Well, what makes you think that there is a legally enforceable treaty obligation which compels the US government to render US citizens who are subpoenaed by UN agencies?
As I understand the word “deport”, it pertains to the expulsion of an alien resident to another country. So merely handing a witness (or, I suppose, a defendant) over to foreign authorities under the auspices of an international court whose jurisdiction the U.S. has agreed to honor would not be the same thing as a deportation, would it? (And I’m assuming by your responses here that you’re an attorney. Is that correct?) This person would not be permanently expelled from the U.S. and would not forfeit their citizenship, so I would assume that once their testimony (or time served for contempt of court or having been convicted by the court of a crime committed under its jurisdiction) that person would be free to return home to the U.S. (And for that matter, how do they get back. Does the U.S. pay their way or does the international court? And if neither, what would happen should the witness or defendant lack the resources to return on their own?
Interesting stuff!
And on preview:
Well, I don’t know about here in the U.S., but apparently Campbell’s British attorney advised her in pretty strong terms to honor the subpoena as she’d been trying to avoid testifying for some time.
Perhaps there is no legally enforceable way to compel the U.S. government to deliver the subpoenaed party to the U.N. court, but the person could be arrested under an international warrant and found in contempt of court should they leave the country?
I originally said:
The subsequent post was just making clear that I had assumed anyone with any sense would realise that the cooperation was legally based.
Have you never heard of ‘extradition treaties’?
If there is reasonable evidence that a US citizen has committed a crime in any country that has a mutual extradition treaty with the US then that country can ask the US government to hand that person over for trial. Assuming the US government does not decide to act dishonourably by refusing its treaty obligations it will take whatever steps are necessary to do so.
Whether the US government will hand over its citizens to a foreign power depends entirely on whether it has entered into any treaty that obliges it to do so. Seemples.
Countries enter into treaties with each other for their mutual benefit. It’s not so much a question of anyone ‘legally forcing’ the US government to do anything as the US government acting honourably and fulfilling its treaty obligation.
Yes, I know it isn’t a question of the U.S. being forced to do anything. I’m just questioning the use of the “deport” to describe what the U.S. if and when it takes a citizen into custody and turns them over to an international court, and I’m wondering about whose responsibility it is to cover air fare, lodging, meals, etc. if it does.
ETA: I’m about to call it a night though, so will have to wait till tomorrow for your answer. Thanks in advance.
Sorry, I wasn’t answering the part about the use of the word ‘deport’.
I’d agree that it is inappropriate in this situation. AFAIA 'you cannot ‘deport’ one of your own citizens (at least using ‘deport’ in any way I’ve ever heard or seen it used.)
“Deport” probably isn’t the right word. Handing someone over to the authorities of a foreign country to deal with according to their processes is generally called “rendition”, and the person handed over is said to be “rendered”. Where this is done because the person is accused of a crime and is to be tried, or because they have been convicted of a crime but have escaped custody, the process is usually called “extradition”.
Bear in mind that Campbell wasn’t – isn’t – charged with or suspected of any crime, and there is no suggestion that she is to be tried herself. She has simply received a witness summons; the Special Court wants her to give evidence in the trial of someone else.
Extradition happens between countries usually on foot of a treaty. I’m no expert, but it would be highly unusual for an extradition treaty to extend also to the rendition of somebody who isn’t accused of any crime, but who is thought to be able to give evidence relevant to an accusation against someone else.
I seriously doubt that Campbell was advised that the British Government could, or would, forcibly render her into the custody of the Special Court.
More likely she was advised that life could become extremely inconvenient for her, as an internationally mobile person, if she failed to co-operate with a legal process which the international community is committed to supporting. Interpol co-operates (by agreement) with the Special Court; if requested it could issue a “blue notice”, asking governments to be alert to obtain and provide information on her whereabouts and movements, (to facilitate proceeding against her should she enter a jurisdiction where the summons was, or was potentially, enforceable. (It would be a “red notice” if they were requesting her arrest for extradition.) In this day and age, you do not want to be passing through airports while the subject of a blue notice. She’d be looking at an awful lot of administrative detentions, calling asides for further interview, missed flights, etc. Plus she might have great difficulty in getting visas to visit countries that required visas. And before visiting any country she’d have to give some thought to the question of whether the Special Court summons was enforceable there. And so forth.
It may well be that Ms. Campbell is not as hostile of a witness as she lets on. I know of a case where a colleague requested that he be subpoenaed to testify because his testimony was adverse to the interests of our employer. It would have appeared disloyal for him to “willingly” provide the testimony.
I’m not making any claims as to Ms. Campbell’s motives, just noting that being compelled to testify can provide political cover.
There’s lots of reasons you might want to be subpoenaed – for instance, if you have a confidentiality agreement with someone, those typically have an out clause that allows you to disclose the info if legally compelled. So you might want to sing, but if you do so voluntarily you could be sued by your contract partner – the subpoena protects you.
But from the little I’ve read, Campbell was pretty serious about not wanting to testofy – that is, it seems she was actually compelled rather than just doing a dance for collateral reasons.
–Cliffy