Political Education Committee

John E. McInerney, National Chairman

218 College Station Drive

Largo, Maryland 20774-1237

Proposed United States-British Extradition Treaty

Report to the National Board

Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania, September 17, 2005

During the time since I reported to you two years ago here in Wilkes-Barre, THE hot issue on our agenda has continued to be the proposed extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Our position has remained that our objection to the proposed treaty is essentially “an American Issue” that needs to be soundly defeated because so much of what is being proposed in this treaty flies directly in the face of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Before I discuss our plan of action and the progress we have made, I would like to briefly review our serious misgivings with the proposed treaty, and what it means to you and me as American Citizens.

An Executive Summary

regarding our grave concerns

with the proposed extradition treaty

The proposed treaty basically guts many of our Constitutional rights and will trample on our civil liberties as Americans. For instance, the proposed treaty:

Ø Ignores Separation of Powers: The proposed treaty eliminates the courts and permits the Executive branch to serve as judge, jury and prosecutor on actions that would involve extradition to whoever signs this treaty. The proposed extradition treaty transfers responsibility for determining whether the extradition request is politically motivated from the federal courts to the executive branch. (Article 4, #3) Under this provision, a person will not have the right of his or her “day in court” before an impartial judge. This will seriously impact the separation of powers that is at the very heart of our American constitutional system of law.

Ø Denies Us Our Day in Court: The treaty will eliminate the need for any showing of the facts by the United Kingdom sufficient that the person requested for extradition to Britain is really guilty of the alleged crime he or she is charged with. The mere unsupported allegations will be sufficient for deportation to Great Britain. Never before in our nation’s history has the United States government seriously considered subjecting the liberty of American citizens to the whims of a foreign government. (Article 8, #2 (b))

Ø Allows for Provisional Arrest: The new treaty will allow for provisional arrest and detention of Americans for 60 days upon request by Great Britain with no formal extradition request providing supporting details. (Article 12) Under this provision, a person will not have the right of his or her “day in court” before an impartial judge.

Ø Permits Retroactive Application: The terms of the proposed treaty will apply retroactively for offenses allegedly committed even before the treaty’s ratification. No American citizen active in Irish and Irish American affairs who opposes British policy in the north of Ireland will be safe if this treaty comes into force. (Article 6)

Ø Provides that American Law need not be violated: It allows for extradition even if no American federal law is violated. (Article 2, #4)

We know that our government can negotiate a better treaty without signing away to Great Britain, or to any nation, some of our basic rights and freedoms as American citizens.

The Obstacles Before Us

Conducting a campaign to defeat any piece of legislation is a difficult task. Conducting a campaign to defeat a proposed treaty is an even more difficult. Conducting a campaign to defeat a treaty with Great Britain might be considered “mission impossible.” First, the administration, through the Department of State, can introduce a treaty at a time of their own choosing. Second, a proposed treaty can be tabled, at will, for an indefinite amount of time. Third, the Senate Majority Leader can bring it up at anytime to the full Senate for a vote without hearings. Fourth, the power of persuasion is exercised on senators by the White House and special interest lobby groups to approve or defeat a treaty. Fifth, votes can change at the last minute due to deals and intense pressure.

Nonetheless, the Ancient Order of Hibernians, working with other organizations, has made steady progress aimed at the eventual defeat of this horrible treaty. “Mission impossible” is not an impossible hurdle but rather a great challenge to Irish Americans.

Much has happened since this issue was discussed at our Wilkes Barre national board meeting in October 2003 and at our national convention in Philadelphia in July 2004. This extradition treaty still remains our number one issue of concern today – not only to the Irish American community but to other groups and organizations as well. In reality, it is an American issue involving American principles and American ideals.

Where Do We Stand Today?

Treaty sent to the United States Senate

On Easter Monday, April 19, 2004, the President of the United States sent the treaty to the United States Senate for its “advice and consent” approval. Today it sits in the Committee on Foreign Relations with the designation of Treaty Document 108-23. The United States Senate has taken no action on the issue. However, we in the Irish American community and the larger American community have been quietly acting on the issue. Our lobbying efforts and letter writing campaign have not gone unnoticed on both sides of the Atlantic.

What is happening in London?

In London, members of the House of Lords recently expressed their “displeasure” over the United States Senate not ratifying their end of the bargain! But, at least sixty members (out of 646 members) of the House of Commons have come out against the treaty for one reason or another. Keep in mind that parliament cannot revoke or recall this treaty.

