Extradite this treaty to the dustbin

Another case has come up to show that the UK is little more than a glorified staging post to US incarceration. This instance is particularly offensive as not only was the student, Richard O’Dwyer, running a search engine that linked to websites containing pirated TV shows and films – something not illegal under UK law – rather than being a pirate himself, he used servers based in the Netherlands, which means that the USA should have no jurisdiction as O’Dwyer’s website, TVShack, had no direct link to the United States.
But the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency have to justify their budget with a round of heavy cuts in federal spending in 2013. The assistant deputy director (does a deputy director need an assistant – one job that can be taken off the payroll) has admitted the agency would pursue websites whose only American link was to end in .com or .net (providing a compelling case to get one’s email accounts switched to .co.uk where possible (Google doesn’t seem to offer this option)).

David Blunkett did a disservice to all blind people when he signed the extradition accord in 2003 – even the British version was worded with Americanisms. It was all of a piece of the Blair government, where it felt compelled to act in complete subservience to the George W. Bush administration in order to gain some nebulous (and ultimately worthless) influence inside the White House. The Bush’s own dogs had more influence on policy direction than Blair. But then when you’ve ended the legal statement that an Englishman’s home is his castle after 500 years on the law books, why should you be bothered about protecting your own citizens? Complaints about being the 51st state were way off the mark – the UK doesn’t even have the same rights as an American state.

Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats came to power promising a radical overhaul of the pact, especially given the US Congress’ tardy approach to ratifying their end – making it a one-way extradition treaty, another example of how absolutely pathetic Blair could be (New Labour was a hollow-sounding big nothing – anything of substance such as the minimum wage or devolution were holdovers from old Labour). Yet even though a ‘forum clause’ has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, allowing a judge to decide where best a case should be heard, it has not yet been enacted, which is ridiculous. Is the Home Office still not fit for purpose? Civil servants should get a move on or feel the wrath of their elected bosses.

Frankly, I think the treaty should be scrapped altogether, given the inequitable way it is applied. We send over anyone they request but appeals for those with links to the IRA to stand trial in the UK are met with firm rebuttals. In this case, O’Dwyer isn’t even committing an offence in the UK, so how could he possibly stand trial, unless it was in the USA? The forum clause doesn’t address that, just where a trial should take place. This Coalition is committed to free enterprise but only when Washington D.C. doesn’t veto it.