans is definitely not because of Islam. I don't care if they're muslim or not. In fact, Turkey has been governed in a rigidly secular way for a long time. Even now, with an islamic party at the reins, they are fairly moderate. But that doesn't make them angels. They have for some fourty years now systematically been segregating a huge ethnic minority (who are also mainly muslim, by the way) in a manner that makes Apharteid look like a walk in the park. Modern and cosmopolitan? Perhaps. Undemocratic, oppressive pricks? Most definitely.

However, Turkey has accepted that they have to change to become members of the European Union. Setting requirements that they can meet is better than opposing their entry on any terms. If Turkey joins the EU, they will be a differently run country. Many inside Turkey would welcome that. The road to Europe may be difficult for Turkey. It shouldn't be made impossible.

Og

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

The aversion towards Turkey by many Europeans is definitely not because of Islam. I don't care if they're muslim or not. In fact, Turkey has been governed in a rigidly secular way for a long time. Even now, with an islamic party at the reins, they are fairly moderate. But that doesn't make them angels. They have for some fourty years now systematically been segregating a huge ethnic minority (who are also mainly muslim, by the way) in a manner that makes Apharteid look like a walk in the park. Modern and cosmopolitan? Perhaps. Undemocratic, oppressive pricks? Most definitely.

Well, the Kurds are repressed, but they are also fighting a civil war. I was under the impression that any segregation was due more to that than some deliberate policy.

 

[Liar]

However, Turkey has accepted that they have to change to become members of the European Union. Setting requirements that they can meet is better than opposing their entry on any terms. If Turkey joins the EU, they will be a differently run country. Many inside Turkey would welcome that. The road to Europe may be difficult for Turkey. It shouldn't be made impossible.

Og

Yup, and I'm all for that. But from what I've seen and read, the pressure on them to get their act together from the EU seems almost cuddly.

 

[Liar]

Well, the Kurds are repressed, but they are also fighting a civil war. I was under the impression that any segregation was due more to that than some deliberate policy.

Cause and effect, my friend.

The cause was a deliberate government attempt to eradicate a culture. The effect was that those who could, either packed up and fled, or some protested, got slammed for that, and took up arms. And as usual, those who couldn't do either, got screwed.



But I guess my view on this is biased from living in a community where every third person is an exile Turkish Kurd.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Cause and effect, my friend.

The cause was a deliberate government attempt to eradicate a culture. The effect was that those who could, either packed up and fled, or some protested, got slammed for that, and took up arms. And as usual, those who couldn't do either, got screwed.



But I guess my view on this is biased from living in a community where every third person is an exile Turkish Kurd.

My impression was that the Kurds advocate shearing off a sizeable chunk of turkish territory to be the nucleus of a Kurdish homeland. I don't think very many modern states could or would tolerate that kind of ceeding of territory.

It's very difficult to deal with a minority that is fairly homogenous within the bounds of a certain geographical area and is demanding that territory as their own. I doubt the UK would react favorably to the welsh sudeenly advocating an independant wales. I doubt the US would be in favor of texas redeclaring the lone star republic, or california the bear flag republic.

In Shri Lanka the tamil tigers had to take the land by force and still aren't recognized as independant. Isreal, Yougoslavia, are other examples of the pressures and probably outcomes of such demands.

I don't envy the Turks their position, but I can also see where having your country partitioned is just as unacceptable.