Extradition E Extradition Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Where extradition is compelled by laws, such as among sub-national jurisdictions, the concept may be known more generally as rendition. Extradition treaties or agreements The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders. Such absence of international obligation and the desire of the right to demand such criminals of other countries have caused a web of extradition treaties or agreements to evolve; most countries in the world have signed bilateral extradition treaties with most other countries. No country in the world has an extradition treaty with all other countries; for example, the United States lacks extradition treaties with several nations, including the People's Republic of China , Namibia , and North Korea . Common conditions of extradition By enacting laws or concluding treaties or agreements, countries determine the conditions under which they may entertain or deny extradition requests.

Common bars to extradition include: Failure to fulfill dual criminality - generally the act for which extradition is sought must constitute a crime punishable by some minimum penalty in both the requesting and the requested parties. Political nature of the alleged crime - most countries refuse to extradite suspects of political crimes. Possibility of certain forms of punishment - some countries refuse extradition on grounds that the person, if extradited, may receive capital punishment or face torture. A few go as far as to cover all punishments that they themselves would not administer. Citizenship of the person in question - some countries refuse extradition of own citizens, holding trials for the persons themselves. In some cases, such as that of Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the suspect will not face criminal charges at all. Restrictions Most countries require themselves to deny extradition requests if, in the government's opinion, the suspect is sought for a political crime. Many countries, such as Mexico , Canada and most European nations, will not allow extradition if the death penalty may be imposed on the suspect unless they are assured that the death sentence will not be passed or carried out. In the case of Soering v.

United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that it would violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to extradite a person to the United States from the United Kingdom in a capital case. This was due to the harsh conditions on death row and the uncertain timescale within which the sentence would be executed. Parties to the European Convention also cannot extradite people where they would be at significant risk of being tortured inhumanely or degradingly treated or punished. These restrictions are normally clearly spelled out in the extradition treaties that a government has agreed upon. They are, however, controversial in the United States, where the death penalty is practiced in some U.S. states, as it is seen by many as an attempt by foreign nations to interfere with the U.S. criminal justice system. In contrast, pressures by the U.S. government on these countries to change their laws, or even sometimes to ignore their laws, is perceived by many in those nations as an attempt by the United States to interfere in their sovereign right to manage justice within their own borders. Famous examples include the extradition dispute with Canada on Charles Ng. Countries with a rule of law typically make extradition subject to review by that country's courts.

These courts may impose certain restrictions on extradition, or prevent it altogether, if for instance they deem the accusations to be based on dubious evidence, or evidence obtained from torture , or if they believe that the defendant will not be granted a fair trial on arrival, or will be subject to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment if extradited. Some countries, such as France , Russian Federation , Germany , Austria , China and Japan , have laws that forbid extraditing their respective citizens. Others, such as Israel , prohibit extradition of their own citizens in their constitutions. Some others stipulate such prohibition on extradition agreements rather than their laws. Such restrictions are occasionally controversial in other countries when, for example, a French citizen commits a crime abroad and then returns to their home country, perceived as to avoid prosecution. These countries, however, make their criminal laws applicable to citizens abroad, and they try citizens suspected of crimes committed abroad under their own laws. Such suspects are typically prosecuted as if the crime had occurred within the country's borders.

Exemptions in the European Union The usual extradition agreement safeguards relating to dual-criminality, the presence of prima facie evidence and the possibility of a fair trial have been waived by many European nations for a list of specified offences under the terms of the European Arrest Warrant. The warrant entered into force in eight European Union (EU) member-states on 1 January, 2004, and is in force in all member-states since 22 April 2005. Defenders of the warrant argue that the usual safeguards are not necessary because every EU nation is committed by treaty, and often by legal and constitutional provisions, to the right to a fair trial, and because every EU member-state is subject to the European Convention on Human Rights. Extradition to federations The federal structure of some countries, such as the United States, can pose particular problems with respect to extraditions when the police power and the power of foreign relations are held at different levels of the federal hierarchy. For instance, in the United States, most criminal prosecutions occur at the state level, and most foreign relations occurs on the federal level.

