Originally Posted by BuggerAll

I disagree with most of what has been said on this issue. Al Magrahee has been convicted of mass murder. Among his victims were a large number of US citizens (as well as others). The US Senate has every right to be outraged on behalf of its constituents at his release especially in the light of his miraculous recovery from terminal cancer and immanent death.

They have every right to demand answers on behalf of their constituents and they are right to do so.

I agree that the US (collectively) has not played fair on the IRA or Bhoppal or a number of issues raised but 2 wrongs do not make a right. Because the Americans are wrong on those issues does not mean they are wrong on this one.

BTB the US expended an awful lot of blood and treasure freeing western Europe (and saving us) from German occupation and continued to expend a lot of treasure guarding Europe from Soviet incursion. Americans don't enjoye all the nice socialist freebies we have in Europe because of the amount of money that spent defending us.

Firstly he hasn't 'recovered' from cancer. Prostate cancer is notoriously difficult to set accurate prognosis and timescales for and the timescale was given by probably the most eminent specialist in that field in the UK. He isn't a man renowned for toeing a party line.

They are entirely wrong to expect that politicians from other sovreign states should appear in front of their committee in this way. Yes they can ask, but they should expect that many, as Kenny McCaskill has done, will say no. The UK does not have to justify itself to the US Senate in this way. These committees aren't so much about getting to the truth and more about being seen to do something for the folks back home in their constituencies, especially seeing as the mid terms are coming up in a few months.

Originally Posted by cupoftea

Ooooh ooh there hasn't been one of these for ages! Ord_Sgt, don't forget about Diego Garcia, or Ascension Island which are British 'possessions' but are completely covered in US Airbase that we have to ask for permission to use / fly over. We even tricked the inhabitants of Diego Garcia into moving out so that they could expand their facilities. Wasn't that nice of us?

They don't pay us any rent for USAF Blighty either. Its us who have to pay a fortune to them if we ever want the land back.


Edit : Some Arrsers will probably want to burn me at the stake for saying this but I hope Churchill spends his days being reamed by Uncle Sam's top hat in hell for selling us down the river like that.

Mmm, I think you will find that Churchill was half American anyway, his mother, a Jennie Jerome of Brooklyn, was the daughter of the proprieter of the New York Times!
By November 1940 Britain was broke financially and could no longer pay for any of the much needed war materials to continue fighting the Germans! The USA was very much against getting involved in a European War, in fact there were a series of Neutrality acts passed in the 30's which more or less prevented any involvement by the USA in European squables!
Roosevelt got round this by the "Lease Lend" act, which he likened to a neighbour lending another neighbour a hosepipe to put out a fire which might threaten his own property if not extinguished! However the terms of this act were , to say the least, punitive to Britain, we had to agree to numerous concessions which effectively destroyed our dominance in world trade, by allowing the USA free trade access to our colonies & commonwealth etc, forced us to give independence to much of our colonial empire (before they were ready or able to rule themselves properly)!
It was this or sign an armistice with Germany, I think Churchill had little choice!

I have to ask myself what the reaction in the US would be if Chilcot 'requested', say, Rumsfeld and Powell to appear before the Iraq inquiry?

C_C

Originally Posted by Charm_City

I have to ask myself what the reaction in the US would be if Chilcot 'requested', say, Rumsfeld and Powell to appear before the Iraq inquiry?

C_C

Or, say, a serving Air National Guard officer to appear before a Coroner...

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Or, say, a serving Air National Guard officer to appear before a Coroner...

Extraterritoriality is a great thing, as long as it only works in your direction! SAC - top post today.

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Or, say, a serving Air National Guard officer to appear before a Coroner...

Did the British Task Force Commander, or the gunner who repeatedly fired the Javelin Missiles which killed Danish Life Guardsmen Private Thorbjorn Ole Reese and Private Mikkel Keil Sorensen appear in a Danish Court?

Danish soldiers killed by British friendly fire - Times Online

Originally Posted by Goldbricker

Did the British Task Force Commander, or the gunner who repeatedly fired the Javelin Missiles which killed Danish Life Guardsmen Private Thorbjorn Ole Reese and Private Mikkel Keil Sorensen appear in a Danish Court?

Danish soldiers killed by British friendly fire - Times Online

Did a Danish coroner ever request that he did?

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Did a Danish coroner ever request that he did?

So the UK usually would hand over its personnel for foreign inquests if requested?

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Or, say, a serving Air National Guard officer to appear before a Coroner...

Should he? Your implication is that because the US is not 'helpful' in British investigations/enquiries we should engage in tit for tat reprisals and refuse to co-operate with them.

I disagree. We should do the right thing and insist loudly that they do the right thing as well, but one should not be conditional on the other.

Originally Posted by BuggerAll

Should he? Your implication is that because the US is not 'helpful' in British investigations/enquiries we should engage in tit for tat reprisals and refuse to co-operate with them.

I disagree. We should do the right thing and insist loudly that they do the right thing as well, but one should not be conditional on the other.

I was intending to say that the US itself has set a precedent that a such a request need not automatically be complied with. It is indeed up to the partner nation to decide if one of its citizens should attend a foreign inquiry or hearing.

They can hardly complain if we do the same, now can they?