Oleg the Prophet?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Zedicus

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2003
Messages
1,976
Location
Idaho
Founding Fathers' Assets at Risk from Proposed UK Treaty

http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/6865/

Founding Fathers' Assets at Risk from Proposed UK Treaty

by William Hughes
(Wednesday 19 May 2004)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If ratified by the U.S. Senate, the proposed new extradition treaty between the U.S. and the British government will strip American citizens of the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and rob them of their ancient liberties that the Founding Fathers fought so hard to win in the Revolutionary War. Incredibly, the bogus treaty, which is retroactive in its application, will also eliminate any statute of limitations!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On April 19, 2004, President George W. Bush forwarded to the U.S. Senate a proposed new extradition treaty between the U.S. and the British government. On its face, it deals with “combatting terrorism, organized crime, money laundering, and other offenses.†Buried deep inside it, however, are shocking provisions that can deprive Americans of their freedom. In his submittal letter, Bush claimed that the treaty, the brainchild of Attorney General John Ashcroft, will “contribute to international law.†Bush is wrong! It will do nothing of the sort. In fact, it will do just the opposite.

If ratified by the Senate, what the treaty will do is strip American citizens of the protection of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and rob them of their ancient liberties that the Founding Fathers fought so hard to win in the Revolutionary War. Incredibly, the bogus treaty will also eliminate any statute of limitations! It was agreed to by Ashcroft and his UK legal counterpart on March 31, 2003, only eleven days after Bush and the UK’s Tony Blair launched the immoral, unjust and unlawful Iraqi War.

The treaty as written means that anyone in this country, who ever stood up against the crime of British imperialism, like: the gallant Founding Fathers from 1775-1783; the people of Baltimore, who rose up in defense of their city at Fort McHenry, on September 12-14, 1814; (birthplace of the National Anthem, “The Star-Spangled Bannerâ€); and the magnificent General Andrew Jackson, who gave the Brits a good whipping at the Battle of New Orleans, Jan. 8, 1815, could have all their assets seized and sent to England. Say good-bye to George Washington’s historic Mount Vernon in VA, Jackson’s splendid “Hermitage†near Nashville, TN, and Baltimore’s beautiful City Hall.

The monster treaty, which is retroactive in its application, makes clear its baleful intent in Article 16, which states, “Such items and assets may be surrendered even if the extradition cannot be carried out due to the death...of the person sought.†The nerve of those Brits! And, what law school did Ashcroft go to? And, when is Bush ever going to pick up a book on American history and read it? The man has no idea we live in a Republic.

The treaty’s terms actually gets much worse. One of its critics, Professor Francis A. Boyle, is the author of seven books, and a distinguished Professor of International Law and recognized expert on Human Rights, at the U. of Illinois. He reports that the treaty, (Treaty Doc. 108-23), also will: “eliminate the political offense exception to 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 U.K.†(Irish Echo, “Proposed Extradition Treaty Causing Concern,†Ray O’Hanlon, May 14, 2004).

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. It also means that the accused, a citizen of this Republic, would get no full judicial review of his extradition process by a federal judge, a federal appellant court, or the U.S. Supreme Court. The final word on whether the charges would be upheld would be made by the President, via the advise of that Missouri cowboy himself, “Sheriff†John Ashcroft! Meanwhile, the assets of the accused could be seized at the direction of the British for its benefit. And, then the accused could be hauled off, in leg irons, to London for a trial in a non-jury proceedings. Pretty grim prospects, huh?

The rights-shredding treaty is self-executing and once it is passed by the Senate, (a two-third majority vote in the Senate is needed for passage), and signed by the President, it becomes the “Law of the Land.†The accused, an American, will be at the mercy of an alien-based foreign government, the UK, whose horrific record on torture and mistreatment of prisoners, Northern Ireland and Iraqi War included, (amnesty.org.uk), is disgusting.

Professor Boyle suspects that the “real target†of the treaty is the Irish-America community. Although, I believe that the Muslim-American community could also be a possible target, along with just about anyone who is a critic of the Brits, or the Royal Family, including someone who insists that Lady Diana may have been murdered as a result of a criminal conspiracy hatched in Buckingham Palace. Boyle added, “People could be prosecuted for simply helping people involved in the situation in Northern Ireland...God forbid, any Irish American who gives any support can be immediately shut down, even by totally unfounded allegations†(“Irish Echo,†ibid., irishecho.com).

