Save the NatWest Three until we get the IRA terrorists
robert whelan, 6 July 2006
No British Prime Minister has ever gone farther out on a limb in support of US public policy than Tony Blair. There is no doubt the his present level of extreme unpopularity with both the electorate and the Labour Party is closely related to his adherence to every nuance of US foreign policy with regard to Iraq.
Whether he was right or wrong to take us to war over the ‘weapons of mass destruction’, there is no denying that Blair was ready to sacrifice his own political prospects in support of his position. In return, the Americans have paid him the compliment of actually knowing who he is. A lucrative career on the US lecture circuit awaits him as soon as he hands in the keys to Downing Street.
However, even Mr Blair’s most disingenuous apologists (Sid and Doris Bonkers) have been taken somewhat aback by his readiness to agree to an extradition treaty that allows the US to extradite British citizens for trial in the USA, without producing any prima facie evidence and on charges that may not constitute criminal offences in this country.
The agreement was drawn up – or perhaps we should say dictated by the White House to Downing Street – in the wake of the September 11th attacks, in order to make it easier to counter international terrorism. However, the first British citizens to feel the hand Officer Krumpky on their collars are not, by any stretch of imagination, terrorists: they are bankers. It may be that they have committed a banking crime: in the absence of evidence, it is difficult to reach a conclusion. What we do know is that they will languish in Texas jails, in living conditions which will be, to put it mildly, very unlike the home life of our own dear Lord Chancellor, while the US justice system gets around to processing them. Their finances and their lives will be ruined, whatever the final verdict.
In defence of the US position, white collar crime is effectively toll-free in this country, so if the NatWest Three have done anything wrong (and I have no idea as to whether they have or not), the only chance of retribution lies across the waters. We all know that the Serious Fraud Squad tends to make a dog’s breakfast of everything it touches; that defence lawyers are skilled in delaying trials until members of the jury are reaching the end of their natural lives; and that judges are prone to take the view, when confronted with a defendant from a good school or lodge, that it would be pointless to persecute them any further.
But the point of this spanking new extradition treaty was not to deal with white collar crime: it was to deal with terrorism. And in this respect we should remember that we had our own war on terror, long before the Americans coined the phrase, and it received massive support from America.
During the decades of IRA terrorism that Britain endured, one of the bitterest pills for us to swallow was the fact that much of it was funded from the USA. The IRA’s coffers were filled with donations from the States, and the American government refused all requests from the British government to staunch the flow. Nor would the Americans ever extradite IRA terrorists to the UK. There is not a single case of that happening. Which is why the US Congress has refused to ratify the ‘treaty’ under which Tony Blair is so happy to extradite British subjects: reciprocity would mean that the US would have to send IRA bombers for trial here. Heaven forbid that Britain should expect a fair exchange!
Some of us would be happier if the British lion could be restrained from rolling over to have its tummy tickled – or its guts ripped out – by the bald eagle.