Join our campaign to end US 'extradition on demand'

By Damian Reece, Head of Business

Last Updated: 1:09am GMT 23/02/2008

Which issue unites voices as diverse as civil liberties campaigners and big business? The Lib Dems and the Tories? Hedge-fund managers, private equity and directors of public companies, not to mention thousands of Telegraph readers?

Natwest Three sentenced to 37 months each

NatWest Three plea bargain deal approved

Read more by Damian Reece

The answer is extradition, and the shocking lack of protection for UK citizens when faced with the aggressive regime of America under the Bush presidency.

Yesterday the NatWest three were finally sentenced, highlighting once again the appalling injustice and risks we run under the present lopsided extradition arrangements the UK suffers with the US.

Our open letter first published in summer of 2006, was the rallying call for a campaign backed by the likes of Shami Chakrabarti, the leading human rights campaigner, Richard Lambert, the voice of British business, Digby Jones, now a member of the Government and Labour peer, and a host of top names from the country's corporate elite. You can view the letter and signatures at telegraph.co.uk.

We urged Reid to halt that extradition, not to stop the case (we always urged they should be tried, but tried here) but to correct the mistake of a previous home secretary and preserve Britain's ancient tradition of transparent justice.

Too many similar cases have also highlighted how exposed we are thanks to our government's failure. American authorities can arrive in the UK and demand your extradition any time. You will have no ability to challenge the move or question US evidence against you. Perhaps worst of all, there will not be any consideration of which country is most suitable to hear your case. If America wants to put you on trial in a US court, having already forced you to spend time in a US jail with limited legal representation, it can. You are at risk of American "extradition on demand".

Maybe with a new president in the White House the UK Government might feel emboldened to improve our lot, but with Labour in such disarray at home it seems unlikely.

It is time to take the matter into your own hands. Add your name to our campaign by clicking on my comment online at www.telegraph.co.uk/business and posting your views to help us change a manifestly unfair extradition arrangement with America.

Private equity emerges from hibernation

Are mergers and acquisitions back? Reed Elsevier's decision on Thursday to sell its business magazines division will help prove if M&A activity is recovering. Before last summer, a business such as Reed Business Information would have had a queue of debt-funded private equity bidders lining up for it.

Reed Elsevier snaps up ChoicePoint for $4bn

But the intervening credit crunch has since caused a funding drought, prompting the view that Reed has got its timing wrong, and selling now is a mistake. Reed was spectacularly fortunate to complete its previous deal, the $5bn (£2.5bn) sale of Harcourt, the education publisher, at the end of July, before banks withdrew credit on a massive scale. Within days deals of any size were off the agenda. The question now is whether the banks will be willing to fund bids for a magazines business still planted very firmly in the print age. The omens aren't as bad as people might think. Emap recently sold a business information company to a private equity consortium including Apax, investing alongside the Guardian Media Group, for £1bn. Businesses such as Reed's have plenty of assets with operational potential and people are always willing to pay for the cash flows they produce.

But the wider deal market is showing signs of life. Small deals such as Pret a Manger are getting done, with private equity involvement, while there are signs of a bidding war breaking out over Biffa, the waste management company, again involving private equity in the form of Terra Firma.

As we know, corporates have had a busy few months at the top end with bids for Rio Tinto and Scottish & Newcastle coming in from trade rivals.

With the UK banking season revealing our lending institutions in reasonable health after the traumas of 2007, the creatures of the private equity world are showing signs of emerging from their hibernation.

damian.reece@telegraph.co.uk

Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism | Amnesty International

Court win for man wrongly accused of terrorism

Lotfi Raissi, February 2006

© Amnesty International.

20 February 2008

A flight instructor wrongly accused of training the hijackers of planes used in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA won his appeal at the Court of Appeal of England and Wales on 14 February 2008.

The Home Secretary must now reconsider Lotfi Raissi’s claim for compensation, in the light of evidence that he was wrongly kept in detention, as a result of “serious defaults” by the UK police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

Lotfi Raissi has never been charged with any offence related to terrorism. Nonetheless, he spent five months in Belmarsh high security prison while the USA tried to have him extradited.

