EXTRADITION TO THE U.S.
It is not only in the U.K. that there are problems with extradition arrangements to the U.S. Last September the Danish authorities agreed for the first time to extradite one of its citizens to a country outside the EU. Camilla Broe, a 43-year old single mother, was wanted by the Americans for alleged drug smuggling.
Yesterday, after spending 6 months in a U.S. jail, Ms. Broe was released, and she will fly back to Denmark tonight. When she eventually came before a judge, it was held that the case should be dropped, since it was out of time (the charges relate to events that happened back in the 1990's). This decision says nothing about Ms. Broe's innocence or guilt in relation to those events.
Since the case failed on procedural grounds, it is worrying that it was allowed to proceed for so long, and on two continents. Surely somebody, somewhere, in either the U.S. or Danish Ministries of Justice, must have known that this would happen? The suspicion lingers that Denmark, a staunch supporter of the Bush administration in its foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, didn't dig deep enough and ask the right sort of question before making its decision to extradite.
Cooperation between countries in criminal matters is vital, given the internationalisation of many illegal activities. However, there must be corresponding safeguards for individuals, particularly since there is no real world court to appeal to, if things go wrong. The history of Ms. Broe's case, like that of Binyam Mohamed, makes for uncomfortable reading.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 28 February 2010
Saturday, 27 February 2010
BINYAM MOHAMED (2)
There was an interesting coda to the U.K. Court of Appeal's decision in the Binyam Mohamed case (see my blog of 15/2/10). The Court's three senior judges had unanimously ruled that seven paragraphs detailing Mr Mohamed's ill-treatment/torture should indeed be published as part of the Divisional Court's original judgment in the same case, despite the Foreign Secretary's claim that they represented intelligence material supplied by the U.S. that should be kept secret.
The twist in the case concerned one paragraph of the judgment by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls. In going through the pros and cons of the Foreign Secretary's arguments, he highlighted as a con the fact that the Foreign Secretary's claim of public interest immunity (i.e. secrecy) in respect of the seven paragraphs had come about following advice from the secret services. Although there was no doubt about the Foreign Secretary's own good faith, that advice could well be seen to be tainted, given the fact that one member of the secret services, Witness B, was under police investigation for a possible breach of the law in helping Mr. Mohamed's torturers. Other members of the secret services might also have known about Witness B's actions.
As is customary, the draft judgment was sent out to both parties' counsel, asking for comments prior to formal publication. The Foreign Secretary's counsel thought that the wording of the relevant paragraph was too sweeping in its conclusions about the intelligence community in general, conclusions that were not justified by the evidence of the particular case. Lord Neuberger accordingly redrafted the paragraph, though when the judgment was published (under time pressure, the case being of major public interest), he made it clear that the paragraph was still in draft form. Mr. Mohamed's counsel then objected to the second draft, pointing out that the original Divisional Court judgment had in fact established quite definite conclusions about the intelligence community, based on the evidence. Lord Neuberger then redrafted the relevant paragraph for a third time.
Unfortunately, in the media frenzy accompanying the Court of Appeal's decision, the Foreign Secretary's counsel's letter of objection to the court was leaked, and Lord Neuberger's comment that the relevant paragraph was still in draft was lost in the rush. The impression was thus given that the Court of Appeal had been leaned on to change its view.
That impression was one, which the learned judges were - understandably - very, very keen to dispel, taking 9 pages in their subsequent judgment to set out in precise detail what had happened, why, and when. They also gave a general warning against anyone tempted to leak counsel's letters to the court in future; as they put it:
"The circumstances here are, we believe, unique. They will not be repeated."
All eyes now move to the outcome of the police investigation into Witness B. Expect that to cause ripples, whatever the outcome.
Walter Blotscher
There was an interesting coda to the U.K. Court of Appeal's decision in the Binyam Mohamed case (see my blog of 15/2/10). The Court's three senior judges had unanimously ruled that seven paragraphs detailing Mr Mohamed's ill-treatment/torture should indeed be published as part of the Divisional Court's original judgment in the same case, despite the Foreign Secretary's claim that they represented intelligence material supplied by the U.S. that should be kept secret.
