Fair Trials

My Bush joke was a deliberate provocation.

Under a 2004 Act of Parliament, introduced after 9/11, the USA has the power to demand the arrest and deportation of any UK citizen it believes has committed a crime against it. The US does not have to present any reasons for the request, or proof of a reasonable case.
The reverse is not true - the UK government cannot demand the extradition of a US citizen (or even one of its own) without presenting a reasonable case before a judge, as to do so would be against the US constitution.

Of course, this arrangement was not just dreamt up by the UK government one night, it was initiated by the USA which seems keen to talk about constitutional rights at home, but all too eager to ignore them when it suits (i.e. abroad).

There is a tug of war going on at the moment as a result of this bizarre arrangement. Three UK bankers have been accused of conspiring with the Enron accountants to defraud the NatWest bank of $7m.
UK citizens are accused of committing a crime in the UK against a UK bank, but the US wants them to stand trial in Houston, Texas. Makes perfect sense.

The 'Enron Three' have only one get-out clause: they can't be deported if they are already standing trial in the UK. But the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has refused to prosecute them because - get this - there are already proceedings against them in the US!
So the three bankers have taken the unusual step of seeking a judicial review of the SFO's decision not to prosecute.
There are good reasons for them to go to such lengths. For one thing they will most likely languish in a US jail for two years before the trial begins (as 'flight risks' with no US address they wouldn't be allowed bail). For another, they claim being tried in Houston - Enron's home town - will not guarantee them a fair trial. And, if found guilty, they would face far harsher sentences than in the UK.
But there is another, far more worrying factor here. The UK has extradition agreements with a lot of countries but the common factor seems to be that they are all signatories to the Convention on Human Rights. The USA, famously, is not.

It's quite possible this story is not being covered in the USA. In fact, it's not exactly front page news over here in the UK. After all, who's interested in three bankers being accused of fraud? Particularly when we've got a star footballer and his pop star wife having a baby, and a right royal cock up over the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Camilla Parker-Bowles?
I've only heard about this story through the New Statesman magazine (which also seemed to be the only source of criticism of the Act when it was first proposed). Yet it seems to be one of major importance.

My joke could be seen as an incitement to kill the President and it's not impossible that some district attorney or federal prosecutor in the USA could request my arrest and extradition - and there'd be nothing to stop it.
Think that's a bit of an exaggeration? Well look again at the story above - three Britons, accused of a crime in Britain, against a British bank. The only 'interest' from a US perspective is the alleged involvement of someone from Enron - there's not even a 'terrorist' connection, which was the reason for the Act in the first place!

If you're reading this in the USA and think it's less than ideal that the US has the power to arrest and extradite British citizens without presenting a case, please tell someone who you think should do something about it.