In fact, under the United States Constitution , foreign countries may not have official treaty relations with sub-national units such as the individual states; rather, they may have treaty relations only with the federal government. As a result, a state that wishes to prosecute an individual located in foreign territory must direct its extradition request through the federal government, which will negotiate the extradition with the requested state. However, due to the constraints of federalism , any conditions on the extradition accepted by the federal government — such as not to impose the death penalty — are not binding on the states. In the case of Soering v. United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the United Kingdom was not permitted under its treaty obligations to extradite an individual to the United States, because the United States' federal government was constitutionally unable to offer binding assurances that the death penalty would not be sought in Virginia courts. Ultimately, the Commonwealth of Virginia itself had to offer assurances to the federal government, which passed those assurances on to the United Kingdom, which extradited the individual to the United States. Less important problems can arise due to differing qualifications for crimes. For instance, in the United States, crossing state lines is a prerequisite for certain federal crimes (otherwise crimes such as murder, etc.

are handled by state governments except in certain circumstances such as the killing of a federal official). This transportation clause is, understandably, absent from the laws of many countries. Extradition treaties or subsequent diplomatic correspondence often include language providing that such criteria should not be taken into account when checking if the crime is one in the country from which extradition should apply. To clarify the above point, if a person in the United States crosses the borders of the United States to go to another country, then that person has crossed a federal border, and then federal law would apply. In addition, taking a flight in the United States subjects one to federal law, as all airports are considered subject to federal jurisdiction. Controversies International tensions The refusal of a country to extradite suspects or criminals to another may lead to international relations being strained. Often, the country to which extradition is refused will accuse the other country of refusing extradition for political reasons (regardless of whether or not this is justified). A case in point is that of Ira Einhorn, in which some US commentators pressured President Jacques Chirac of France, who does not intervene in legal cases, to permit extradition when the case was held up due to differences between French and American human rights law.

The questions involved are often complex when the country from which suspects are to be extradited is a democratic country with a rule of law. Typically, in such countries, the final decision to extradite lies with the national executive ( prime minister , president or equivalent). However, such countries typically allow extradition defendants recourse to the law, with multiple appeals. These may significantly slow down procedures. On the one hand, this may lead to unwarranted international difficulties, as the public, politicians and journalists from the requesting country will ask their executive to put pressure on the executive of the country from which extradition is to take place, while that executive may not in fact have the authority to deport the suspect or criminal on their own. On the other hand, certain delays, or the unwillingness of the local prosecution authorities to present a good extradition case before the court on behalf of the requesting state, may possibly result from the unwillingness of the country's executive to extradite. For example, there is at present a disagreement between the United States and the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003 [ (text here)] that dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradition.

It is important to emphasize, however, that even had the treaty been ratified by the U.S., the treaty would still be one-sided, because it stipulates that extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. must show a "reasonable case" that the suspect committed the offense, but requests from the U.S. to the UK have no such requirement imposed on them. This came to a head over the extradition of the Natwest Three from the UK to the U.S., for their alleged role in the Enron fraud. Several British political leaders were heavily critical of the British government's handling of the issue. The former leader of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, Sir Menzies Campbell, had argued that the U.S. had not ratified the treaty primarily due to the influence of what he calls the "Irish lobby" – which, he said, is opposed to the treaty because it could make it easier for Britain to have alleged IRA terrorist suspects extradited from the U.S. The precedent of the Natwest Three may also be used to extradite/prosecute Philip Watts in connection with the Royal Dutch Shell reserves scandal.

The press has carried vocal criticisms of the present extradition arrangements from the UK's business community, some of whom stated that they were avoiding doing business with or in the U.S. because of legal concerns such as the extradition treaty, among other concerns. Extradition and abduction Issues of international law relating to extradition have proven controversial in cases where a state has abducted and removed an individual from the territory of another state without previously requesting permission, or following normal extradition procedures. Such abductions are usually in violation of the domestic law of the country in which they occur, as infringements of laws forbidding kidnapping . Many also regard abduction as violation of international law — in particular of a prohibition on arbitrary detention. A small number of countries have been reported to use kidnapping to circumvent the formal extradition process.

