23

Recently, Turkey claimed, that it won't do extraditions to U.S. until U.S. extradites Gülen to Turkey. (source)

Why U.S. do not want to do it? Turkey is one of its closest allies on Middle East. Please post answers based on statements from the US government.

Answers based on your point of view for this situation and political analysis are also greatly welcome.

Alexei
  • 52,716
  • 43
  • 186
  • 345
user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
  • This has been asked before, but the previous question appears to have been deleted. – Peter Taylor Apr 05 '18 at 07:16
  • 3
    Comments deleted. Please don't try to answer the question using comments. If you would like to answer, please post a real answer which adheres to our quality standards. – Philipp Apr 05 '18 at 12:01

3 Answers3

61

The U.S. has repeatedly stated that Turkey has not provided adequate evidence to link Fethullah Gülen with the crimes he is accused of, as required by the extradition treaty between the two countries.

The latest such statement was in regards to the 2016 assassination of Russian Ambassador to Ankara Andrei Karlov, from Justice Department spokesperson Nicole Navas Oxman:

The United States is awaiting evidence from Turkey over U.S.-based Islamic preacher Fethullah Gülen’s alleged links to the 2016 assassination of Russian Ambassador to Ankara Andrei Karlov, and will consider an extradition request accordingly, Justice Department spokesperson Nicole Navas Oxman has said.

“We will review any materials the Turkish government may provide in this regard and will make any decisions about extradition on the basis or the facts and relevant U.S. laws,” Oxman told Russian state-run news agency Tass on April 2.

Source: US ‘awaiting evidence’ from Turkey over Gülen’s links to murder of Russian envoy Karlov. Hürriyet Daily News. April 03 2018, 10:00:00

Community
  • 1
yannis
  • 9,611
  • 5
  • 55
  • 76
  • 3
    It should also be noted that to be deported for a crime against Turkey, the U.S. must have an identical crime and the evidence must meet that definition of the crime, rather than the Turkish one. – hszmv Apr 05 '18 at 20:28
48

It's worth noting that US Government does not have the power to extradite Gulen on a whim as he is a permanent resident of the United States and holds a Green Card. Unlike deportation, extradition is only possible with a court order and US courts are independent from the government. If the Justice Department does not believe it has the evidence to convince the court that "a crime was committed and that the fugitive committed it" (and it does not: see answer from yannis), it won't send the case to court. Of course, even if the Justice Department does send the case to court, the outcome might not be what the government desires.