The extradition request from the US was based on a number of minor charges entirely unconnected with terrorism. The Court of Appeal concluded that the real reason for the request, however, was not to bring Lotfi Raissi to trial on these charges, but to secure his "presence in the US for the purpose of investigating [the attacks of 11 September]."

The Court of Appeal found that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted "amounted to an abuse of process" and that they had been "used as a device to circumvent the rule of English law."

Lotfi Raissi spoke to Amnesty International in 2006 about his suffering and struggle for justice: "I’ve been framed as a notorious terrorist until I have to go to court, each time, until I clear my name… What I want to happen is a widely publicised apology, to clear my name and to try to fix all the wrong-doing. I want my life back."
The UK government has indicated that it will now consider whether to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal. Lotfi Raissi is still waiting for his apology.
Background

Lofti Raissi is a UK resident of Algerian origin. He was arrested on 21 September 2001 on suspicion of involvement in "terrorist" activities in relation to the recent attacks in the US. The arrests were made on the basis of information supplied to the UK authorities by the US administration.

He was released after seven days’ questioning and immediately re-arrested on the basis of a warrant requesting his extradition to the US. He was then detained for five months in Belmarsh Prison.
In April 2002, a judge ordered his release, stating that the court had received "no evidence at all" to support the allegation that he was involved in "terrorism" – a finding now repeated by the Court of Appeal. He has been fighting for compensation and for a public apology since then.

Brown must act on US rendition flights, say MPs

Brown must act on US rendition flights, say MPs | UK news | The Guardian

This article appeared in the Guardian on Monday May 21 2007 on p7 of the UK news and analysis section. It was last updated at 09:54 on May 23 2007.
The following correction was printed in the Guardian's Corrections and clarifications column, Wednesday May 23 2007

a letter from the director of Justice to the transport secretary, Douglas Alexander, about "extraordinary rendition" was said to have referred to a conclusion of the UN's joint committee on human rights when in fact it quoted the UK parliamentary committee of the same name. This has been corrected.Gordon Brown's government must introduce effective controls over extraordinary rendition - the practice whereby the US covertly transports detainees to places where they risk being tortured - an all-party group of MPs urges today.

Britain's records on rendition are wholly inadequate, says the parliamentary rendition group chaired by Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP for Chichester.

"Questions have been raised about 170 possible CIA rendition flights through the UK," the group says. "The government does not appear to have independent records to indicate whether these were or were not rendition flights."

The group says the government's refusal to fully and openly address the issue of rendition creates a climate of confusion, which hampers effective action against terrorism.

Under the proposals announced today, states would declare it their duty to prevent their territory from being used to facilitate the transfer of detainees to where there was a real risk of torture.

Every transfer of a detained person would require written permission. The government transferring detainees would have to state the final destination and detail what legal safeguards existed.

"A fundamental distinction between extradition and rendition is that in cases of extradition, safeguards are provided by the holding of a hearing prior to the individual's transfer," Mr Tyrie said. He added that the measures to control rendition should be included in the promised counter-terrorism bill, which has yet to be published.

Roger Smith, the director of Justice, the British section of the International Commission of Jurists, says in a letter to Douglas Alexander, the transport secretary, that the UK parliamentary joint committee on human rights has concluded there is a reasonable suspicion that aircraft passing through the UK may have been carrying suspects to countries where they risked being tortured.

He said the European parliament had deplored member states' lack of "procedures aimed at verifying whether civilian aircraft were being used for purposes incompatible with internationally established human rights standards".

Mr Tyrie said: "For nearly two years, we have been calling for the government to stop turning a blind eye to this disgraceful practice and stop pretending that everything is all right. The truth is that the government does not know whether they are complicit and therefore neither can we."

He added: "This is an acid test for Gordon Brown. The incoming PM has told us that 'mistakes have been made' and he is trying to distance himself from the catastrophe of the Bush/Blair foreign policy. By implementing this measure, Gordon Brown can show that he is serious about setting aside that policy.

"He can tell us that he will not condone kidnap, denial of civil liberties, and a risk of torture."

