CITATION: 599 F. Supp. 270 Here is the cite and a few quotes from Doherty v US. If anyone wants the whole case, e-mail me at InOBU@AOL.COM
Sorry for the delay
IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUESTED EXTRADITION OF JOSEPH PATRICK THOMAS DOHERTY BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

No. 83 Cr. Misc. 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

599 F. Supp. 270; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21294

December 12, 1984

The Court is not unmindful of the fact that it would be most unwise as a matter of policy to extend the benefit of the political offense exception to every fanatic group or individual with loosely defined political objectives who commit acts of violence in the name of those so called political objectives. Therefore it is proper for the Court to consider the nature of an organization, its structure, and its mode of internal discipline, in deciding whether the act of its members can constitute political conduct under an appropriate interpretation of the Treaty.

However, the PIRA, as the evidence showed, while it may be a radical offshoot of the traditional Irish Republican Army, has both an organization, discipline, and command structure that distinguishes it from more amorphous groups such as the Black Liberation Army or the Red Brigade. Indeed, as the testimony established, its discipline and command structure operates even after its members are imprisoned [**16] and indeed, as Doherty testified, it was at the direction of the PIRA that he escaped and then came to the United States. See Tr. at 650-73, 830; see also In Re Mackin, supra, 80 Cr.Misc. 1 at 78-80. ....
n2 While the Court is not persuaded that the methods and objectives of the PIRA are in fact shared by a majority of the people in Ireland, or indeed by a majority of the Catholics in Northern Ireland, that circumstance is not dispositive of the issue of whether respondent, as a member of that group, is entitled to rely upon the political offense exception to the Treaty. Indeed, at the time of the American Revolution, there were a large number of colonists who not only desired a continued union with England, but regarded the thought of armed opposition to the Crown as both treasonous and abhorrent. See, e.g., J. R. Alden, The American Revolution 1775-1783 (1954); S. E. Morison, The Oxford History of the American People (1905); C. H. Van Tyne, Loyalists in American Revolution (1902). Many loyalists suffered the consequences of these beliefs both before and after independence. Given the nature of that history it would indeed be anomalous for an American court to conclude that the absence of a political consensus for armed resistance in itself deprives such resistance of its political character. ...
In sum, the Court concludes for the reasons given that respondent's participation in the military ambush which resulted in Captain Westmacott's death was an offense political in character. The Court further concludes that his escape from Crumlin Road prison, organized and planned as the evidence established that it was, under the direction of the PIRA and to effect its purposes rather than those of Doherty himself, was also political. That conduct and all of the various and sundry charges which are connected therewith and for which extradition is sought are not extraditable offenses under Article V(1)(c)(i) of the Treaty. n7 The request for extradition is therefore denied.
All the best wishes
Larry