Friday, October 14, 2005

Dutch Court Refuses to Extradite Alleged Al-Qaeda Suspect to U.S.

Speaking of Grotius, a Dutch court ruled this week that it would not extradite an alleged Al Qaeda suspect to the U.S. because his fundamental legal rights could not be guaranteed. The Court held, according to AP: “[t]he risk that the [individual] will be confronted with suspicions of involvement in the al Qaeda network is certainly not imaginary. … This gives sufficient reason to believe that with regard to him, fundamental legal guarantees—such as direct, unlimited and undisturbed contact with a lawyer and timely access to a judge—could be threatened.”

I'm not sure, but I think the Dutch court is concerned that the U.S. might deem the suspect an enemy combatant and try him before military commissions. This seems a bit far-fetched, but I suppose it is within the realm of possibility. But that shouldn't matter, at least not under my reading of the U.S.-Netherlands extradition treaty. None of the provisions permitting a refusal of a request for extradition, e.g. for political or military offenses seems applicable.

Moreover, the problem with the Court's analysis is that it would prevent the Netherlands, or any other country with a similar extradition treaty with the U.S., from ever extraditing someone connected to Al-Qaeda. But maybe I'm misreading something. International Extradition Blog has more analysis here.


Blogger Charles Gittings said...

I think your skepticisim is wearing a little thin Julian.

There is probable cause to believe that the Bush administration has been engaged in a conspiracy to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity pursuant to 18 USC 2441, the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and the London Charter of the Int'l Military Tribunal since 2001.11.13, and on information and belief, that's nothing but a plain FACT which is demostrabale to a virtual certainty from the administrations own public statements.

There isn't any law in the Netherlands or any other nation that would require a judge to aid and abet criminals, and indeed, any judge who did would be committing a crime under both US and Int'l law.

Now I've been documenting all of this for fully four years, and I recently submitted a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee that covers the basics: Hamdan Commentary and Geneva Briefs.

I'm fully prepared to back up every bit of that, and I challenge you to quit with the fence-sitting and take a position one way or the other -- and frankly, I think anyone who is sitting on the fence at this late date is just a closet apologist for these criminals.

And while I'm at it, I hereby issue a public challenge to Prof. John Yoo, David Rivkin, Esq, and any other apologist for these outrageous crimes to a public debate on this or any other on-line forum.

This nonsense is completely beyond the pale at this late date: this administration is an absolute disgrace to our nation and everything it is supposed to stand for. IT'S OBVIOUS AND BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

A government that will not obey it's own laws is no government at all, and any lawyer who condones or supports these crimes is unfit for the bar or any other position of public trust.

Charles Gittings, pro se

10/15/2005 2:03 AM  
Blogger beautifuls said...

AC Milan Jerseys is very popular now, so please catch this chance to buy. maybe you will be surprised by spain jersey Brazil jersey. cheap Kaka Jerseys and real madrid jerseys 2012 now.

3/07/2012 3:39 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home