Pilot wrongly accused of training 9/11 hijackers wins appeal

In his judgment, Lord Justice Hooper said the public labelling of Mr Raissi "as a terrorist by the authorities in this country, and particularly by the CPS, over a period of many months has had and continues to have, so it is said, a devastating effect on his life and on his health"

read more | digg story

Illegal Extraditions to the US! Some MP's are Unhappy

Extraition

On 31 March 2003, the Home Secretary had flown to Washington to sign a
new Extradition Treaty on behalf of the UK. On the surface, it appeared
to be a little bit of administration and not very newsworthy. The
consequences would ruin many ordinary people’s lives.

The treaty removes the requirement on the US to provide evidence when
requesting the extradition of people from the UK. In effect, all the US
has to do is fill in a form and then, bang, you’d be flown off to
America to stand trial, whether or not there is a shred of evidence
against you. We signed away our right to be protected by British law,
and hardly anyone noticed.

Under the terms of the Treaty, the US no longer needs to provide
evidence to support an extradition request for a UK subject. However,
if the UK wishes to extradite someone from the US, it must still
satisfy an American court of exactly the same evidential burden as
under the previous Treaty, that of ‘probable cause’. Since this
provision is written into the US constitution, it is not something that
the US could ever have given up. The Treaty gave away our rights of
protection to a country who would never, could never, extend the same
courtesy to us. In the face of US demands, our government simply rolled
over and waved their legs in the air.

It’s harder to stay out of the way of the US Justice system than you
might think. Because of the nature of electronic mail servers, sending
an email to your friend suggesting a quick pint will probably be routed
through at least one US server. By arranging an after work drink you
have inadvertently entered US jurisdiction and made that meeting a
potential conspiracy organised on US soil. An overzealous US prosecutor
could take the email, along with a spurious allegation that you went to
the pub to discuss terrorism, and get a grand jury indictment within
hours. He could then request your extradition, and far from defending
you against this idiotic and allegation, the British Government would
arrest you and put you on the next plane to the USA. You could produce
mountains of evidence that the nearest you came to discussing terrorism
was hoping that Tottenham thrash the Arsenal next week, but a British
Judge would be powerless to do anything about it.

© 2007 Taking Liberties, All Rights Reserved | Terms of Use | Accessibility | Site MapBuilt by Revolver Entertainment

Emails That Show The US Extraditions True Unfairness From Brian Howes

From: pag [pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]

To: 'Brian Howes'; 'John Mcleod'

Subject: FW: Howes. Brian

Here is the government’s response to my requests

---

From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 9:34 AM
To: pag
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

Pat:

1. I have been told that the children are being cared for by family members, a grandparent or grandparents as I recall. There is more to the childcare story but it is somewhat vague in my mind and I do not want to misstate it.

2. As you may be aware your client has been publishing everything he can get his hands on regarding this case in an effort to build some sort of underground or public support. We are simply not interested in your client “spinning” any further information about his case in a slanted or outright untruthful way. He should also be aware that through his internet antics he is building a wealth of data we can use to impeach him and possibly any defense you may put forth on his behalf. Among other reasons, in an effort to minimize the “drama” your client is trying to churn up I will not provide discovery until after he is arraigned pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

3. There is no proposed plea agreement at this time so there is no need to review discovery to ethically assess and recommend a plea agreement. My previous email regarding resolution of the case was simply an encouragement for your client and the co-defendant to move along the extradition and then enter a mutually acceptable plea agreement once extradited. In other words, extradition then plea, not a negotiated extradition-plea package. That was my response to your assertion of a desire to resolve the emotional stress the defendants are undoubtedly suffering. I will not resolve the case simply because of the emotional stress this case and its delays may be causing. I will only resolve it based upon a truthful, knowing and intelligent plea based upon a proper factual basis. As we both know that cannot happen until after you review the discovery, and as I have said discovery will not be forthcoming until after arraignment which cannot happen until after extradition.

4. It does not appear to me to be in the government’s interest to negotiate a swifter extradition by providing discovery and a proposed plea agreement when it appears that all delays have run their course and the order of extradition is eminent. As a point of negotiation strategy, we would in essence be providing almost everything in exchange for nothing.

