Committee long-fingers U.K. extradition treaty

The treaty was signed in March 2003 by then U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and British Home Secretary David Blunkett, who in the past 12 months has twice resigned from the British government under a cloud.
In his remarks at the signing ceremony, Ashcroft made no specific reference to any conflict, group or country. However, Irish-American activist groups say they see Ireland, and specifically Northern Ireland, written clearly between the treaty’s lines.
The treaty has been awaiting a necessary committee hearing before being passed to the full Senate for a ratification vote.
A unanimous vote by the foreign relations panel is required before the treaty goes to the full 100-member Senate for a decision.
When the treaty appeared on the committee’s Web site schedule last week, Irish-American groups including the Ancient Order of Hibernians and Irish American Unity Conference mounted an e-mail drive aimed at committee members.
Connecticut Democrat Chris Dodd and Rhode Island Republican Lincoln Chafee, both of whom are seen as being sympathetic to Irish-American concerns over the treaty’s language, were especially pressed by Irish-American activists.
AOH National President Ned McGinley welcomed the Senate committee’s decision to delay its hearing.
“We are very pleased that the committee decided to at least open up this treaty to dialogue. We feel that when the American people see its language they will be very concerned,” McGinley told the Echo.
McGinley said that Hibernians had sent in requests to committee members asking them to split the U.S./U.K. treaty from other similar documents currently up for consideration.
The revised treaty, he said, was “loaded up with Patriot Act-type of language” that was “being used to frighten people.”
The U.S. and U.K. had no problem extraditing people under the existing treaty, McGinley asserted.
“But [the departments of] Justice and State want the same patriot-style language in all extradition treaties,” he said.
McGinley said that he understood the treaty would be taken up separately by the committee in the New Year.
The AOH, he said, would be preparing a document outlining its objections to the treaty for committee members.
“This treaty was written in the panic response to the horrible terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 by the John Ashcroft Justice Department,” McGinley said.
“Many laws written in haste have lived on to be regretted in the future because they were not thoroughly debated. We would ask this committee to not rush to such judgment when there is no such need.”
Among concerns voiced by the Hibernians and others are that the revised treaty eliminates the existing political offense exception; transfers responsibility for determining whether the extradition request is politically motivated from the U.S. Courts to the executive branch; allows for extradition even if there is no violation of U.S. federal law and applies retroactively for offenses allegedly committed even before the ratification of the treaty.
“No Irish-American activist is safe if this treaty passes,” the AOH said in a statement prior to Tuesday’s hearing.
The controversy over the new treaty first flared up when Francis Boyle, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, publicly aired his concerns over the document.
The treaty was subsequently described as “atrocious” by New York-based attorney and activist Frank Durkan.
Boyle was in the committee hearing room in the Senate Dirksen Building Tuesday but did not speak. What testimony there was before the committee was confined to U.S. government officials.