UK delays US extradition decision on terror suspect

[Rose Siding]

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain has delayed a decision on whether to extradite a computer expert wanted by the United States to face charges of funding Islamic militants, the man's campaign group said on Friday.
....
Ahmad, 30, is a British citizen held in jail since August last year under a U.S. warrant. He was indicted in the U.S. for running a Web site that raised funds for Muslim militants in Afghanistan and Chechnya.

On May 17 a British court ruled Ahmad would receive a fair trial in the U.S. after the U.S. embassy promised he would not be sent to the prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or turned over to a third country for torture.
....
"The defendant is a British subject who is alleged to have committed offences that, if the evidence were available, could have been prosecuted in this country," {the judge} said.

However, under new British legislation passed in 2003, the United States can seek Ahmad's extradition without having to present any evidence to a British court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500806.html

[maddezmom]

1. yikes....I must've been sleeping

does anyone know the context of this law?

[Frederik]

2. Why on Earth would Parliament pass such legislation?

When is New Labour going to apply formally for Britain's incorporation into the United States of America? National sovereignty appears to be out of fashion.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. The passing of it was called "an abuse of democracy" by the opposition

Parliament didn't get a chance to debate it, or amend it, properly.

Statutory instruments

SIs are a form of legislation that allow the provisions of an Act of Parliament to be brought into force or altered without a formal Act of Parliament (they are also referred to as secondary, delegated or subordinate legislation). SIs are subject to "parliamentary approval" only in the sense that they "laid before Parliament". Draft SIs in fact automatically become law after a short period if no-one objects. There are were more than 3,000 SIs in 2003. A Joint Committee (comprised of MPs and Lords) on Statutory Instruments, and several committees in the House of Commons, "supervise" the process. The Joint Committee should report "unusual or unexpected" SIs to parliament.
...
Three days later, on 18 December 2003, the three Orders were formally "laid before parliament" by under-secretary of state Caroline Flint (Home Office) and subject to what is known as the "affirmative resolution procedure". The Joint Committee on delegated legislation met that day and categorised the three SIs as not requiring the "special attention of both Houses" (Joint Committee report, pdf). Two weeks later, on 1 January 2004, the three SIs became law.

While it is very rare for SIs to be rejected by parliament since it requires the intervention of significant number of MPs or the opposition party, it has happened before. In this instance, however, the timing of the Orders meant that such an intervention was almost impossible since parliament was winding down for Christmas and there were just three days of parliamentary business remaining. The government used the 31 December 2003 deadline for the implementation of the European Arrest Warrant as a justification for the timing of the SIs (though the category 2 schedule is entirely unrelated to the EAW). Referring to the de facto ratification of the UK-US extradition, David Davis, shadow Home Secretary, called the process an "abuse of democracy", while Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said:

The home secretary seems to make a habit of ignoring parliament when it suits him. This is a case in point - retrospective legislation should be properly debated in the House - not slipped through in the pre-Christmas rush (Guardian, 15.12.03).

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2004/jan/06extradition.htm

[Frederik]

4. So it wasn't really passed by Parliament at all

And now the lovely Home Secretary Clarke is touring Europe, touting his new police state measures (two-year storage of all telecommunications data, like that would have prevented the London bombing).