In addition, I think that immigrants living in the U.S. are particularly vulnerable under this proposal. And, any Jew who fought against the British during the days of the Mandate in Palestine, now living or residing in America, could be extradited to the UK under the reach of this treaty. In fact, if the ex-Israeli Prime Minister, Yitzhak Shamir, who is suspected or organizing the assassination by Stern Gang operatives of Walter Edward Guinness, (Lord Moyne), British Minister, in Egypt, in 1944, visited the U.S., the British government could, under the provisions of this treaty, request that he be detained and extradited to the UK, if it so desired (wikipedia.org).

At the moment, the treaty is pending before the Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations, chaired by Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-IN). Irish American activists have expressed their concerns to Chairman Lugar. In a letter, dated May 4, 2004, they pointed out that, “Under the new treaty, as drafted, an extradition request from the British government could be received on one day and a target, regardless of citizenship or the merits of the extradition request, could be forcibly placed on a plane and deposited with the British security forces the very next day. These are the same security forces that presently stand accused of orchestrating collusive murders of its citizens in Northern Ireland for many years and who have successfully stonewalled calls for independent investigations of such misdeeds...†(“Joint Letter from Irish American Organizations,†Irish American Unity Conference, Washington, DC).

If Blair and Bush get their way with pushing this draconian treaty through the Senate, many of the fruits of General Washington’s hard fought victory in the American Revolutionary War over the British predators will be forever forfeited. The underlining causes of the American struggle for freedom from Great Britain are set out in the Declaration of Independence, drafted primarily by the immortal Thomas Jefferson. Some of the relevant provisions of that historic document, first published on the 4th of July, 1776, read as follows:

“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by jury...For transporting us beyond the Seas to be tried for pretended offenses...For taking away our Charter, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally, the Forms of our government...â€

The Senate of the U.S. should be reminded of the above facts when it considers this ill-advised, rights-suppressing treaty proposal. The Senate should do its duty - reject this insult to the legacy of the Founding Fathers.

All I can say is that They had Better Not Pass this....this Garbage!!!:fire: :cuss:

If it is Passed, We can Expect a Second Civil War or Revolution.
I say this because the UK would Not Hesitate to use this to Reclaim the US as a British Colony, & suspend All RKBA & Rights In General.:what: :barf:
 
At the moment, Many of us say that George Orwell was a Prophet who got the dates mixed up a little, in reference to his Book 1984.

But if This Passes, we may be Saying the Same about Oleg Regarding this Caption he made.

attachment.php


If that is Passed the UK will not Hesitate to Use it to Reclaim the US as a British colony, or to Kill RKBA in the US.

If that is Passed, It will Spell either the end of US RKBA, & or The Beginning of a 2nd Civil War/Revolution.

I'm deadly serious, the Implications of this Treaty are almost Unbelievable.

If it Passes we can expect door to door Gun Confiscations to be soon to follow
 

Attachments

  • 20years2_s.jpg
    20years2_s.jpg
    57.7 KB · Views: 770
If it is Passed, We can Expect a Second Civil War or Revolution.
I say this because the UK would Not Hesitate to use this to Reclaim the US as a British Colony, & suspend All RKBA & Rights In General.
Given that many of the Brits have nothing but disdain for the US, do you really think they would want to take back "The Colonies"?

And a Second Revolution? I doubt it. Maybe I'm being cynical, but as long as most folks are allowed to keep watching Oprah and take their kidlets to play soccer, they could care less. They will never hear about this treaty, much less give it any thought or develop an opinion about it.
 
Does anyone know what this treaty really does? edited for typo

No offence to Zedicus, but the idea that the Brits will be seizing Mount Vernon is laughable.
 
Last edited:
No offence to Zedicus,
None Taken.
but the idea that the Brits will be seizing Mount Vernon is laughable.
Trust me, they would do it even simply out of spite for the US.

Whatever they do if it is passed, we would more than likely be Kissing RKBA Goodbye if we didn't fight back.
 
only eleven days after Bush and the UK’s Tony Blair launched the immoral, unjust and unlawful Iraqi War.

I quit reading right there. Sounds like w4rma. :rolleyes:

Somebody wanna bottom line this?
 
pffffftt........

tempest in a teapot. If the Brits want to go another round with us, let 'em have at it. Maybe they forgot they already lost.:rolleyes:
 
I suspect that the intent of "even if deceased" was for suspects who are killed in shootouts and the like. If the Brits seriously tried to confiscate Monticello, the whole country would be up in arms, and rightfully so.
 
I assume you've written your senators a polite letter expressing opposition to this treaty? Remember, polite and courteous; short, sweet and to the point.

