UK-US Extradition Treaty

Indeed, it is stated explicitly in article 8(3)(c). The difference, in a nutshell, is this. In order to obtain the extradition of anyone from the United States, we have to show that there is probable cause that the person concerned has committed the relevant offence, whereas the United States has to provide only information—not evidence—to justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the person concerned. There is a clear and enormous difference between the two, so the Government’s first mistake was to agree to this one-sided test. The Government’s second mistake, as has already been pointed out, was to designate the United States under the Extradition Act 2003 before the US Senate had ratified the extradition treaty. Any incentive that there would otherwise have been for the Senate to ratify the treaty was thereby removed. In response to overwhelming criticism from all quarters, the Government have tended to say three things. First, in the face of the facts and of the statement by Baroness Scotland in the other place, they assert that the arrangements are reciprocal. Just a week ago today, the Prime Minister said:"““it is not true that the United States has a different evidential burden from this country.””—[Official Report, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 807]" That statement is plainly incorrect, and the Prime Minister should apologise and withdraw it. Secondly, the Government resort to the terrorism gambit. On 1 March, in response to the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister referred to these issues as ““international terrorism issues””. As we know, that is a gross distortion of the issues at stake, and the Prime Minister demeans himself and devalues the importance of dealing with terrorism by using that argument in that way. Thirdly, the Government accuse their critics of being anti-American. For those of us who have devoted a political lifetime to transatlantic relations, that is perhaps the most contemptible charge of all.