Notable or controversial cases involving abduction of foreign citizens: Morton Sobell from Mexico by the United States in 1950 Isang Yun from West Germany by South Korea in 1967 Abdullah Ocalan from Kenya by the United States and Turkey Ronnie Biggs from Brazil by independent bounty hunters in 1981 Mordechai Vanunu from Italy by Israel in 1986 Manuel Noriega from Panama by the United States following a US invasion in 1989 (although this was arguably taking an enemy leader as a prisoner of war ) Humberto Álvarez Machaín from Mexico by the United States Drug Enforcement Administration in 1990 Nick Leeson from Germany to Singapore on March 2 , 1995 Mir Aimal Kansi from Pakistan by the CIA in 1997 Martin Mubanga from Zambia to Guantanamo Bay by the United States in 2002 Andrew Luster from Mexico by Duane Chapman in 2003 Khaled El-Masri from the Republic of Macedonia by the CIA in 2004 Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr from Italy to Egypt by the CIA in 2005 'Extraordinary rendition' "Extraordinary rendition

" is an extrajudicial procedure and policy of the United States in which criminal suspects, generally suspected terrorists or supporters of terrorist organisations, are sent to countries for imprisonment and interrogation .

The procedure differs from extradition as the purpose of the rendition is to extract information from suspects, while extradition is used to return fugitives so that they can stand trial or fulfill their sentence. Critics of the procedure have accused the CIA of rendering suspects to other countries in order to circumvent U.S. laws prescribing due process and prohibiting torture. (Wikipedia) United States Criminal Warrants and Convictions United States Criminal Warrants and Convictions Posted by : admin Recently, this author was asked about whether or not Thailand and the USA share an extradition Treaty and, if so, what are the ramifications of an American criminal warrant or conviction for those living in Thailand. Extradition , “is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal.” Thailand and the United States currently have an Extradition Treaty. It is similar to the US-Thai Amity Treaty in that it is bilateral, but the subject matter of the Amity Treaty is very different compared to that of an Extradition Treaty. An Extradition Treaty provides a framework whereby the United States authorities can request that a suspect be handed over to the American authorities.

That being said, for more information on specific legal citations please see the relevant Wikipedia page . As Thailand and the United States share an Extradition Treaty, a person with American Criminal Warrants or American Arrest Warrants could be subjected to United States jurisdiction while in Thailand or while traveling between Thailand and another country. Even if not arrested in Thailand, it is always wise for those with criminal warrants or convictions to deal with the matter so that it can be “put to rest.” It is never wise to run from one’s criminal problems. For those with a prior criminal conviction or pending criminal warrants the issue of passport re-issuance can be critical. The United States Embassy in Bangkok , Thailand and the United States Consulate-General in Chiang Mai assist with new passport re-issuance through their American Citizen Services Sections. If one is currently wanted in a US jurisdiction, then the Consular Officers at American Citizen Services are unlikely to issue a new passport or travel document until the American (or foreign national) in question returns to the United States to deal with the pending matter. Of further importance to many non-US Citizens with pending American criminal warrants is the effect of criminal proceedings upon one’s ability to acquire United States Immigration benefits (most importantly, a US visa ).

If one has an arrest or conviction for domestic violence, this fact could have a major impact upon one’s ability to petition for a K1 visa due to the provisions in the Adam Walsh Act and other relevant US law. Further, if one has a criminal conviction in the US, the underlying facts of the case could lead to a later finding of inadmissibility by a Consular Officer adjudicating a later visa application . In some cases, an I601 waiver may be available for those who are found to be inadmissible. Consulting with an attorney experienced in Immigration matters could provide insight regarding the Immigration ramifications of an American criminal conviction. An American attorney in Thailand (or southeast Asia) could be of assistance to a client by acting as a liaison with American authorities or with other American attorneys. Simply providing legal advice regarding the impact of one’s prior choices could be a boon to some as well. No attorney can assist in evading US law, but a lawyer licensed in the United States could assist by providing legal counsel and advice regarding the ramifications of a client’s previous decisions. What Is Extradition? What is extradition? I do not understand what this word means in the legal sense.

