« January 2006 | Main | March 2006 »

Pass The Parcel and other legal games

The trial of Enron executives Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling is just beginning in Houston. I don't envy the jury involved - or the prosecution team - given the Byzantine nature of the scandal. White collar financial crime doesn't always leave a convenient body or fingerprints. Speaking as someone who can barely balance a checkbook, having to keep track of who did and said what and tracing multiple shell companies who transfer holdings back and forward would make my head spin. While Lay and Skilling have been given plenty of press, there was a development in the Enron case this week that didn't make the front page here - though it certainly raised a lot of hackles in Britain. What does Britain have to do with Enron? I didn't know either, so I did some reading.

At first glance, the story - three British bankers extradited to the United States to face trial in connection with the Enron scandal - did not arouse much interest in me. While I am always pleased to see the greedy and powerful brought low and humbled, what was one more banker? Well, the reason it caused so much controversy in Britain is not so much for what the men did, but the powers exercised by the United States in bringing them to trial in this country. At heart, this is a revealing look at how legislation changed since 9/11, and its perhaps unintended consequences. It is also a good example of how American power is perceived overseas, and the negative reactions it draws to this country. Or in layman’s terms, one answer to the question I'm so often asked here; 'Why does everyone seem to hate us, what did we ever do to them'? Well, this isn't something that causes hate, but a perfect example of 'just one more thing' where the Yanks have to get their way...

In 2003, Britain enacted the Extradition act. This was brought in without a great deal of Parliamentary review and with the stated goals of making it easier to extradite suspected terrorists to trial in foreign countries. The concern was that people could fight their deportation in the courts for months and years, tying up resources and money, rather than volunteering to go to face trial like good little terrorists. However, the act itself didn't specify only acts of terrorism; rather, it was any crime that could be punished with a prison term in both Britain and the country requesting extradition (in essence, you can't be extradited for something that is not a crime in Britain). This laid the table for a much broader possible application of the law.

The case of these three bankers is a great illustration of just how far this Act can reach. I don't know just how fascinating you find white collar crime, but here's the deposition of an FBI Field Agent on the matter. It covers the alleged offenses of the three men in great detail. To summarize, it is claimed that they created a holding company in order to take advantage of asset transfers between Enron and the British bank National Westminster in order to divert funds to themselves, in violation of various British banking laws. The offenses took place variously in London, the Cayman Islands, and New York. Thanks to a part of it being done in Wall Street, that puts these men within reach of the US Government to face trial in Texas.

Civil rights groups are protesting this decision. Not because they're pro-embezzlement, but because they recognize this for what it is; the US Government is engaged in a high-wire act to convict Lay and Skilling. If they can bring additional charges and perhaps encourage a plea deal with the British Bankers that will implicate Lay or Skilling, that helps their primary goal of putting the two big dogs behind bars - but given that their alleged offenses occured in not one but three countries - and the 'victims' of said offenses would have largely been the British bank and its shareholders - it seems a bit of a reach to drag them across the Atlantic to stand trial in Houston, when a trial in London would surely suffice.

This isn't the first time that British businessmen have run afoul of the new global cooperation in the war on terror. Last year another financier was charged under the act and put under threat of extradition for crimes that (if proven) largely occured in Britain rather than the United States. The British business community is getting very antsy at this turn of events; at this point, any company executive whose business dealings brush on US jurisdiction is now at risk of extradition. Ironically, this may be the impetus needed to amend the law. Nobody really minds when people are imprisoned without charge in Guantanamo for years - they're terrorists! But start going after White Guys With Money and the whole dance changes tempo. If there's one thing Rich White Guys With Money don't like, it's being dragged into court. That can lead to being turned into a White Guy With No Money, which isn't nearly as much fun.

Surely though, with all this easy cooperation between the UK and US in criminal cases, this also means London can now demand American businessmen (or terrorists) stand trial in Britain for crimes that occured there? Well, possibly - but it's far from easy. The final straw for most civil libertarians and commentators on the whole affair is the lack of reciprocity in the deal. When British law enforcement wish to extradite a US citizen, they must provide what is known as a prima facie case - that is providing US agencies with evidence on the accused that would meet the legal burden of proof of a 'reasonable standard of guilt'. The US on the other hand, need only show that the person has been accused of a crime that, if convicted, would result in a jail sentence of at least twelve months in either country.

The US is often accused of double standards around the world; it makes use of 'rendition' programs to spirit accused individuals to torture and uncertain fate without the need of a trial; it supports democratic elections until those elections result in inconvenient results; it supports International Courts until those courts ask for jurisdiction over American troops; and in this case, is quite happy to demand extradition of foreigners, while not offering the same in exchange. Of course, I can't blame the US Government for this one entirely - they didn't pass the Act. In fact, I should thank them; their zeal in going after Lay and Skilling and using the NatWest trio as additional ammunition may just provide the impetus needed back home to get the Act repealed. Then that awkward little thing called 'proof' may be needed before shipping citizens overseas to an uncertain fate.

