Extradition treaty hits rights storm
Concern over IRA fugitive’s status
13 June 2006
A landmark extradition treaty between the US and the UK is being held up by campaigners concerned about the impact on IRA fugitives, an Ulster Unionist barrister said today.
Rodney McCune was speaking amid concerns over America’s failure to ratify a mutual extradition agreement making it easier for the UK to seek the extradition of people living in the US.
Groups opposed the US legislation, which they say erodes the role of the judiciary in extradition proceedings, include NORAID and the Irish National Caucus.
Mr McCune said America was guilty of hypocrisy in its dealings with the UK on the issue.
“They are asking us to extradite people like Abu Hamza (imprisoned in Britain for inciting murder and stirring up race hate) and engaging in rendition and yet whenever we have suspects which we want extradited they are saying no to a country which has stood shoulder-to-shoulder with them on terrorism and which enjoys a special relationship,” he said.
“I think this is clear foot-dragging by the US Senators and it is clear from everything which I have read that the Irish/American lobby is behind a lot of this reluctance from senators.”
An amnesty for IRA men, including Ciaran Ferry, has been a key Sinn Fein demand but legislation providing for that foundered after widespread opposition at Westminster.
Fr Sean McManus from the Irish National Caucus is objecting to provisions of the legislation.
“I would oppose the elimination of the courts in this process because it gives carte blanche to the Justice Department to make this decision. From a civil rights point of view I think it is quite repugnant,” he said.
“This legislation eliminates the judicial review of political offences and that would particularly concern Irish/Americans who know all about the controversy surrounding political offences.”
The treaty was passed by Westminster three years ago.
A State Department fact sheet on the extradition provisions said: “This criticism confuses the “political offense” and “political motivation” provisions in that Treaty.
“Under the new treaty (being debated), as under the existing treaty, U.S. courts will continue to assess whether an offense for which extradition has been requested is a political offense.”