In London, we got a very nice back handed complement in the May 17, 2005 issue of The Times of London (page 6). The article titled “Justice? Not for US Thanks,” referred to us as the “Irish Republican lobby in Washington.”

“The Irish Republican lobby in Washington did a mighty effective job in persuading legislators that this was a dastardly betrayal of everything the Declaration of Independence stood for.”

A copy of the article accompanies this report.

This Times of London article, and other recently published articles, manifests clearly that many British subjects are concerned about this new extradition treaty. The very basic theme of their complaints are very similar to the ones we, as American citizens, are making here in the United States – “the Brits are getting too much.” British subjects of the Crown are complaining that “the Yanks are getting too much.” Basically the British are up in arms that the Americans are requesting extradition of British subjects who violate American business laws without ever setting foot on American soil. This is a very strong bitter cup of tea for the English to drink.

The British government has already ratified the USA British Extradition Treaty. Here in the United States, the “advice and consent” approval of the Senate must be secured by a two-thirds vote before ratification can take place. However, in Britain an international treaty is a matter of “Royal Prerogative.” The Foreign Secretary, or his representative, acting on behalf of the Crown ratifies treaties. A treaty can be laid before parliament for 21 days before ratification for information, or to give Parliament an opportunity to debate the document. Unlike the United States, parliament does not ratify the treaty. In reality, there is no legislative debate or discussion. In Britain there are no checks and balances. The public scrutiny accorded a treaty before the United States Senate does not exist in Great Britain. In the United States we have the power to significantly influence issues such as this treaty.

In attempting to explore the depth of opposition in Britain against the proposed USA-British extradition treaty, I obtained information explaining the treaty ratification process in Britain. A copy of a letter sent to a Conservative Party Member of the House of Commons (Peter Bottomley) explaining the British process is attached to this report.

Our American efforts to defeat this treaty:

Here in the United States there has been considerable activity especially by our brother and sister Hibernians across the nation. We initiated a letter writing campaign to our United States Senators opposing the treaty and asking that they vote NO if it ever reaches the floor of the Senate. The ACLU and other organizations have been conducting similar letter writing campaigns. For our part, we must continue our letter campaign and let the Senate know that we are serious and will not go away. We do not want to take the risk of having this particular extradition treaty reaching the floor of the Senate. If it does, our chances will be diminished and anything can happen including committed no votes changing at the very last minute. Allowing this to happen would be very risky business.

Our National President Ned McGinley established the Special Extradition Treaty Committee to work on the issue chaired by Brendan Moore with Joe Roche (former National President) and myself as members. Other members since appointed are Jack Meehan, Joe Farrell, Tom O’Mahoney, and Jack O’Brien. (Joe Farrell and Jack O’Brien are National Deputy Chairmen of the Political Education Committee. Tom O’Mahoney is a National Deputy Chairman for the Freedom of All Ireland Committee.) Together with President McGinley, we met many times in Washington, DC and have collaborated with other organizations who share our concerns regarding the treaty. Also, if a senator is now serving on the Foreign Relations Committee, we Hibernians with Joe Roche as our leader along with other concerned parties are visiting these senators and/or their staff.

Working closely with other organizations, I drafted a proposed “Dear Colleague” letter. A “Dear Colleague” letter is a letter from a Senator or Congressman on an issue of concern in which they ask their colleagues to join them in opposing or supporting a bill or issue before Congress. If a senator agrees with the issue, they are asked to sign the letter that will eventually be sent to every member of the Senate. The more senators who sign the “dear colleague” letter the better, especially if these signatory senators are currently serving on the Foreign Relations Committee.

Currently our Special Extradition Treaty Committee is diligently working on finding at least two senators – one from each party serving on the Foreign Relations Committee – to initiate this “Dear Colleague” letter among the other senators on the Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate at large. As a committee, we have identified the senators who might be approachable to our concerns. Meetings have been held in both their Washington and home state offices. We hope to find enough key senators – especially members of the Foreign Relations Committee – to join in opposition to the proposed treaty, and thus effectively kill it and prevent it from reaching the Senate floor for a vote of approval. Even better, it may even result in the treaty being withdrawn by the President. This is our goal and objective.

On June 17, 2004 we met with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. She was very helpful but warned us that as long as the treaty remains before the Senate, the Majority Leader could pull the treaty (or any piece of legislation) from a committee and bring it up to the full Senate for a vote without public hearings. For this reason alone, this is why efforts need to be made to have the treaty formally withdrawn by the President. It is especially important to continually flood both of our senators’ offices with your letters and faxes clearly manifesting your displeasure and your personal opposition to the extradition treaty.