Answer by wallaby78 (2293) Extradition is when a criminal who is arrested in one place is sent to another place to face charges there. Answer by maitreya (14) Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Answer by nuttree (1596) When a person who was accused (or convicted) of a crime in one country or state is discovered in another country or state, the accusing state can request the transfer of the criminal to its jurisdiction for trial or punishment. The process of requesting and receiving transfer is called "extradition. " Extradition vs rendition > экстрадиция vs передача English to Russian translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) English term or phrase: Extradition vs rendition Экстрадиция или выдача преступников normally occurs pursuant to a treaty between the two states in question.

According to a definition I am looking at, Rendition: form of extradition that involves the forcible transfer of a detainee by one state to another despite the lack of a treaty relationship Is there an established Russian legal term for Rendition? The closest Multitran comes to it is выдача, and that would be my first choice too, but Google doesn't support any difference between the two terms. Any ideas? Please, please do not bother guessing. I'd like to hear from people who actually know or can at least substantiate their opinion with usage samples or sources. Many thanks. экстрадиция (между странами) vs выдача (между штатами) Explanation: Substantiation (sorry, just Pediwikia): "Extradition is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Among sub-national regions (for example, the individual states of the U.S.), where extradition is required by law, it is more accurately known as rendition". "Each state has a presumptive duty to render suspects on the request of another state, as under the full faith and credit clause.

The Supreme Court has established certain exceptions; a state may allow its own legal proceedings against a suspect to take precedence, for example. It was established in Kentucky v. Dennison that interstate rendition and extradition were not a federal writ; that is, a state could not petition the federal courts to have another state honor its request for rendition, if the state receiving the request chose not to do so. In rare cases, usually involving the death penalty, states have refused or delayed rendition." Hope it will help. Note added at 19 hrs (2009-08-26 11:57:15 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Extradition Lawyers in West Palm Beach Law Firm - Susnar & Geesey This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Extradition Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Between nation states, extradition is regulated by treaties. Extradition is more accurately known as rendition between sub-national regions, as in the individual states of the U.S., where extradition is required by law.

The Extradition of Fugatives Clause in the Constitution requires States, upon demand of another State, deliver a fugitive of justice who has committed a "treason, felony or other crime" to be removed from the State to which the fugitive has fled. If you have been arrested or charged with a crime committed in another state, or you live in another state but you're facing criminal charges in another, it is essential you have legal representation. Facing extradition is frightening because you could be sitting in jail for 1-3 months just waiting for the extradition paperwork to be processed. We can help you by contacting the prosecutor handling your extradition case and negotiating with the other state to resolve charges quickly so you won't have to return to that state, or Florida if you're in another state. We can negotiate a bail reduction or elimination if you agree to return to Florida, or the other state, on your own and we will work aggressively to help you avoid custody or jail time. AN EXAMINATION OF THE EXTRADITION ACT, 2004 – Odujinrin & Adefulu June 30, 2015 by Odujinrin & Adefulu Olayemi Shofolu Esq.

In recent times, increase in cross-border crimes have necessitated the demand for the physical surrender of individuals suspected to have committed criminal acts and thereafter fled the jurisdiction of the Court in the territory where said crimes were committed. The purview of this article is to consider the provisions as well as the application of the Extradition Act, CAP E25, Volume 6, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. (“Extradition Act” or the “Act”). Extradition is generally the transfer of an accused from one state or country to another state or country that seeks to place the accused on trial. It could be defined as the legal surrender of a fugitive to the jurisdiction of another state, country, or government for trial or the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. Where extradition is required between sub-national regions/states, it is usually known as rendition. The general desire of all states to ensure that serious crimes do not go unpunished is a major rationale for growth in the law and practice of extradition.