The twist in the case concerned one paragraph of the judgment by Lord Neuberger, the Master of the Rolls. In going through the pros and cons of the Foreign Secretary's arguments, he highlighted as a con the fact that the Foreign Secretary's claim of public interest immunity (i.e. secrecy) in respect of the seven paragraphs had come about following advice from the secret services. Although there was no doubt about the Foreign Secretary's own good faith, that advice could well be seen to be tainted, given the fact that one member of the secret services, Witness B, was under police investigation for a possible breach of the law in helping Mr. Mohamed's torturers. Other members of the secret services might also have known about Witness B's actions.
As is customary, the draft judgment was sent out to both parties' counsel, asking for comments prior to formal publication. The Foreign Secretary's counsel thought that the wording of the relevant paragraph was too sweeping in its conclusions about the intelligence community in general, conclusions that were not justified by the evidence of the particular case. Lord Neuberger accordingly redrafted the paragraph, though when the judgment was published (under time pressure, the case being of major public interest), he made it clear that the paragraph was still in draft form. Mr. Mohamed's counsel then objected to the second draft, pointing out that the original Divisional Court judgment had in fact established quite definite conclusions about the intelligence community, based on the evidence. Lord Neuberger then redrafted the relevant paragraph for a third time.
Unfortunately, in the media frenzy accompanying the Court of Appeal's decision, the Foreign Secretary's counsel's letter of objection to the court was leaked, and Lord Neuberger's comment that the relevant paragraph was still in draft was lost in the rush. The impression was thus given that the Court of Appeal had been leaned on to change its view.
That impression was one, which the learned judges were - understandably - very, very keen to dispel, taking 9 pages in their subsequent judgment to set out in precise detail what had happened, why, and when. They also gave a general warning against anyone tempted to leak counsel's letters to the court in future; as they put it:
"The circumstances here are, we believe, unique. They will not be repeated."
All eyes now move to the outcome of the police investigation into Witness B. Expect that to cause ripples, whatever the outcome.
Walter Blotscher
Thursday, 25 February 2010
BANK BONUSSES
I am having problems with the idea of bonusses. I am having a particular problem with the Royal Bank of Scotland, now 84% owned by the U.K. Government (i.e. the taxpayer), paying out £1,3 billion in bonusses to its staff, despite the fact that it lost £3,6 billion in 2009.
The word "bonus" has connotations - to me, at least - of something extra and special. An extra payment for a special effort. I can't see how a company that makes losses can justify any bonus. The fact of the matter is that any bonus paid merely increases the loss made.
If we were in any other industry except finance, then this would be self-evident. However, things work differently in the City. As RBS' chief explains it, you have to pay bonusses in order to retain productive staff. Even when the company makes a loss, and is state-owned.
I think that this is self-serving tosh. It is time for banks' Boards and senior management to remember that they ultimately work for shareholders, not employees. Employees should be well remunerated, if the company can afford it; and there is nothing wrong (indeed, quite the opposite) with giving employees more when the company has more. However, employees should not be entitled to bonusses when the company patently cannot afford them. The concept of "guaranteed bonusses" is an oxymoron, that should be ditched. And if employees say that they will walk unless they get them, then that bluff should be called; let them walk.
More on this later ...
Walter Blotscher
I am having problems with the idea of bonusses. I am having a particular problem with the Royal Bank of Scotland, now 84% owned by the U.K. Government (i.e. the taxpayer), paying out £1,3 billion in bonusses to its staff, despite the fact that it lost £3,6 billion in 2009.
The word "bonus" has connotations - to me, at least - of something extra and special. An extra payment for a special effort. I can't see how a company that makes losses can justify any bonus. The fact of the matter is that any bonus paid merely increases the loss made.
If we were in any other industry except finance, then this would be self-evident. However, things work differently in the City. As RBS' chief explains it, you have to pay bonusses in order to retain productive staff. Even when the company makes a loss, and is state-owned.
I think that this is self-serving tosh. It is time for banks' Boards and senior management to remember that they ultimately work for shareholders, not employees. Employees should be well remunerated, if the company can afford it; and there is nothing wrong (indeed, quite the opposite) with giving employees more when the company has more. However, employees should not be entitled to bonusses when the company patently cannot afford them. The concept of "guaranteed bonusses" is an oxymoron, that should be ditched. And if employees say that they will walk unless they get them, then that bluff should be called; let them walk.
More on this later ...
