text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Police and Justice Bill - extradition to the US
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  <p>Those voting Content successfully carried an <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/glossary/?gl=114">amendment</a> to remove the United States from the list of Part 2 Territories under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003">Extradition Act 2003</a>. This was the second time this amendment had been debated by the Lords as the Commons had previously rejected it. However, those voting Content also agreed not to insist on a second amendment on the grounds that it would be unnecessary if the first amendment were passed.</p>
  
  <p>The reasons behind this division are as follows: 
  The extradition treaty of 1972 between the United Kingdom and the United States had been broadly reciprocal: if the United States had wanted to extradite someone from the United Kingdom, it had to meet a prima facie case to succeed; equally, if the United Kingdom had wanted to extradite someone from the United States, it had to meet the test of probable cause.</p> 
  
  <p>The new extradition treaty that was signed on 31st March 2003 by David Blunkett (as Home Secretary) and John Ashcroft (as Attorney General of the United States) â and without parliamentary scrutiny â was not reciprocal: Britain would still have to show probable cause but the United States would no longer have to meet the prima facie case.</p>
  
  <p>However, as the 2003 treaty had still not been ratified by the United States, the 1972 treaty should still have been in effect but in November 2003, the Extradition Act was passed by the United Kingdom with the result that the United Kingdom was ârequired to meet our side of the bargain struck by Mr Blunkett in that treaty even though there was no obligation on the United States to meet its.â The United States did not have to provide the United Kingdom any evidence for extradition while the United Kingdom still had to show the United States probable cause.</p>   
  
  <p>The purpose of insisting on this amendment a second time was to make it impossible for the United States to ratify the treaty in an attempt to force a return to the terms of the 1972 treaty.</p>
  
  <p>Their Lordships divided: Contents, 189; Not-Contents, 152.</p>
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  