Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Popularist US Senate, protects citizens from deportation
The Times today has an article on 3 persons appealing extradition to the United States of America on charges relating to the collapse of Enron. The Enron Three.
Obviously realising that the readership will struggle with the complex legal issues involved, the "reporter" has kindly provided a "Janet and John" bit in the form of a question and answer (the "reporter" thinks up some questions ask themselves them, and then tells us their question and answer).
While this part is concerned with how it's possible that these are facing extradition for actions committed mainly on British territory the "reporter" fails to centre on key issues. One question focuses on the non-reciprocal nature of the agreement, in that the United Kingdom has ratified it, but the United States hasn't. We're told the White House want it done, but the Senate are prioritising on popularist policies such as banning gay marriage.
The poor mindset of the "reporter" and their views on "proper" (i.e. socialist) democracy shine through. The Senate, an elected body is concentrating on pursuing a policy of interest to the electors (popularist) as opposed to ratifing this treaty (of no real interest to anyone, I doubt the White House is even that bothered as it has got the powers it wanted over UK citizens).
Now this treaty would allow a United States citizen to be deported on the same basis as a United Kingdom one can be, which may be fair, but is hardly enhancing rights and liberties of the US electors. Any US senator who supports this is going to quite properly face a backlash from electoral opponents pointing out that they've surrendered rights of the citizen to foreign powers and if I was a US senator I'd be fighting the ratification tooth and nail (it would look good at re-election time), but I can quite see how they're happy just to kick it into the long grass.
Instead of blaming the US Senate for non-ratification, the "reporter" should be asking: why has the UK government surrendered our rights without obtaining an agreement that only came into effect after both sides are ratified?
The "reporter" should ask why does our Parliament concentrate on unnecessary leftie "rights", but is happy to subject British citizens to foreign courts on the whim of a foreign prosecutor.
Note the use of the word "popularist" as an insult. If our Parliament doesn't debate popularist issues, it means the MPs aren't accountable to the electorate (if they thought they might lose their seats they'd soon debate them) and this means we don't really have democracy. Between the parties we have a form of consensual socialism which excludes "popularist" policies and imposes itself on the people; this can be best seen in crime and punishment. Most people want criminals punished, but the sentences keep getting lighter and crime increases, but no party offers an alternative and no party points to the obvious policy failings. A "popularist" policy would solve the problem, but it would be out of step with leftie liberal ideology which must be imposed on us by our masters who know best.
It's a shame to see the "reporter" falling in with the pattern and deriding the US Senate for its popularism, without even considering that this might mean the Senate is actually accountable to the electorate whereas the UK government perhaps is not.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
Obviously realising that the readership will struggle with the complex legal issues involved, the "reporter" has kindly provided a "Janet and John" bit in the form of a question and answer (the "reporter" thinks up some questions ask themselves them, and then tells us their question and answer).
While this part is concerned with how it's possible that these are facing extradition for actions committed mainly on British territory the "reporter" fails to centre on key issues. One question focuses on the non-reciprocal nature of the agreement, in that the United Kingdom has ratified it, but the United States hasn't. We're told the White House want it done, but the Senate are prioritising on popularist policies such as banning gay marriage.
The poor mindset of the "reporter" and their views on "proper" (i.e. socialist) democracy shine through. The Senate, an elected body is concentrating on pursuing a policy of interest to the electors (popularist) as opposed to ratifing this treaty (of no real interest to anyone, I doubt the White House is even that bothered as it has got the powers it wanted over UK citizens).
Now this treaty would allow a United States citizen to be deported on the same basis as a United Kingdom one can be, which may be fair, but is hardly enhancing rights and liberties of the US electors. Any US senator who supports this is going to quite properly face a backlash from electoral opponents pointing out that they've surrendered rights of the citizen to foreign powers and if I was a US senator I'd be fighting the ratification tooth and nail (it would look good at re-election time), but I can quite see how they're happy just to kick it into the long grass.
Instead of blaming the US Senate for non-ratification, the "reporter" should be asking: why has the UK government surrendered our rights without obtaining an agreement that only came into effect after both sides are ratified?
The "reporter" should ask why does our Parliament concentrate on unnecessary leftie "rights", but is happy to subject British citizens to foreign courts on the whim of a foreign prosecutor.
Note the use of the word "popularist" as an insult. If our Parliament doesn't debate popularist issues, it means the MPs aren't accountable to the electorate (if they thought they might lose their seats they'd soon debate them) and this means we don't really have democracy. Between the parties we have a form of consensual socialism which excludes "popularist" policies and imposes itself on the people; this can be best seen in crime and punishment. Most people want criminals punished, but the sentences keep getting lighter and crime increases, but no party offers an alternative and no party points to the obvious policy failings. A "popularist" policy would solve the problem, but it would be out of step with leftie liberal ideology which must be imposed on us by our masters who know best.
It's a shame to see the "reporter" falling in with the pattern and deriding the US Senate for its popularism, without even considering that this might mean the Senate is actually accountable to the electorate whereas the UK government perhaps is not.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.