Walter Blotscher
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
After 28 years of relative quiet the Falkland Islands (otherwise known to Latin America as Las Malvinas) are back in the news. The islands, located in the South Atlantic Ocean off the coast of South America, were taken over by the British in 1833, when largely uninhabited, and are now home to 2500 people, nearly all British citizens. Argentina, which has a long-standing claim to the islands, was in the process of negotiating some form of sovereignty transfer, when in April 1982 its military junta lost patience and invaded. The British responded by sending an amphibious task force. After a landing and a series of short, fierce battles, the Argentines surrendered. 258 British and 649 Argentines lost their lives in the conflict.
The war did not resolve the various territorial claims, but led to an uneasy peace. Britain poured money into developing the islands, with the result that the standard of living there is higher than in Argentina. Now, however, a potential flashpoint has arisen; oil. The waters around the islands are thought to contain substantial oil reserves; and the arrival this week of the first exploration drilling rig has caused Argentine pulses to quicken.
In the modern world, should the U.K. continue to exercise sovereignty over relatively small bits of territory on the other side of the globe? No, in my view. Back in 1982 I must admit to feeling a twinge of pride that Britain could still cut it militarily (though it was, by all accounts, a very close-run affair). But successive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have rather taken the shine off military action in general. Nor is there any great issue of principle such as protecting citizens. Hong Kong was the case for principle, and the U.K. could not uphold it. Besides, the Government was already trying to get rid of the islands when the war broke out. It was only afterwards that British sovereignty became non-negotiable.
It is easy to see a potential formula whereby Argentina obtained sovereignty, but the existing islanders (plus any children born during the next - say- 20 years) retained British citizenship. But such a solution requires a bit more statesmanship from the British Government than they have shown for the past 20 years.
Walter Blotscher
After 28 years of relative quiet the Falkland Islands (otherwise known to Latin America as Las Malvinas) are back in the news. The islands, located in the South Atlantic Ocean off the coast of South America, were taken over by the British in 1833, when largely uninhabited, and are now home to 2500 people, nearly all British citizens. Argentina, which has a long-standing claim to the islands, was in the process of negotiating some form of sovereignty transfer, when in April 1982 its military junta lost patience and invaded. The British responded by sending an amphibious task force. After a landing and a series of short, fierce battles, the Argentines surrendered. 258 British and 649 Argentines lost their lives in the conflict.
The war did not resolve the various territorial claims, but led to an uneasy peace. Britain poured money into developing the islands, with the result that the standard of living there is higher than in Argentina. Now, however, a potential flashpoint has arisen; oil. The waters around the islands are thought to contain substantial oil reserves; and the arrival this week of the first exploration drilling rig has caused Argentine pulses to quicken.
In the modern world, should the U.K. continue to exercise sovereignty over relatively small bits of territory on the other side of the globe? No, in my view. Back in 1982 I must admit to feeling a twinge of pride that Britain could still cut it militarily (though it was, by all accounts, a very close-run affair). But successive wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have rather taken the shine off military action in general. Nor is there any great issue of principle such as protecting citizens. Hong Kong was the case for principle, and the U.K. could not uphold it. Besides, the Government was already trying to get rid of the islands when the war broke out. It was only afterwards that British sovereignty became non-negotiable.
It is easy to see a potential formula whereby Argentina obtained sovereignty, but the existing islanders (plus any children born during the next - say- 20 years) retained British citizenship. But such a solution requires a bit more statesmanship from the British Government than they have shown for the past 20 years.
Walter Blotscher
Monday, 22 February 2010
OLYMPIC ICE HOCKEY
I got up at 5.00am this morning to watch the Canada-U.S.A. round-robin tie. Big brother versus little brother in one of the few settings in which Canada is big brother. 18,000 Canadians roaring the home side on. Some of the world's best players in action.
What a match! The game was played at 100mph, with some brutal, albeit fair, checking. And the underdog Americans won 5-3, deservedly in my view. It helps if you score after only 41 seconds. But although the Canadians had the more shots, they didn't hustle quite as much, and their big guns didn't seem to work together as well. Canada's superstar Sid "the Kid" Crosby had a quiet game, despite scoring a goal.
In the end, the main difference was between the goaltenders. Canada's 37-year old Martin Brodeur, gold-medal winner in Salt Lake City and also the goalie in Torino, had an off night by his normal standards. The U.S.A.'s Ryan Miller, on the other hand, played out of his skin.
With Russia and unfancied defending champions Sweden also automatically through to the quarter finals, the tournament is beginning to hot up. Any one of five or six teams could win it.
Walter Blotscher
I got up at 5.00am this morning to watch the Canada-U.S.A. round-robin tie. Big brother versus little brother in one of the few settings in which Canada is big brother. 18,000 Canadians roaring the home side on. Some of the world's best players in action.