More often than not, a state in whose territory criminals have taken refuge cannot prosecute or punish them purely due to technicalities in its criminal law or for lack of jurisdiction. Therefore, to apprehend such fugitive offenders, international law applies the maxim aut punire aut dedere i.e. offenders must be punished by the state of refuge or surrendered to the state which can and will punish them. Here, the evidence of the commission of crime is freely available and that state has the greatest interest in the punishment of the offender as well as the greatest facilities for ascertaining the truth. Thus, it follows that it is only right and proper that such criminals who have taken refuge abroad, be surrendered to the territorial state. Pursuant to Sections 1 and 2 of the Extradition Act, the Act shall apply to all Commonwealth Countries and any other country (outside the Commonwealth) with whom the Federal Republic of Nigeria enters into an extradition agreement. However, where there is in existence, a dependent territory within a Commonwealth State, the Act shall apply to such dependent territory only to the extent as the Commonwealth state may permit.

Also, where it appears that the laws of a Country to which the Act applies no longer contain provisions substantially equivalent to the provisions of the Act, the President may direct that the Act shall apply in relation to that Country with such modifications as may be specified in the order of the President. The Attorney-General of the Federation or a Court of competent jurisdiction has been saddled with powers to restrict the application of the Act under Section 3. Any person accused of or convicted of the commission of an offense outside Nigeria shall not be surrendered if the Attorney-General of the Federation or Court of competent jurisdiction considers or is satisfied that the offense is of a trivial nature, a political character or if the fugitive has been convicted of the offense or has been acquitted of the offense. A person will also not be surrendered for prosecution where the request for extradition was not made in the interest of justice but in fact made to punish him/her on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or made in bad faith. A surrender may also be refused considering the passage of time since the commission of the offense. An alleged offender may however be surrendered where the offense alleged to have been committed relates to military law or military obligations.

Although the wording of the Act is clear and unambiguous as to its application and restrictions, utmost care must be taken by our Courts and the Attorney-General of the Federation in the interpretation of the Act to avoid abuse of the powers donated therein. Without a stern disposition towards fugitives who commit serious crimes outside Nigeria, the international community may not recognize the Federal Republic of Nigeria as a nation with zero tolerance for harboring fugitive criminals. Consequently, cartels and established criminals will only seek to exploit any loopholes in our judicial system in the promotion of their criminal enterprise. Our judicial system must therefore uphold the sanctity of the judicial process to ensure serious crimes do not go unpunished regardless of the territory in which said offense was committed and the length of time it takes to prosecute or surrender a criminal fugitive. The willingness to work in partnership with other jurisdictions for purposes of processing each request for surrender to criminal prosecution will add force and life to the letter of the law. After all, that is the intendment of the legislature in the enactment of the statute and no more. War on Terror Tactics War on Terror Tactics Tuesday's World Events — Posted on February 10, 2009 Jump to...

Just Questions (by Fred Burton and Ben West, at WorldMag.com) – U.S. President Barack Obama signed an executive order Feb. 1 approving the continued use of renditions by the CIA. The order seems to go against Obama’s campaign promises to improve the image of the United States abroad, as renditions under the Bush administration had drawn criticism worldwide, especially from members of the European Union. The executive order does not necessarily mean that renditions and other tactics for dealing with terrorist suspects will proceed unchanged, however. Obama came into office promising changes in the way the United States combats terrorism. One of these changes was a new emphasis on legal processes and a shift away from controversial methods of treating terrorist suspects, like rendition, harsh interrogation techniques, and secret prisons. The Obama administration can and will roll back some of these tactics, as demonstrated by the president’s Jan. 22 order to close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. But some will continue. Renditions and the legal process Renditions are a powerful tool for counterterrorism operations. They involve agents moving into a foreign country to execute a warrant.