Posted by union_jack at 03:11 PM | Comments (0)

An Apostle, a Rabbi and a Prophet walk into a Bar...

Sometimes I read a story and think it will be of momentary interest, perhaps worth mentioning in passing to somebody, and then am taken completely by surprise at its unfolding direction. If you've been following news from Europe, you will have heard about the cartoons published by Danish newspaper Udland Jyllands-Posten that depict the Muslim Prophet and the ensuing furor. Is this conflict about cartoons or is it a symptom of a deeper gulf between societies? Should freedom of speech supercede respect for the beliefs of your fellow citizens? Should people of faith learn to tolerate those outside their religion speeking freely?

The current controversy stretches back longer than is first apparent. The very first cartoons appeared not a couple of weeks ago, but back in September of last year. There it might have stayed, if not for the decision by several European publications to re-print the cartoons in the name of press freedom, secular principles.. and just perhaps to poke a stick in the eye of the protestors, metaphorically speaking. Why were the cartoons made in the first place, though?

As explained by Carsten Juste, Editor of Jyllands-Posten, the seeds of the dispute were laid when researching a children's book on the life of the Prophet. Somewhat unlikely roots, you may agree. When this book was being written, the author attempted to find an artist to illustrate the work. No artist could be found that was willing to put their name to the book; they would only agree to anonymously contribute, largely for fear of hostile reaction.

They obviously felt this was worthy of report. Why should artists in a country that is not an Islamic theocracy feel bound by the tenets of that - or any - religion? Do artists hesitate to illustrate figures from any other religion? State censorship is one thing; self censorship is another. Given the West's long fondness for political and satirical cartoons throwing acid barbs at every public figure imaginable from God to Britney Spears, it seems to follow that major religious figures will, sooner or later, be lampooned. This is not to say cartoons do not cause controversy; they do. Controversy seems to be a mild way of describing current events as they stand, however.

Islamic integration in Europe has been fraught with tension, particularly since the events of 9/11. A number of European countries like France have considerable minority Islamic populations. It was France that created new rules for schoolchildren, banning most public religious dress in schools, with considerable public support. Although it was ostensibly aimed at all religious symbols, the recommendation was largely seen as attempting to counter Islamic fundamentalism and enforce a secular policy. The riots in France that shook the country in the fall of 2005 had their roots in the tension between immigrants of a mainly muslim background and the greater French society.

Perhaps such tensions exacerbated feelings in France, when French publications reprinted the cartoons earlier this month in the name of freedom of expression. They were joined by news outlets across Europe. It was at this point that the original intent of the cartoons - exploring self censorship among illustrators - morphed into something much larger, pitting Western style freedom of speech against religious tenet - though freedom of speech is somewhat misleading, as most European countries have no such 'constitutional' right. This is a much bigger subject and much more prone to hijack by demagogues who are only too pleased to start anti-US protests over the affair.

So far the most surprising thing to me about this whole affair has been the retiscence of the US Press to actually publish the images in question. It is somewhat ironic given the protests have been more focused on anti-US sentiments than the true origin of the cartoons. I can't think that antipathy towards the US in the Middle East and across the greater Islamic world could be much lower at this point even if the cartoons were front page on the Wall Street Journal. Even cartoonists are divided, and few seem to want to put their head above the parapet (or minaret).

Personally, I can't say I blame them. Hazard pay or fatwa insurance isn't usually part of the benefits package of a syndicated editorial cartoonist.

How have things spiraled so far, so fast? The digital age. When riots can be propagated by text message and civil protests organized by instant messenger, rumors fly a lot faster than any official response - most of which are ignored anyway. If anything worries me about the whole affair, this does; almost any controversy can now be shaped and molded to focus public anger on something convenient (the United States and the West at large) and away from anything inconvenient (lack of democratic participation in many Muslim countries*).

In the end, the willingness of the European press to publish cartoons-and-be-damned gets a certain admiration from me. It's certainly more than I've seen from most US press so far. I am not particularly religious, though I do try to respect the fact my fellow men and women may hold such beliefs; but their right to belief stops where my right to say what I think about that belief without being put in fear for my life starts. Ultimately, if they're right, I burn in hell anyway. So what does it matter if I draw a very bad cartoon before I go?

In closing, I'm not going to link to the cartoons here, mainly because this isn't my website. However, clever little internet user that you are, I will give you one hint : Starts with 'G', and ends in 'oogle'. And if you can't find the cartoons with that, you don't deserve to see them.

They really weren't all that funny anyway, come to think of it. Dilbert is better. And that may be the final irony. If they're going to start World War Three, they should at least make me laugh.

* Of course, when I say democracy, I mean democracies that the West has already endorsed as being appropriate for public consumption. These inconvenient Palestinian elections that Hamas won aren't REAL democracy, right? Democracy only counts when you vote for who we want you to vote for, kids.

Posted by union_jack at 06:27 PM | Comments (1)