- 3 -have voiced their concerns to the press about the subpoenas, those individuals did not violate anyconfidentiality obligations imposed by the Government or required by the Belfast Project.Rather, they expressed their concerns in an attempt to raise awareness of the important interestsat stake in this matter that otherwise might not have been known to the public.2. The Government’s arguments about the mandates of theMLAT apply to the Executive, not the Judicial, branch.The Government devotes a substantial portion of the Argument section of its Opposition(Gov. Opp. 5-9) to the contention that the Treaty Between the Government of the United Statesof America and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland onMutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (the US-UK MLAT) obligates this Court to complywith a request from the United Kingdom under the US-UK MLAT.
, Gov. Opp. 7(“Under the US-UK MLAT, the United States is
to obtain the documentary evidencerequested in this instance and provide it to the authorities in the UK. The treaty
called upon to enforce such a . . . . request [italics added]”).Boston College does not dispute the fact that the Treaty does impose such an obligationon the “Central Authority” of the United States, although even that obligation is not absolute.
The Central Authority is defined in the Treaty as “the Attorney General or a person or agencydesignated by him” (US-UK MLAT Art. 2(1)). Nothing in the Treaty binds the Judiciary of theUnited States. On the contrary, the Treaty states that, when the execution of a request requires judicial action, “the request shall be
to the appropriate authority by the persons
Under Art. 3(1)(a) of the US-UK MLAT, the Central Authority may “refuse assistance” if it is “of the opinion”that the request would “impair . . . essential interests or would be contrary to important public policy.” Because theGovernment is pressing for enforcement of its subpoenas to Boston College, it obviously has not chosen to exercisethe discretion granted by the US-UK MLAT to decide that the interest in protecting academic research warrantsrefusing the United Kingdom’s request.
Case 1:11-mc-91078-JLT Document 10 Filed 07/15/11 Page 3 of 9