5. I appreciate your diligent efforts on behalf of your client. I always enjoy working on cases with you because of your high degree of competence and your diligent approach to effectively representing your clients. I am confident that we will be able to either resolve this case by plea agreement or trial in an expeditious manner once your client appears before a District Judge here.

Glenn B. McCormick

Deputy Chief, OCDETF

Dist. of Arizona

(602)514-7669

From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 7:19 AM
To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
Cc: Nick.Green@dhs.gov; Pfister, Mary Beth (USANAC); 'Patricia A Gitre'
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

What have you been told about the children? What is the proposed plea agreement?

In order for me to effectively and ethically review a proposed plea agreement, I need the discovery which I have requested? My client is willing to work on resolving this matter but I cannot advise him without knowing somewhat what the government has. At this point, I only have the indictment. Are you willing to provide me the discovery?

Please let me know.

Pat

---

From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 9:10 AM
To: pag
Cc: Nick.Green@dhs.gov; Pfister, Mary Beth (USANAC)
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

Pat,

I am continuing to make inquiries of interested parties regarding your proposal. However, at this point the answer is likely to be no. The issue regarding the children is contrary to what I have been told. I have no information retarding Shank’s well being. I am sure this must be very difficult for her. My suggestion is that if they want to get this resolved they should concede extradition and enter mutually acceptable contingent plea agreements here. Their antics in the UK have protracted this and ultimately may be responsible for her claimed deteriorating mental condition.

Glenn.

From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:45 PM
To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
Cc: Pat
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

My client is willing to be extradited if you will not extradite his wife. She is becoming very depressed and almost suicidal. They do not have anyone to take the 4 children. He is willing to come here and face the charges.

---

From: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ) [mailto:Glenn.McCormick@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:18 PM
To: pag
Subject: RE: Howes. Brian

I am sorry Pat. It is my case now. I am currently having trouble keeping up with my active cases, due to all the turnover in the office, much less the cases like this one that are a bit off on the horizon still. What sort of resolution are you thinking of?

Glenn.

From: pag [mailto:pattigitre@patriciagitre.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:44 AM
To: McCormick, Glenn (USAAZ)
Cc: 'Patricia A Gitre'
Subject: Howes. Brian

Glenn:

I left you two messages regarding this case. If you are not handling this case, can you tell me who is and let him/her know that I would like to discuss the case. My client would like to talk about resolution before the extradition proceeding.

Thanks

Pat

Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Abuse of judicial process : the political Molochs

Paul Schofield & Leo McKern : A Man for All Seasons

ALICE (Exasperated, pointing after RICH) While you talk, he's gone!
MORE And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!
ROPER So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!
MORE Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
ROPER I'd cut down every law in England to do that!
MORE (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on ROPER) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you-where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? (He leaves him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast-man's laws, not God's-and if you cut them down-and you're just the man to do it-d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.
ROPER I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god.
MORE (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god . . . . (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle . . . I don't know where he is nor what he wants.
ROPER My god wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else!
MORE (Dryly) Are you sure that's God? He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God- And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law!

Robert Bolt (A Man for All Seasons)

Once again, England’s senior judges, headed by the Master of the Rolls no less, have called the executive to order, this time for abuse of process. The judgement announced today was couched in strong terms.

Sir Anthony Clarke, the Master of the Rolls, “completely exonerated” Mr Raissi of any connection to the 9/11 attacks.

• The extradition proceedings were a device to secure the appellant’s presence in the US for the purpose of investigating 9/11... We consider that the way in which the extradition proceedings were conducted in this country, with opposition to bail based on allegations which appear unfounded in evidence, amounted to an abuse of process.


• The authorities, the court concluded, had abused the legal process to keep Mr Raissi in prison for almost six months while the FBI conducted inquiries about him.


• The Appeal Court studied the evidence and the detail of the court hearings and concluded that both the CPS and Scotland Yard had presented false evidence to the court hearing the extradition proceedings.


• Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Secretary came in for scathing criticism from senior judges for making false allegations and withholding evidence from the courts in the case of Lotfi Raissi.


• the British authorities used a US extradition warrant “as a device to circumvent the rule of English law” by detaining him for almost six months in Belmarsh prison. (The Times)

The British government has thus been found to have abused the judicial process and the police and crown prosecution service to have conspired with the American security services to stitch up an innocent man. We are used to this sort of behaviour from Burma, Zimbabwe or the USA. We are less used to it in the UK.