What a match! The game was played at 100mph, with some brutal, albeit fair, checking. And the underdog Americans won 5-3, deservedly in my view. It helps if you score after only 41 seconds. But although the Canadians had the more shots, they didn't hustle quite as much, and their big guns didn't seem to work together as well. Canada's superstar Sid "the Kid" Crosby had a quiet game, despite scoring a goal.
In the end, the main difference was between the goaltenders. Canada's 37-year old Martin Brodeur, gold-medal winner in Salt Lake City and also the goalie in Torino, had an off night by his normal standards. The U.S.A.'s Ryan Miller, on the other hand, played out of his skin.
With Russia and unfancied defending champions Sweden also automatically through to the quarter finals, the tournament is beginning to hot up. Any one of five or six teams could win it.
Walter Blotscher
Sunday, 21 February 2010
CABINET GOVERNMENT
The most surprising aspect of the recent fall of the Dutch Government was not that it fell (the Government was a left-right coalition and such combinations are often unstable), nor that it fell because of disagreement over extending the Dutch military mission to Afghanistan (wars are likely to give rise to differing views), but that it took place after an inconclusive Cabinet meeting that lasted for 16 hours! That is in sharp contrast to the evidence emerging from the U.K. inquiry to the Iraq War, where the Cabinet decision to invade seems to have been taken almost on the nod. The Attorney General was present in order to answer questions about his advice that the invasion was legal; but nobody asked him any.
Cabinet Government has been around since the 18th century. The idea is that decisions are taken and defended collectively by all Government Ministers, the Prime Minister being merely "primus inter pares"; he/she has the same single vote as all of the others. The reality is somewhat different. All Ministers rely to a greater or lesser extent on the Prime Minister's patronage, first to obtain the job and then to keep it. A Minister who continually disagreed with their Prime Minister would find it hard to remain in Cabinet.
The exception is in a coalition, where the dissent can come from one of the parties, as in the Dutch case, rather than from an individual. The stakes are higher, since the end of the coalition may well spell the end of the Government. But the standard of Cabinet debate is probably rather better.
Commentators are often lamenting the decline of Cabinet Government and the concomitant rise of Presidential Prime Ministers. That is likely to be most pronounced in countries such as the U.K. and U.S.A., where coalitions are rare.
Walter Blotscher
The most surprising aspect of the recent fall of the Dutch Government was not that it fell (the Government was a left-right coalition and such combinations are often unstable), nor that it fell because of disagreement over extending the Dutch military mission to Afghanistan (wars are likely to give rise to differing views), but that it took place after an inconclusive Cabinet meeting that lasted for 16 hours! That is in sharp contrast to the evidence emerging from the U.K. inquiry to the Iraq War, where the Cabinet decision to invade seems to have been taken almost on the nod. The Attorney General was present in order to answer questions about his advice that the invasion was legal; but nobody asked him any.
Cabinet Government has been around since the 18th century. The idea is that decisions are taken and defended collectively by all Government Ministers, the Prime Minister being merely "primus inter pares"; he/she has the same single vote as all of the others. The reality is somewhat different. All Ministers rely to a greater or lesser extent on the Prime Minister's patronage, first to obtain the job and then to keep it. A Minister who continually disagreed with their Prime Minister would find it hard to remain in Cabinet.
The exception is in a coalition, where the dissent can come from one of the parties, as in the Dutch case, rather than from an individual. The stakes are higher, since the end of the coalition may well spell the end of the Government. But the standard of Cabinet debate is probably rather better.
Commentators are often lamenting the decline of Cabinet Government and the concomitant rise of Presidential Prime Ministers. That is likely to be most pronounced in countries such as the U.K. and U.S.A., where coalitions are rare.
Walter Blotscher
Friday, 19 February 2010
THE WONDER OF MATHEMATICS
At various times in my life I have been a mathematics teacher. Ad hoc surveys of my pupils have shown that most children believe that mathematics is "important". But other adjectives - surprising, relevant, beautiful - get a decided thumbs-down.
That is a pity, since there is much in the subject that is both surprising and relevant. Take the humble right-angled triangle, for instance. It has been known since the time of the Ancient Greeks that the sum of the squares of the two smaller sides equals the square of the hypotenuse (Pythagoras' Theorem). Many people also know the easy solution (3,4,5) and the less-easy one (5,12,13). What is surprising about Pythagoras is that, of all the zillions of possible right-angled triangles, there is both a solution with whole numbers and that solution involves SMALL numbers.