Once the fugitive is located, agents track, seize, and transport him out of the country for interrogations, or to stand trial, as in the cases of Lebanese hijacker Fawaz Younis, CIA shooter Mir Amal Kanzi, 1993 World Trade Center bombers Abdel Basit (aka Ramzi Yousef) and Mahmud Abouhalima, and even Ilich Ramirez Sanchez (aka Carlos the Jackal). Some of the individuals targeted for renditions have warrants out for their arrest, but are taking refuge in countries that either lack the law enforcement capability to capture them or cannot arrest and extradite them for political reasons. By contrast, the renditions where there is no indictment or warrant and where the suspect is transported to a secret prison for interrogation and detention without a public trial are far more controversial. Renditions of either kind virtually always occur with the knowledge of the host country, and usually with the host government’s express consent. (Few countries wish to shelter suspected terrorist masterminds.) Renditions thus involve legal questions as much as they do diplomatic questions. Before renditions can be carried out, the Washington bureaucracy kicks into full swing. The U.S. State Department must consider the diplomatic ramifications.

The ambassador in the host country must consider his or her position and judge the response of his or her contacts in the host country government. The U.S. Justice Department must also sign on. Finally, the agency in charge of actually nabbing the suspect must be willing to work within any restrictions imposed by any one of the many individuals who must approve the operation. Even when the government ultimately deems a rendition operation legal, numerous factors can still stymie the effort (not least of which is that by the time all the necessary approvals have been obtained, the window of opportunity to nab the suspect might have closed). So while Obama’s executive order in theory permits renditions, it is only one part of the whole process; the appropriate members of Obama’s administration must also be on board. Many members of the Obama administration also served in the Clinton administration, which was widely seen as considering all legal ramifications of potential renditions before taking any action. As a former deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration, new Attorney General Eric Holder enjoyed a reputation for deliberating on renditions to the point of inaction-effectively vetoing such operations.

While an appearance of greater attention to the law might come as a relief to many, actors in the field do not have the luxury of endless deliberation and total consensus-they have a narrow window of opportunity in which to act on perishable intelligence. Assuming that Obama’s administration acts with deliberation and pursues consensus building …, the legality of renditions might become moot if they are not agreed upon in a timely manner. There is a fine line to walk between efficiency and legality in this field, with extremes on either side being detrimental to national security. By their very nature, renditions are ad hoc and rarely fit into a nice, clean process, something that explains their controversial nature. They frequently occur in countries allied to the United States, meaning the practice falls outside the scope of war. And renditions resulting in suspects’ standing trial are far less controversial than those involving secret prisons, harsh interrogation tactics and reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations-tactics disfavored by the Obama administration. Alternatives to rendition Apprehending suspects in foreign countries does not always involve controversial tactics. U.S. counterterrorism officials also use tactics abroad that are not forbidden under U.S.

law, though they might be illegal if used within the United States (and could well be illegal in the country where U.S. agents employ them). In general, such tactics remain constant as administrations change. These tactics include surveillance of foreign targets, ruse operations and economic incentives and punishments to encourage cooperation in counterterrorism efforts. Ruse operations, a less controversial way to apprehend fugitives than renditions, involve deception, obviating the need to jump through the bureaucratic hoops required for renditions. Ruse operations involve luring suspects to a location where U.S. agents can apprehend them legally. This involves persuading targets to venture into international waters, for example, or even to travel to the United States, where U.S. agents lie in wait. While such tactics avoid the legal complexities surrounding renditions, they are extremely difficult to carry out. Suspects worth chasing around the world typically are not overly gullible, and know where it is safe to travel. So while there is no reason to believe that ruse operations will cease anytime soon, successful ones are few and far between. Sometimes killing a terrorist target is both more efficient and less legally complex than renditions or ruse operations.