We Need Your Help Today

Here is where we need your help as citizens and as voters. We must continue our writing campaign and bring even more pressure upon our senators to think long and hard before “signing on” with the proposed treaty. If you have not written, now is the time to do so. If you have written, now is the time to write again and let you senator know of your opposition.

Simply stated, the defeat of the proposed treaty is an American issue. It has nothing to do with homeland security or with American politics or their polarized sides. Throughout this entire effort, we are trying to avoid partisan politics. To us, it is not a Republican or Democratic issue; it is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. Rather it is an American issue involving our basic Constitutional rights and civil liberties.

So, in our discussions among ourselves and with our senators and their staff, we are keeping the issue at all times at the high level of civil rights and civil liberties. If we fall into partisan politics, we are sunk and will loose the battle.

It is interesting to note that today is Constitution Day. The issue of the treaty involves the fundamental principles envisioned by our founding fathers of this great nation 218 years ago today, particularly the basic separation of powers principle within the Constitution – legislative, executive and judiciary. It also involves our right to due process of law. We cannot think of a more important guarantee in our constitution this is “up for grabs” in this treaty.

Senators who are members of the Committee on Foreign Relations need to hear from all of us as citizens – or as our 218 year old Constitution expresses it in its preamble – “We the people of the United States.” For your information, the current members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee are:

Name Party State__________

Alexander, Lamar Republican Tennessee

Allen, George Republican Virginia

Biden, Joseph Democrat Delaware

Boxer, Barbara Democrat California

Chafee, Lincoln Republican Rhode Island

Coleman, Norm Republican Minnesota

Dodd, Christopher Democrat Connecticut

Feingold, Russell Democrat Wisconsin

Hagel, Chuck Republican Nebraska

Kerry, John Democrat Massachusetts

Lugar, Richard Republican Indiana

Martinez, Mel Republican Florida

Murkowski, Lisa Republican Alaska

Nelson, Bill Democrat Florida

Obama, Barack Democrat Illinois

Sarbanes, Paul Democrat Maryland

Sununu, John Republican New Hampshire

Voinovich, George Republican Ohio

The seventeen (17) “battleground states” where the members of the Foreign Relations Committee come from are Alaska, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Even though most of these states have active Hibernian divisions (except Tennessee and Alaska), it is extremely important that each of these Senators hear from us about the treaty. Since there are no Hibernian divisions in Alaska and Tennessee, we cannot take these two states for granted. Those of us who have personal friends and associates in Alaska need to persuade them to contact both senators, especially Senator Lisa Murkowski. The same applies for Tennessee, where Senator Alexander is a member of the Committee, and Senator Bill Frist is the Senate’s Majority Leader.

“No senator left behind” is our motto in this patriotic American campaign to stand up for our constitutional rights and civil liberties as free citizens of a free nation. We are responsible citizens. Even if we do not agree with a particular senator on some issues, they are elected to vote their constituents interests and we, as their constituents, need to let them know how we stand on this very important issue.

Today’s Plan of Action

Ø Resume the letter writing campaign to our senators and keep up the pressure. If you are from a state with a newly elected senator that newly elected senator needs to start hearing from us about this treaty. They need to receive your letters and faxes. Their NO votes are needed on the Senate floor.

Ø Special attention is to be given to the senators who are serving as members on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Letters and visits to their offices in Washington and in their home states are needed.

Ø Develop and write op-ed pieces on the issue for local newspapers as well as letters to the editors. We need several good writers knowledgeable in this issue to develop these articles so that local Hibernians can submit them to their local newspapers.

Ø We need to develop other contingency plans. Now is the time we need to start preparing our written testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee if and when public hearings are held.

Ø After thoroughly studying the issue, our local Hibernian leaders, working with the leadership of other local organizations, need to get on television and radio talk shows to discuss the issue. One third of the Senate is up for election in 2006. Do not let a golden opportunity pass you by in educating voters and Senate candidates on the USA British extradition treaty.

Additional Background Notes Regarding Treaties

A few background notes are in order about the treaty ratification process. When the authors of Constitution created the executive branch of government headed by a president, it gave him no unchecked or unconditional powers. The Constitution made treaty making a concurrent power. The US Senate has carefully guarded its share of the treaty making power for over 216 years.

There have been treaties in the past that were very unpopular. Some were subsequently withdrawn; some were ratified despite strong public opposition (i.e., Panama Canal treaties).

The Senate itself does not ratify treaties. It votes its “advice and consent” approval. The actual ratification takes place when the instruments of ratification are exchanged between the nations who are parties to the treaty.

The Senate has rejected relatively few of the hundreds of treaties it has considered in its long history. This extradition treaty with Great Britain needs to join that list. Many others have died in committee or been withdrawn by the president rather than face defeat.

The Senate has a very significant power to amend a treaty or adopt various changes, which may lead the other nation, or nations, to further renegotiate the terms of the treaty. This power of the Senate to amend treaties can be accomplished by a majority vote. The ability to amend by a simple majority vote can be the means of putting together the necessary two-thirds vote for final approval, as in the case of the controversial Panama Canal treaties in 1978.

When a treaty is submitted to the Senate for approval, it has several options.

ü The Senate may approve of the treaty as submitted.

ü It may make its approval conditional by including in the resolution amendments to the text of the treaty, reservations, understandings, interpretations, declarations, or other statements. The President and the other countries involved must then decide whether to accept the conditions and changes in the legislation and renegotiate these provisions, or abandon the treaty. As a result, the treaty does not go into effect.

ü Finally, the Senate may choose to take no definite action, leaving the treaty pending in the Senate until withdrawn at the request of the President or, occasionally, the initiative of the Senate.

Most treaties submitted to the Senate have received its “advice and consent” approval, and the ratification has subsequently been signed and deposited in the National Archives by the president. In history only 21 treaties have been rejected by a Senate vote because they failed to receive the required two-thirds majority. This USA-British Extradition Treaty needs to join the list as number 22.

Final Thoughts

The ancient Greek philosopher Plato once said “the punishment wise men suffer for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by unwise men.” That philosophy is as valid today as it was in ancient Greece. Or, in plain English, we have to “give a damn” as to what happens in public affairs and what our nation’s leaders are doing.

In any nation, citizens have to be patriots. Patriotism is not waiving the flag and blindly giving up our rights and duties as citizens. A true patriot will always stand vigilant and speak out either for or against an issue. A true patriot will make his or her voice heard and see that a nation does not loose its way and its soul in times of crisis.

218 years ago today our nation’s founding fathers gave us a framework of government that lasted over two centuries and survived in spite of a civil war and numerous changes and upheavals in our society. One of their great legacies is our civil rights and civil liberties enshrined primarily in the Bill of Rights added to our Constitution. During a time of national crisis, a patriot must make sure that we do not relinquish our rights for the sake of comfort and security.

This new extradition treaty with Great Britain has gone too far. We as Hibernians are not just Republicans, Democrats or Independents – we are Americans patriots who vote our conscience on many issues, especially regarding human life. Patriotism is in the news a lot these days. However, a patriot will stand up and speak up for what is right and just – even to the point of protesting governmental actions seen as harmful to human rights, human liberty, human life and human dignity. Silence is not golden; silence is not patriotism; but silence can be simple laziness or cowardice.

Let it never be recorded in the annuals of history that Hibernians and the Irish American community were silent on this important issue. And to you and me personally, let none of us one day have to admit silently to ourselves and within our conscience that we were silent and did nothing when we had the golden opportunity to do something.

Study this issue and write your letters – not just one but also many. And get your family and friends to do the same. We are not just Irish, we are not just Americans, we are patriots, and we are citizens who vote -- not only by the ballot -- but also with the pen. So, write your letters today. Remember: “the pen is mightier than the sword.”

For those of us who are leaders in our community we must get the word out to the rank and file of our membership. We must be proactive and see to it that this proposed extradition treaty between the United States and Great Britain is defeated and placed on the trash heap of history.

Are we Plato’s wise men who are “indifferent to public affairs?” Yes or No?

Respectfully submitted:

John E. McInerney

National Chairman

Political Education Committee

17 September 2005

Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania

McInerneyVerret@aol.com

(301) 350 – 6184 (Home)

Address:

218 College Station Drive

Largo, Maryland 20774

NOTE: A packet has been set up for each state giving the names of your two senators and their fax numbers. Each packet contains several sample letters to senators that you can copy and edit. To obtain the packet for your state – or any state – send an e-mail request to McInerneyVerret@aol.com Please specify the states you want. It will be e-mailed to you.