The latter fact is very relevant. We know that the square-based Pyramids are extremely precise, and that their right-angles are almost exactly 90 degrees. How would an Egyptian overseer be able to build such a structure, even if he knew his Pythagoras? Plastic set-squares didn't exist in the time of Ramases II. But the overseer could make a rope out of papyrus, with knots at each end and 11 knots in the middle, each knot the same distance from its neighbours. Then he would put a stick in the middle of the fifth knot, one in the middle of the eighth knot and one in the middle of the first and thirteenth knots together. Hey presto, he now has a right-angled triangle and can start building a stone building that doesn't fall down. If there were no whole number solution to Pythagoras, or if there were one and the numbers were large (and why shouldn't they be large?), then the whole history of architecture would have been very different. Humans would probably have gotten there in the end, but it would have taken a much longer time.
Another surprising feature of mathematics is the large number of equations that are linear. By linear, I mean one in the form y = ax; double x and you double y. Linear equations are the simplest of all, easy to work with. You don't need a computer to find a solution.
Two of the most important equations for the whole development of science are linear. One of Newton's laws of motion is F = ma; force equals mass times acceleration. The other is Ohm's law V = IR, voltage equals current times resistance. A priori there is no reason why either of these equations should be linear; and if we looked at them in terms of probability, then the chances would be that they were not. Yet the world would probably have turned out very differently if Newton and Ohm had had to wrestle with non-linear relationships. Again, humans would probably have gotten there in the end, but it would have taken a much longer time.
Mathematics is of course entirely man-made, so it is not as if these finds are part of nature. However, it does seem as if nature is prodding us along in our endeavours, saying "find an easy relationship, guys, and I'll make sure that it works in practice". If true, that would be the most surprising and relevant fact of all. Beautiful even.
Walter Blotscher
At various times in my life I have been a mathematics teacher. Ad hoc surveys of my pupils have shown that most children believe that mathematics is "important". But other adjectives - surprising, relevant, beautiful - get a decided thumbs-down.
That is a pity, since there is much in the subject that is both surprising and relevant. Take the humble right-angled triangle, for instance. It has been known since the time of the Ancient Greeks that the sum of the squares of the two smaller sides equals the square of the hypotenuse (Pythagoras' Theorem). Many people also know the easy solution (3,4,5) and the less-easy one (5,12,13). What is surprising about Pythagoras is that, of all the zillions of possible right-angled triangles, there is both a solution with whole numbers and that solution involves SMALL numbers.
The latter fact is very relevant. We know that the square-based Pyramids are extremely precise, and that their right-angles are almost exactly 90 degrees. How would an Egyptian overseer be able to build such a structure, even if he knew his Pythagoras? Plastic set-squares didn't exist in the time of Ramases II. But the overseer could make a rope out of papyrus, with knots at each end and 11 knots in the middle, each knot the same distance from its neighbours. Then he would put a stick in the middle of the fifth knot, one in the middle of the eighth knot and one in the middle of the first and thirteenth knots together. Hey presto, he now has a right-angled triangle and can start building a stone building that doesn't fall down. If there were no whole number solution to Pythagoras, or if there were one and the numbers were large (and why shouldn't they be large?), then the whole history of architecture would have been very different. Humans would probably have gotten there in the end, but it would have taken a much longer time.
Another surprising feature of mathematics is the large number of equations that are linear. By linear, I mean one in the form y = ax; double x and you double y. Linear equations are the simplest of all, easy to work with. You don't need a computer to find a solution.
Two of the most important equations for the whole development of science are linear. One of Newton's laws of motion is F = ma; force equals mass times acceleration. The other is Ohm's law V = IR, voltage equals current times resistance. A priori there is no reason why either of these equations should be linear; and if we looked at them in terms of probability, then the chances would be that they were not. Yet the world would probably have turned out very differently if Newton and Ohm had had to wrestle with non-linear relationships. Again, humans would probably have gotten there in the end, but it would have taken a much longer time.
Mathematics is of course entirely man-made, so it is not as if these finds are part of nature. However, it does seem as if nature is prodding us along in our endeavours, saying "find an easy relationship, guys, and I'll make sure that it works in practice". If true, that would be the most surprising and relevant fact of all. Beautiful even.
Walter Blotscher
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