Denis
  • 755
  • 5
  • 7
  • So, U.S. law forbids to extradite citizens, like Russian similar law? I remember, when U.S. asked for extradition, Russia answers the same thing - it is forbidden by law. – user2501323 Apr 04 '18 at 14:19
  • 22
    @user2501323 No. US law requires a court to agree that the provided evidence with the extradition request shows that a crime was committed by the accused. Turkey can't just say "he did it, hand him over". They need to provide enough evidence to convince a US court that he did it first. So far they haven't done so. If at some point in the future they do, they can have him extradited. This is very different from a blanket refusal to extradite like AFAIK is the case with Russia. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Apr 04 '18 at 14:28
  • 1
    @user2501323 Extradition in the US follows extradition agreements (which may be and are different for each partner). I'm not aware of a specific prohibition against extraditing citizens (though there might be). This answer doesn't say that extraditing citizens isn't permitted, it just says that extradition requires a court decision (whereas deportation would not). – Cubic Apr 04 '18 at 14:30
  • 16
    Presumably, you are from a country in which "government" refers to what in the US would be called the "administration". In the US, "government" refers to what in other country is referred to as "state". The courts are independent of the Trump administration, but they are a part of the US government. – Acccumulation Apr 04 '18 at 14:50
  • So, in summary, some state court should make a decision, and according to state court decision, goverment decide to do or not to do? Remember state court decision about Saudi to pay compensations for 9/11 victims - is it some similar thing? – user2501323 Apr 04 '18 at 14:57
  • "US courts are independent from the government." This is blatantly incorrect. Please reword it per @Acccumulation's comment. Additionally, the Department of Justice is part of the Executive Branch, not the Judicial, and is therefore directly beholden to the President. – jpmc26 Apr 04 '18 at 15:34
  • 8
    @jpmc26 Different countries use words differently. Given that this is asking about the US, it is reasonable to use AmE. But it's a bit insensitive to call a statement "blatantly incorrect" due to it using BrE meanings. – Acccumulation Apr 04 '18 at 15:45
  • 1
    @user2501323 In the US, "state" is generally taken to refer to a state (e.g. Alabama, Arkansas, etc.) . If you're using "state" in the BrE (what would be called "government" in AmE), that usage is both confusing and redundant; the word "court" generally is understood to refer to courts that are part of the state/government. You appear to be using "government" for what in the US is referred to as the "executive" branch. Executive as in they execute the decisions of the government/state. A court makes a decision, and the executive branch then enforces that decision. – Acccumulation Apr 04 '18 at 15:51
  • @jpmc26, really shocked, that Dep. of Justice is from Executive Branch, never know it. – user2501323 Apr 04 '18 at 15:56
  • Can hardly imagine, that state court can decide on such international questions, and, in fact, affect US relationships with allies. But if it is really so, ok. – user2501323 Apr 04 '18 at 15:58
  • 6
    @user2501323 The Department of Justice is only concerned with investigation and prosecution, it is separate from the judicial branch which are the actual judges. Issues like this would also most likely be heard in federal court and not a state level court. – Ukko Apr 04 '18 at 17:13
  • 3
    @Acccumulation Well, more accurately, the Legislative branch (Congress) passes laws (with approval or explicit override of the President), which the Executive branch (President and subordinates) then implements, and the Judicial branch (courts) performs trials to validate or invalidate what the Executive branch is doing with those laws. In the process, they have assumed responsibility for resolving differences between conflicting laws and different interpretations of laws. – jpmc26 Apr 04 '18 at 17:52
  • 3
    @user2501323 I'm 99% sure it'd be a Federal court. The operative question is if the extradition request meets the evidentiary standards of the US Justice system. That is a decision to be made by a Judge. – Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight Apr 04 '18 at 18:34
  • 1
    @Accumulation, but the Trump administration has the power to appoint judges, so your use of "the courts are independent" ought to be qualified. It would not pass a "statistical independence test," for instance. – PatrickT Apr 04 '18 at 20:58
  • @user2501323 "shocked, that Dep. of Justice is from Executive Branch" I think it's reasonably common; in my country it's called the Public Ministry, and it's also part of the executive branch. It means that two separate branches must be involved to convict someone, reducing the danger of political convictions. – André Paramés Apr 05 '18 at 09:45
  • @PatrickT It's independent in the sense that the outcome can not be chosen by the executive. Sure, appointing judges is an influence the executive has over the judicial branch, but mentioning it in this context is kind of redundant in the terms of statistics - statistically, the outcome is influenced by the mere fact the executive asks for a specific outcome regardless of whether or not the system grants them the power to demand it. – Cubic Apr 05 '18 at 10:41
  • 3
    @user2501323 - Re: "shocked, that Dep. of Justice is from Executive Branch, never know it." You'd never know it based on the current administration and the DOJ's witch hunt and the Stalinist tactics being used against the current administration. However, if you look at the previous administration you'd see that the DOJ was nothing more than a bunch of puppets for the administration and they did a remarkably effective job of filling up the system with people who are like-minded as the previous administration. Both in politics and ethics or lack-thereof. – Dunk Apr 05 '18 at 18:37
-3

Some guys added notable comments, but do not want to post answer, I'll try to compilate their point of view, because it is valuable I think.

Gülen extradition have some close ties with U.S. interacting with pro-Gülen forces in Turkey. When there was a armored coup attempt some time ago, all European countries reacts in public only after 4-5 days, when uprising was vanished.

Erdogan is not very comfotable for U.S. as ally, because he have some tension with U.S. in kurdish and human rights question, so U.S. have this ace-in-the-hole, Gülen, in their pocket.