I suggest pointing out the pertinent problems, without using emotionally-laden words. And always remember that snailmail gets more attention that other forms of communication.

Art
 
Does anybody have a link to the actual text of the treaty? There's a lot of yelling and screaming about something that (many? most? none?) of us have never even seen :scrutiny: . Sure, it sounds horrible, but I'd like to at least read the thing before I fire up the angry letter generator.
 
Does this mean that I'll have to dust off the trusty old rifles again to defend the free land?

Just when I thought we'd done with Imperialism...
 
Whatever, this treaty just extends the same tyrannical policies of the US to england. "allow UK to extradite americans for crimes that aren't illegal in the US", we do that all the time! We charged a british citizen, in spain with conspiracy to violate american drug laws, spain doesn't have conspiracy laws, either you commited a crime, or you didn't. America basically bullied spain into handing this guy over, don't believe me, read The book Mr. Nice by Howard Marks. http://mrnice.net/home.htm

Whatever,

atek3 (who's more worried about getting deported to gitmo than england)
 
OTG asked the right question. Has anyone found the link to the actual treaty? The article sounds a little on the hysterical side to me.
 
Oh Zedicus, Zedicus...

A nice emotive article there, slightly full of hyperbole and inaccuracies. Firstly - have you seen this treaty, or are you buying in to the 'spin' of this article?

I haven't seen the treaty and I'm willing to believe I wouldn't like it if I did. However, I don't see an attempt to make you all 'British subjects'. I don't know where you are getting that from.

Dare I use a form of the easy dismissal of criticism I see around here all the time and say 'pfft anti-British whatevers'? Nope, I won't, because if this proposed treaty violates your rights under your Constitution and BoR and that can be proven then I'll write letters to Whitehall about it.

This seems quite important:

The final word on whether the charges would be upheld would be made by the President(*1), via the advise of that Missouri cowboy himself, ?Sheriff? John Ashcroft! Meanwhile, the assets of the accused could be seized at the direction of the British for its benefit. And, then the accused could be hauled off, in leg irons, to London for a trial in a non-jury proceedings(*2). Pretty grim prospects, huh?

*1 - so according to this rant of an article, your pres gets final say then?

*2 - 'non-jury proceedings'? Now Mr Blunkett doesn't show much respect for our legal system and it seems he regards it as a obstacle to his aims, but he hasn't eradicated it yet.

If that is Passed the UK will not Hesitate to Use it to Reclaim the US as a British colony, or to Kill RKBA in the US.
Trust me, they would do it even simply out of spite for the US.

Why should I trust you? You give me no reason to. I fail to see how this impacts RKBA, although it may impact other civil rights (and we'll have to see this proposed treaty for that). The rest of your statement? Nonsense.

(I've tried to be as polite as possible)
 
St Johns, No Offense taken, It does seem rather beyond belief, I'm not trying to stir up stuff, I've seen other stuff on this, and only used that particular one because despite the poor choice of wording, and heavy hyperbole, it was the one that didn't have an overloaded server.

I will dig up anything else I can find on it & post the links as soon as I find it.

but I'm not finding much that is working at the moment, most link to stuff on overloaded servers.

I never even said that I think it's real to begin with, personally I'm unsure whether any government would be stupid enough to ratify something like that.

As for how I think it could effect RKBA, It gives the UK gov't a clear shot to have the US Constitution eliminated as a Illegal Law instituted by people that they still classify as Criminals (IE: Traitors to the Crown).

There is more, but I Don't have the time to Type it all at the moment.

The Danger is Not in the Proposed purpose it is for, but the Potential it has for Abuse & the kinds of abuses it is vulnerable to.
 
Ag,

we still have fishing boats? Ah yes, the SBS.

Zedicus,

As for how I think it could effect RKBA, It gives the UK gov't a clear shot to have the US Constitution eliminated as a Illegal Law instituted by people that they still classify as Criminals (IE: Traitors to the Crown).

Still doesn't make any sense.
 
pdf format

ok, that was the text summary.

This is the detail text in .pdf format

--->http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi...directory=/diskb/wais/data/108_cong_documents


Not real keen on this section

"4.3, Notwithstanding the terms of paragraph 2 of this article, extradition shall not be granted if the competent authority of the Requested State determines that the request was politcally motivated. In the United States, the executive branch is the competent authority for the pourposes of this Article."

Kind of eliminates one of those checks and balances that's supposed to be built in to our judicial system.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top