Tactical strikes, such as the unmanned aerial vehicle-launched missile strikes against suspected al-Qaida targets in Pakistan, both remove a suspected terrorist target and avoid drawn-out legal processes. Like its predecessor, the Obama administration apparently sees striking at al-Qaida targets along the Pakistani-Afghan border as acceptable within the scope of the ongoing war in Afghanistan, despite Pakistani protests. The latest such U.S. strike came Jan. 23, just three days after Obama took office. Given the administration’s presumed hesitation based on legal reservations and an unwillingness to expand warfare beyond the Afghan theater, this tactic is unlikely to pop up in other areas of the world without a serious threat escalation. Secret prisons and interrogation issues Obama on Jan. 22 also ordered the CIA to close its secret prisons around the world that hold detainees without adhering to U.S. legal standards. Because fewer than 100 detainees were held in these prisons, however, this is a minor point. A different executive order also issued Jan. 22 applied the interrogation guidelines outlined in the U.S. military field handbook and the Geneva Conventions to the CIA. Obama and Holder also have made it clear that the new administration views waterboarding as torture and thus illegal, settling the debate on the matter.

Still, it is only a matter of time before new techniques used by interrogators in the field will face questions of legality and morality. No national leader can micromanage at the field level. Even though the Justice Department and senior White House officials in the Bush administration signed secret findings authorizing the CIA to conduct waterboarding in specific cases, tactical, field-level topics do not stick around at the level of national policy for very long. With secret prisons on the way out, more restrictions on how agents act in the field and an expected decline in renditions, a greater U.S. reliance on third countries to carry out rendition operations is possible. During the Clinton and Bush administrations, countries like Egypt and Jordan were known to cooperate with U.S. agencies in detaining and interrogating prisoners. Critics claimed that relying on third countries exploited a loophole that allowed the United States to see that unsavory acts were committed without directly carrying them out. Obama’s emphasis on using diplomacy to improve the U.S. image in the world suggests that his administration will turn to other countries for counterterrorism assistance instead of operating unilaterally. Obama already has asked for other countries to help out more in Afghanistan (specifically European countries).

Obama might also tap third countries like Portugal, Switzerland or Germany to take in detainees leaving Guantanamo who are not sent back to home countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia after the facility’s closure. Working with these countries to ensure safe delivery of the detainees out of U.S. custody will remove a lightning rod for criticism of the United States in the Muslim world. Delegating counterterrorism responsibilities to other countries allows the United States to avoid the legal complexities inherent in renditions, secret prisons and harsh interrogation. But ultimately, increased reliance on other countries with different interests can enhance the overall complexity of missions. It is also important to remember that the United States possesses one of the most capable counterterrorism forces in the world, and that other countries simply cannot carry out the same missions that the United States does. This is not to say that pursuing U.S. interests abroad does not call for diplomacy (which is one of the administration’s main tools to fight terror), but that seeking international approval and establishing legal cover does reduce efficiency and restrain U.S. capabilities. Finding the balance between fighting terror efficiently and remaining within legal boundaries will be a key challenge for the Obama administration. Copyright ©2009 WORLD Magazine, Web Extra posted February 5, 2009.

Reprinted here February 10th with permission from World Magazine. Visit the website at . Originally published at stratfor.com . Reprinted here for educational purposes only. Questions News from Brazil, Italy and Australia November 1, 2016 thout adhering to U.S. legal standards. Because fewer than 100 detainees were held in these prisons, however, this is a minor point. A different executive order also issued Jan. 22 applied the interrogation guidelines outlined in the U.S. military field handbook and the Geneva Conventions to the CIA. Obama and Holder also have made it clear that the new administration views waterboarding as torture and thus illegal, settling the debate on the matter. Still, it is only a matter of time before new techniques used by interrogators in the field will face questions of legality and morality. No national leader can micromanage at the field level. Even though the Justice Department and senior White House officials in the Bush administration signed secret findings authorizing the CIA to conduct waterboarding in specific cases, tactical, field-level topics do not stick around at the level of national policy for very long.

With secret prisons on the way out, more restrictions on how agents act in the field and an expected decline in renditions, a greater U.S. reliance on third countries to carry out rendition operations is possible. During the Clinton and Bush administrations, countries like Egypt and Jordan were known to cooperate with U.S. agencies in detaining and interrogating prisoners. Critics claimed that relying on third countries exploited a loophole that allowed the United States to see that unsavory acts were committed without directly carrying them out. Obama’s emphasis on using diplomacy to improve the U.S. image in the world suggests that his administration will turn to other countries for counterterrorism assistance instead of operating unilaterally. Obama already has asked for other countries to help out more in Afghanistan (specifically European countries). Obama might also tap third countries like Portugal, Switzerland or Germany to take in detainees leaving Guantanamo who are not sent back to home countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia after the facility’s closure. Working with these countries to ensure safe delivery of the detainees out of U.S. custody will remove a lightning rod for criticism of the United States in the Muslim world.

Delegating counterterrorism responsibilities to other countries allows the United States to avoid the legal complexities inherent in renditions, secret prisons and harsh interrogation. But ultimately, increased reliance on other countries with different interests can enhance the overall complexity of missions. It is also important to remember that the United States possesses one of the most capable counterterrorism forces in the world, and that other countries simply cannot carry out the same missions that the United States does. This is not to say that pursuing U.S. interests abroad does not call for diplomacy (which is one of the administration’s main tools to fight terror), but that seeking international approval and establishing legal cover does reduce efficiency and restrain U.S. capabilities. Finding the balance between fighting terror efficiently and remaining within legal boundaries will be a key challenge for the Obama administration. Copyright ©2009 WORLD Magazine, Web Extra posted February 5, 2009. Reprinted here February 10th with permission from World Magazine. Visit the website at . Originally published at stratfor.com . Reprinted here for educational purposes only.

Questions OATD: Sluškonytė, Lina - Ekstradicijos samprata, pagrindai ir sąlygos Ekstradicijos samprata, pagrindai ir sąlygos URL Mykolas Romeris University Abstract SUMMARY Extradition is the official process by which one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal. As between nations, extradition is regulated by treaties. As between states or other political subdivisions on a domestic level, extradition is more accurately known as rendition. The master thesis is a research of the concept of extradition in historical perspective, trying to overlook deeper the basics of this legal norm. The research of the concept of extradition in historical perspective, trying to overlook deeper the basics of this legal norm. The research is made by comparing the institute of extradition and institute of fugitives in the context of international law, other legal acts. Fundamental legal acts of extradition are thoroughly discussed in the master thesis. The author presents the analysis of conventions, bilateral, agreements, national laws of extradition, principle of reciprocity and moral human rights. The author presents opinions of various contemporary Lithuanian scientists such as V.

Vadapalas, A. Nevera, A. Čepas, J. Žilinskas, G. Goda, M. Kazlauskas, P. Kuconis, G. Švedas, L. Visockienė. Also were used fundamental works about extradition by M. Akehurst, S. Bedi, G. Gilbert, H. Lauterpacht, I. A. Shearer, A. Boicov, R. Valejev, J. Vasiljev, B. Velčev, L. Galenskaja etc. International agreements, national criminal laws and laws of criminal procedure are also analyzed in the study....

[to full text] Subjects/Keywords Baudžiamasis persekiojimas; Extradition; Europos arešto orderis; European Arrest Warrant; Ekstradicija; Ekstradicijos pagrindai; Temporal extradition; Total extradition; Laikinas perdavimas; Political prosecution; Conditions of extradition; Politinis persekiojimas; Supaprastinta ekstradicija; Criminal prosecution; Ekstradicijos sąlygos; Simplified extradition Contributors Pakštaitis, Laurynas (Master’s thesis supervisor); Pakštaitis, Laurynas (Master’s degree committee member); Gutauskas, Aurelijus (Master’s degree committee member); Nevera, Andrius (Master’s degree committee member); Nevera, Andrius (Master’s thesis reviewer); Fedosiukas, Olegas (Master’s degree committee member); Piesliakas, Vytautas (Master’s degree committee chair); Kujalis, Pavelas (Master’s degree committee member); Nikitinas, Vladas (Master’s degree committee member); Žičkutė, Aistė (Master’s degree session secretary) Language

Question: What is the official process whereby one nation or state requests and obtains from another nation or state the surrender of a suspected or convicted criminal?
Answer: Extradition