Imagine further that, with confidence in the First Amendment rights you are allegedly guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, you have specifically protested the equally colonial and imperialistic reign of terror that England has conducted in Ireland for the past 800 years.

Reality, however, must now take hold. Your supposed freedom of expression could wind up costing you two months in a British jail, thanks to the US/UK Extradition Treaty.

Never heard of it? Of course you haven’t! The treaty was passed into law, in unanimous fashion no less, by the U.S. Senate on Saturday, September 30 of this year.

Not surprisingly, there was little or no media coverage from the major television networks, radio conglomerates and press syndicates. Outrage from the extensive Irish-American community in the United States was minimal at best.

What is this treaty? In a nutshell, according to Jerry Boyle of the Irish Freedom Committee, it “subjects U.S. citizens to extradition based solely on unproven allegations by the British government.

“For example, any American who is active in Irish affairs faces potential detention, and transportation to the United Kingdom, without any proof of guilt and without judicial review.

“Never before in its history has the United States government subjected the liberty of its citizens to the whims of a foreign government.”

The treaty was originally the brainchild of legendary humanist and U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft and U.K. Home Secretary David Plunkett. The dynamic duo signed the treaty on March 31, 2003, and the proposed law was inconsistently reviewed in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for over three years before they unanimously passed it on to the full Senate for debate and vote. Now U.S. law, Treaty Doc. 108-23 has among its provisions the following points:

• an allowance for extradition even if no U.S. federal law has been violated

• the elimination of any statute of limitations

• the elimination of the need for any showing by the United Kingdom of facts (prima-facie evidence) sufficient to show the person requested is guilty of the crime charged: mere unsupported allegations are sufficient

• an allowance for “provisional arrest” and detention for 60 days upon request by the United Kingdom

• an allowance for seizure of assets by the United Kingdom

• retroactive application for offenses allegedly committed even before the ratification of the treaty.

“No Irish-American activist is safe if this treaty passes,” commented Mr. Boyle. Now it has passed. Ashcroft originally claimed that the treaty was designed for “combating terrorism, organized crime, money laundering and other offenses.”

What's that you said about King George?

But William Hughes, author of Saying No to the War Party, charges that under the treaty as written, the British could demand recompense from anyone in the U.S. who stood up to British law—living or dead. Hughes contends the property of the descendants of the founding fathers could theoretically be seized!

“Such items and assets may be surrendered even if the extradition cannot be carried out due to the death ... of the person sought,” states Article 16 of the treaty.

Professor Francis A. Boyle (no relation to Jerry Boyle), a professor of international law at the University of Illinois, claims the treaty will “eliminate the political offense exception for any offense allegedly involving violence or weapons; transfer responsibility for determining whether the extradition request is politically motivated from the courts to the executive branch; allow for extradition even if no U.S. federal law is violated; and allow for provisional arrest and detention for 60 days upon request by the UK.”

Could I, as an American citizen opposed to British treachery in Northern Ireland, be extradited to England without ever making a threat or engaging in nefarious activities?

According to Hughes, that’s a possible scenario. “If all of this sounds like the Brits could wake up one morning and just arbitrarily charge an American citizen with a so-called extraditable offense, on the flimsiest kind of evidence, you're right to think so,” says Hughes.

“It also means that the accused, a citizen of this republic, would get no full judicial review of the extradition process by a federal judge, a federal appellate court, or the U.S. Supreme Court. An American will be at the mercy of an alien-based foreign government with none of the usual constitutional protections.”

Robert Tuttle, U.S. ambassador to Britain, had a quite different opinion after the treaty was ratified by the Senate.

“We can now have a fully modernized extradition relationship that helps to protect citizens of both of our countries and to improve the administration of justice,” gushed Tuttle on the embassy’s web site. Frightened? You should be. The “war on terror” has created, as a byproduct, a war on human rights, civil rights and—with this treaty—a war on the political exemption clause that has been a cornerstone of America’s diplomatic relations since Thomas Jefferson refused extradition of an opponent of the French Revolution.

The US/UK Extradition Treaty is the most extreme ever passed by Congress and will initiate drastic consequences for any person who, like myself, has ever spoken out against British human rights abuses at any time in their lives.

Guilty as charged!

George Cuddy likes to consider himself a meddler—”which in this day and age is a fine occupation.” He blogs at

26milesfortheifc.blogspot.com

Read the text of the US/UK treaty www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm