Extradition from Belize—Defeated

Brothers Andrew “Papa” and Floyd Brown have beaten a request for their extradition from Belize.^[1] They are wanted in Florida for narcotics trafficking, but Belizean Chief Magistrate Herbert Lord dismissed the extradition case because he found that a prima facie case had not been made against the two men.^[2] Magistrate Lord said that the evidence presented was “hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay,” and that no affidavits had been filed by anyone directly involved in the case.^[3] An affidavit was filed by DEA Special Agent Sheree Gordon, which the magistrate accepted, but the document contained only second- and third-hand assertions.^[4] Acknowledging that hearsay evidence is often accepted in extradition proceedings, Magistrate Lord found that in this case, “the specie is completely different.”^[5]

Under the terms of the extradition treaty between Belize and the United States, extradition requests must be supported by “evidence as would be sufficient, according to the law of the Requested State [Belize], to justify the committal for trial of the person sought if the offense of which the person has been accused had been committed in the Requested States.”^[6]

---

[1] Brown Brothers Go Free as Extradition Case Crumbles, Channel5Belize.com, Sept. 20, 2005, available here [hereinafter Channel5]; “Pawpa” & Floyd Free After Beating Extradition, 7NewsBelize.com, Sept. 20, 2005, available here.
[2] Channel5.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Extradition Treaty, Mar. 30, 2000, U.S.-Belize, art. 6, para. 3, sec. (c), S. Treaty Doc. No. 106-38 (2001).

Extradition from Britain—Babar Ahmad

The extradition hearings for terror suspect Babar Ahmad, who has been accused of running websites that encourage waging holy war, has been extended for an extra two months as the United Kingdom’s Home Secretary Charles Clarke continues to determine whether Mr. Ahmad should be sent to the United States.^[1]

A British judge ruled in May that Mr. Ahmad could be extradited to the US to face charges that he raised money to support terrorism in Chechnya and Afghanistan by internet sites and emails.^[2] Secretary Clarke then had 60 days to decide whether to approve the decision; when that deadline loomed, he was granted a two-month extension on July 15.^[3] Now that the September 15 deadline has expired, he has received another extension to examine the “complex representations made about the case.”^[4]

If Secretary Clarke approves the extradition, the case could go to the UK’s High Court on a judicial review application.^[5]

During the initial hearings, concerns about where Mr. Ahmad would end up if he is extradited centered on whether he would be tried in a civilian court or be put into military detention, where he might face the death penalty.^[6] Those fears were somewhat allayed when the US embassy provided a diplomatic note to British District Judge Timothy Workman saying that American prosecutors would not seek the death penalty if Mr. Ahmad is convicted.^[7] Judge Workman concluded that the risk of the death penalty being imposed was “negligible,” and that it was unlikely that Mr. Ahmad would be held as an enemy combatant in a facility such as Guantánamo Bay.^[8]

Mr. Ahmad’s extradition hearing was carried out under the auspices of Britain’s very controversial Extradition Act of 2003, which became effective on January 1, 2004. We have previously discussed its impact on another suspected terrorist, Haroon Rashid Aswat, here.

---

[1] More Time for Extradition Decision, Evening Standard, Sept. 19, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Rosie Cowan, Briton ‘May Face Execution,’ The Guardian, Mar. 4, 2005, available here.
[7] Vikram Dodd, US Closer to Putting Terror Suspect on Trial, The Guardian, May 18, 2005, available here.
[8] Id.

McNabb in the News

Senior Principal Douglas McNabb has been quoted in the Financial Times related to the extradition of white collar defendants.

The prospect makes you wonder why more of these people don't just get on the first thing smoking out of US jurisdiction.

I called on Douglas McNabb, the lead partner with Washington's McNabb Associates, who specialises in international extradition cases, espionage and other white-collar crime.

"We are seeing an escalation in global US Federal criminal prosecutions," says McNabb, "and that includes white collar crime as well as terrorism. That would include securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud and money laundering. They're even getting aggressive about extraditing people for antitrust violations."

In the past, extraditions were allowed by treaty parties on the basis of a "laundry list" of crimes. Now, the rule is an extraditable offence merely has to be a crime in both countries. As McNabb says: "Globally, international extradition cases are very hard to win (from the point of view of the defence counsel for the offender)."

There are very few countries with which the US does not have extradition treaties, and not that many American criminals have made arrangements in advance with the Republic of Cuba or the Islamic Republic of Iran. And where there are no such treaties, as there are none with some Middle Eastern countries, the US Supreme Court has ruled that kidnapping and rendition by Special Forces, CIA or FBI agents is not grounds for the dismissal of an indictment.

Before you have a "red notice" put out on you that identifies you as subject to an international arrest warrant, go to some relatively comfortable and welcoming country that will grant you citizenship in short order. Oh, and hire some thugs to keep the CIA kidnapping teams at bay.

"That is your conclusion," says McNabb, "but not one I would necessarily disagree with."^[1]

---

[1] John Dizard, The Pros and Cons of Fleeing the Country: Street Talk, Fin. Times, Sep. 19, 2005.

Extradition from Colombia—Narcotics

Seventeen Colombians have been extradited to five different cities in the United States to face drug-related charges.^[1] Among the seventeen is the alleged accountant of the Cali cocaine cartel, Luis Eduardo Cuartas.^[2] As we have mentioned before,^[3] Colombian President Alvaro Uribe has extradited hundreds of suspected narcotics traffickers to the United States, and the pace of extradition has picked up so much that last year the DEA started mass-extradition flights such as this one to save time and money.^[4]

Extradition continues to be controversial as Colombia deals with both the United States and the European Union. The United States wants the total eradication of Colombia’s drug trade, while the European Union, which has liberalized its drug policies in recent years, views Colombia’s narcotics industry as a function of poverty and reduced economic opportunities.^[5] The competing interests of zero-tolerance on one hand, and economic engagement on the other, have tended to breed discontent among Colombian lawmakers when so many Colombians are being extradited to the United States where they sometimes receive harsher punishments than they would in Colombia.^[6]

The extradition treaty between the United States and Colombia includes narcotics offenses as offenses for which extradition is available.^[7]

---

[1] 17 Colombians Sent to U.S. to Face Drug-Related Charges, Associated Press, Sept. 17, 2005, available here.
[2] Id.
[3] See, e.g., our posts on Colombian extradition issues here, and here.
[4] AP, supra note 1.
[5] Álvaro Camacho Guizado, Europa, E.U. y La Guerra a Las Drogas, El Espectador, Sept. 19, 2005, available here.
[6] See Extradition Law Stirs Controversy in Colombia Congress, Prensa Latina, Aug. 19, 2005, available here
[7] Extradition Treaty, Sept. 14, 1979, U.S.-Colom., appx. para. 21, S. Treaty Doc. No. 97-8 (1976).