Bush has done little at all to show that he understands the limited government mandated by our constitution. His home policy on education, welfare, and on homeland security tell us of a man who is essentially socialist in outlook. He would apparently rather win the next election than do the right thing.
I had hoped that his Christian faith, which he is not bashful about sharing, might have been more instrumental in guiding his political decisions. He seems to be ignorant of any connection between his faith and politics -- other than "being nice" to people.
Where in our midst today is there a leader of substantial quality which can stand and present the truth? We have Roy Moore, Alan Keyes, and who else? We have the Constitution Party, which is the only political party I am aware of which understands the constitution and limited government, but they have no talent for getting their message out. May the Lord raise up a Gideon army "for such a time as this..."
To be fair to Ashcroft, we need to hear any responses he might have to the charges below. But the drift seems consistent with his support of the freedom-limiting aspects of the so-called "Patriot Act". E. Fox]
COMPETING TO HAVE THE US UNDER
If I hadnít read it with my own eyes, Iíd have thought the reports on the conditions contained in the US/UK Extradition Treaty were daft. What with the internet giving everyone a soapbox from which to proclaim injustice (real or imagined) this seemed the perfect reason for the wild-eyed reports on this treaty.
Upon careful reading, this UK drafted treaty could be the basis to reclaim the entire area of the United States east of the Louisiana Purchase.
This treaty would nullify the American Revolution, the Constitution, and particularly the Bill of Rights. (We donít need any help with doing any of that: our legislatures and judiciary have shown themselves quite capable.)
This treaty has been signed by our very own John Ashcroft and is pending ratification by the Senate.
Article Six states that there is no limit on the statute of limitations. Roughly translated, that means that any violation of law in Great Britain or its territories (that would entail a penalty of more than a year) would be a valid reason to request extradition. Without any qualifiers, that means the entire history of British home and colonial rule. Article 22 ß1 states that the Treaty will apply to offenses committed before as well as after the date it enters into force.
Any U.S. citizen would be subject to reach of the laws of another nation while residing in the United States. Who know what whims might possess a foreign government?
Article 8 says (in part) that a person who has been convicted in absentia is subject to extradition. Since the Constitution has always guaranteed the right of an accused to confront the accusers, it is absolutely outrageous Mr. Ashcroft even allowed this in the document.
Article 12 allows for the provisional arrest of a person sought, even without proper documentation. It goes on to say that the application for provisional arrest shall contain a description of the person sought, the location (if known) of the person sought, a brief statement of the facts of the case including, IF POSSIBLE, (emphasis added) the date and location of the offense and a statement that the supporting documents for the person sought will follow within the time specified in this Treaty.
In other words, our government is to accept blindly any request for extradition presented by the Brits. What is really bizarre is that in Article 11 it states that the requests must be in English. It was my impression that both nations spoke some form of English. Why would this be necessary to be specified in this Treaty unless the Brits plan on serving as a conduit for other nations looking for political activists?
Again in Article 12 ß4, it states that a person can be held, in provisional arrest, for 60 days from the date of the provisional arrest if a formal request for extradition has not been received. Mr. Ashcroft forgot to tell the delusional Brits that Americans have a right to a speedy trial and these 60 days would violate this right, never mind countless Writs of Habeas Corpus of great expense to the defendant and the taxpayers. American justice does not allow a person to be held without being charged.
If treaties are allowed to take precedence over our own laws, what can protect any of us?
Additionally, if a person is extradited while the request for consent is being processed, they can be held up to 90 days by the state requesting the extradition.
In the meantime, Article 16 allows for the seizure of all assets allegedly connected with the alleged crime. "The items and assets mentioned in the Article may be surrendered even when the extradition cannot be effected due to death, disappearance or escape of the person sought."
So while a person is held for a total of 150 days (5 months) without properly being charged, the state can take all his earthly possessions. If the person is turned over to the Brits, one can assume they will be moved to England. At the end of the 150 days, if the person is released, will they ever see their assets again or get a ticket home? Fat chance.
This whole treaty is extremely problematic for every descendent of anyone who was once a British subject. Who knows what felony great-grandfather might have committed while on the soil of the once vast British Empire? DAR and Sons of Cincinnati beware! Your assets may be coveted by the descendents of the repulsed Redcoats! Descendants of the signers of the Declaration of Independence may be looking at asset forfeiture because the Crown can claim that the signers were guilty of treason. After all, there is no statue of limitations on legal violations and the violation does not have to be extant in both countries.
If a person is living a law-abiding life here in the United States, why should we care what happened back in the old country? There arenít very many who have come here who havenít been seeking a better life. Our Founding Fathers had sense enough to leave well enough alone when it came to a personís history in the old country. They got a clean slate when they arrived here. This should still apply to legal immigrants. Illegal immigrants must be micro-chipped and deported immediately.
This treaty is exactly the kind of sneaky, underhanded tactic that gives credence to conspiracy theories and the notion that our government is gung-ho for the One World Dictatorship, the public be damned.
It was signed on March 31, 2003, by Messrs. Blunkett and Ashcroft has been sent to the Senate for ratification.
Methinks poor Mr. Blunkett and his staff have spent too much time following Alice through the looking glass and lost touch with the concepts of national sovereignty and common law. Certainly Mr. Ashcroft needs to review the Bill of Rights and not sell out our Constitutional rights so he can be knighted. Mayhap he would like to remove to England because he seems to be more sympathetic to their laws than our Constitution which he swore to uphold.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Paula Devlin can be reached at: email@example.com
Published in the November 14, 2003 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2003 Ether Zone
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Go to: => TOP Page; => Politics Library; => World/UN Library; => ROAD MAP