Until 2003, no one could be extradited from this country unless and until it had been demonstrated in an English Court that there was a case to answer. Then the law was changed by a Prime Minister who had taken long term residence in Dubya’s colon. From then on, if the USA wanted someone, all they had to do was ask. The one bit of luck that Lotfi Raissi had was that his case started before this appalling piece of legislation. Had his case started a little later, he would have long ago disappeared to Cuba and his own little room in Chateau Halliburton.

How could this happen in the UK?

Part of the problem is the Crown Prosecution Service, a notoriously shambolic and inefficient organisation, detested by real barristers. To return to one of NHS BLOG DOCTORS recurring themes, the CPS is a classic example of the state dumbing down. It is a haven for legal quacktitioners who would not survive at the independent bar and who do not have the training or the courage to stand up to the executive. As always, you get what you pay for.

We must not allow the Molochs - the Blairs, the Bushes, the Chaneys, the Rumselds - to take over. If we dismantle our laws to catch terrorists, the terrorists will have won. We will be left with nothing. In the final analysis, we are not fighting terrorists. We are fighting to preserve the rule of law.

© Copyright NHS BLOG DOCTOR

8 Blogger Comments:

The Blair legacy, eh? Now, about "Once again, England’s senior judges,...": I do hope that these ones don't copy More and torture Protestants at home.

By dearieme, at Thursday, February 14, 2008 11:45:00 PM

A man of his age.

Well, these days I think I would burn the A of C before the Muslims but, come on Dearieme, the rhetoric is Bolt's not More's.

But I agree with it. Most of all, this is all about civilised people living within the law. Which should apply to all.

John

By DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:09:00 AM

Oi, Doc, how about this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=514340&in_page_id=1770

By dearieme, at Friday, February 15, 2008 12:31:00 AM

Just read that deariemen

Don't belief it. A GP making a diagnosis. A correct diagnosis. Never heard of that before. Is it fictional do you think?

J

By DrCrippen, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:21:00 AM

If the CPS or the police present false evidence the judges should hold them in contempt of court, and sling them in prison.

By Tim, at Friday, February 15, 2008 1:02:00 PM

I've found myself instinctively starting posts with "it's all so depressing" recently. How depressing is that?

But back on topic, I was a bitter cynic before this government but now we can write a magnus nefarious opus entirely constructed with corrupt Labour initiatives. Now, I am a fully subscribed omnihater who's ideals have been tortured into a twisted version of some dystopian Judge Dredd type future and the Necromnicon.

Crime: Dragging the country into a vacuous hole of valueless slogans, lack of personal responsibility, gross financial irresponsibility, personal enrichment, persecution... it goes on and on.

Sentence: Banishing to the Seventh reaches of Hell whilst they're forcibly made to atone for their sins by suddenly having a conscience and reviewing their infinite evil ways. They deserve so much worse!!

Arrrrrgh! Now where's that book...

By totallybushed, at Friday, February 15, 2008 7:04:00 PM

The UK also supports the International Criminal Court and the EU arrest warrant. You have voluntarily surrendered just about all of your national sovereignty.

Also, someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo- it's a prisoner of war camp only.

By ZT, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:22:00 AM

someone arrested in the UK and extradited for trial in the USA would not be sent to Gitmo

first, I agree they (probably) wouldn't be sent to Gitmo; the people who've been extradited under this Treaty have been subject to standard US judicial process, and I imagine a candidate for Gitmo would be 'extraordinarily rendered'.

Second,

- it's a prisoner of war camp only.

I thought the US Administration still refused to give the Gitmo detainees POW status? They are surely still called 'unlawful com batants' or 'battlefield detainees' (however remote they were when 'captured' from a battlefield or combat, and whether or not they'd ever really been near either. (The refusal to give POW status relates to the Geneva Conventions: civilians are covered, POWs are covered, but initially, anyway, it was thought these people might not be; there is now a judicial ruling thst say they are.)

By jayann, at Saturday, February 16, 2008 4:57:00 PM