P.S. About "state court decision" - really, I do not understand if a court of state can really affect U.S. foreign politics. If these courts are really independent from goverment decisions, it is a very strange scheme of power, I think.

user2501323
  • 11,825
  • 4
  • 44
  • 91
  • 5
    Re your P.S.: So you think it would be fine if the government just said "let's send this guy somewhere" and it happened? In a state where law exists they can only do what the law permits no matter what is their political desire. The courts then guard that the law is really held and that the government cannot just send a person somewhere it wants. Or they could change the law, but then they must follow the constitution. I don't know much about the US law, I am from Europe, but this is universal in countries where law is kept and where dictators cannot do whatever they want. – Vladimir F Героям слава Apr 06 '18 at 11:26
  • You misunderstood what was written. PS is not about court-goverment interaction.

    Main thing to say, I think that state courts just cannot have some access rights to affect country foreign politics. If it is claimed so, then it is just some formal declaration, not related with reality.

     – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 11:34
  • I don't think I misunderstood anything. Maybe I should have just used "administration" instead of "government" given the comments elsewhere. But that is because of my European background I already warned about. – Vladimir F Героям слава Apr 06 '18 at 11:38
  • We do not talk about common criminal, we talk about political figure. And its using is in areas of Foreign ministry and maybe CIA. I do not think that state court can do something in such situation. In case of common criminal - you're right totally – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 11:46
  • 1
    The point of a state where law is held is that all types of criminals are equal and all must receive fair trial. Political prisoners should only exist in undemocratic regimes. And all types of crimes should be punishable by normal courts, even crimes against the state like high treason and similar. Neither CIA nor the Department of foreign affairs can have the power to take someone and send him somewhere against his will. – Vladimir F Героям слава Apr 06 '18 at 11:54
  • Julian Assange - is he a political prisoner? And if so, is GB or US is a non-democratic state?) – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 11:55
  • 3
    No, he is not a prisoner, he voluntarily stays at the embassy of Ecuador. If he is to be caught, he will be tried by a normal court and hopefully such a trial would be fair. If not, then a wrong thing would happen and yes, then I could imagine saying that such a process would be non-democratic. – Vladimir F Героям слава Apr 06 '18 at 11:57
  • It is very hard to imagine normal court for such west-disturbing figure – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 11:58
  • Yes, facepalm, looks like your view of human rights is incompatible with mine and no discussion is possible about that. – Vladimir F Героям слава Apr 06 '18 at 12:00
  • You edit a comment, so do I. I think you just try to apply your idealistic human-rights view to reality. – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 12:02
  • 1
    @user2501323 There is no such concept as a "political prisoner" in the United States. It is illegal under the U.S. Constitution to hold someone prisoner (or, by extension, to extradite them) for political reasons. The only legal way to do either of those things in the U.S. is to have probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime. Establishing that probable cause requires evidence. If Turkey submits evidence to the U.S. that establishes probable cause, then, and only then, can he be extradited. – reirab Apr 06 '18 at 14:39
  • @user2501323 The U.S. Department of State (the U.S. equivalent of a foreign ministry) has no say in the decision of whether the legal standard for probable cause has been met. That's completely the realm of the courts. – reirab Apr 06 '18 at 14:41
  • 3
    This seems like an extremely Turkish-biased spin on an answer to your own question. As an aside to your P.S., not just state courts, but also federal courts are independent from the executive branch of the government. They cannot be ordered to decide something without evidence. If you live in a country without an independent judiciary, then you live in an autocracy because your government officials cannot be held accountable to the law. – Tal Apr 06 '18 at 14:43
  • In particular for the U.S., the 4th Amendment (part of the U.S. Constitution) is relevant here. It says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." – reirab Apr 06 '18 at 14:46
  • The 5th Amendment is also relevant, in particular, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Due process here involves fair, neutral court hearings, not the State Department just shipping the person off to another country on a whim for political reasons. – reirab Apr 06 '18 at 14:50
  • Really like you guys. You have so pure human-rights faith, I've ever seen before. This is really end of discussion, no more combinations of "law,order,human rights,peace,love,freedom" necessary, thank you. – user2501323 Apr 06 '18 at 14:51
  • 3
    @user2501323 I'm not sure what "faith" is involved here. The entire premise of independent branches of government is that you have more people watching each other, all in the public eye. People trust the system because the system itself does not trust any one person. It certainly must require a lot of blind faith for you to believe that an autocratic leader is incorruptible. – Tal Apr 06 '18 at 15:53