Abu Hamza extradition

[Eric]

Vive la Reine, eh Seems like the old girl got this one right.

BBC apologises to Queen for revealing private conversation about Abu Hamza | Media | guardian.co.uk

Hey, she thinks a lot like you guys. Of course, I'd expect nothing less from the Queen of Canada.

[egg&chips]

Don't think this thread will run too long as I believe that there will be little disagreement over the ruling.


Ok the guy Hamsa is lowlife scrum, albeit with scatty religious ideology to fall back on to justify his insane rankings. However two of the other dudes, despicable though their actions were in setting up their evil websites should be prosecuted here. A decision to send them for detention and possible ultimate prosecution in America paves the way for similar deportations perhaps. Already we send people who have broken no laws in the UK to languish on remand in prison in the USA who have never even visited the states. What if I were to post something derogatory or contrary to the best interests of the US government using an AOL server? Could I be held to account by the Attorney general for such ideas? I know that it's an extreme instance, but I object to our country being used as a vassal state to the US. It's something to do with sovereignty and self determination I think.

[walkinman221]

Six years to late in my opinion, the ranting hate filled scumbag and his like dont belong here period. If they dont like it bog off or dont come here in the first place. At least lizzy said what our lilly livered politicos didnt have the balls to. To much banging on about his human rights he gave those up when he began supporting and promoting terrorism .Good riddance to bad rubbish , and with a bit of luck he will be put somewhere that make his hook go rusty.

[walkinman221]

Originally Posted by egg&chips

Don't think this thread will run too long as I believe that there will be little disagreement over the ruling.


Ok the guy Hamsa is lowlife scrum, albeit with scatty religious ideology to fall back on to justify his insane rankings. However two of the other dudes, despicable though their actions were in setting up their evil websites should be prosecuted here. A decision to send them for detention and possible ultimate prosecution in America paves the way for similar deportations perhaps. Already we send people who have broken no laws in the UK to languish on remand in prison in the USA who have never even visited the states. What if I were to post something derogatory or contrary to the best interests of the US government using an AOL server? Could I be held to account by the Attorney general for such ideas? I know that it's an extreme instance, but I object to our country being used as a vassal state to the US. It's something to do with sovereignty and self determination I think.

Saves us paying to keep the scum fed and watered A result i think.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by egg&chips

Don't think this thread will run too long as I believe that there will be little disagreement over the ruling.


Ok the guy Hamsa is lowlife scrum, albeit with scatty religious ideology to fall back on to justify his insane rankings. However two of the other dudes, despicable though their actions were in setting up their evil websites should be prosecuted here. A decision to send them for detention and possible ultimate prosecution in America paves the way for similar deportations perhaps. Already we send people who have broken no laws in the UK to languish on remand in prison in the USA who have never even visited the states. What if I were to post something derogatory or contrary to the best interests of the US government using an AOL server? Could I be held to account by the Attorney general for such ideas? I know that it's an extreme instance, but I object to our country being used as a vassal state to the US. It's something to do with sovereignty and self determination I think.

I think it has more to do with long-standing extradition treaties ... some of which may need to be updated because of the revolution in technology.

[cashman]

Whats "Possible Ultimate Prosecution" egg@chips? If that means the yanks may Top Em, then good thats a even better result in my book.

[egg&chips]

Originally Posted by cashman

Whats "Possible Ultimate Prosecution" egg@chips? If that means the yanks may Top Em, then good thats a even better result in my book.

Don't really have much of a problem with capital punishment, although there have definitely been some cock ups in that dept over the years. What I object to is detention without trial for anybody.
It's been part of the justice system for a looooooooooong time and should remain in place where people are entitled to a trial.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by egg&chips

Don't really have much of a problem with capital punishment, although there have definitely been some cock ups in that dept over the years. What I object to is detention without trial for anybody.
It's been part of the justice system for a looooooooooong time and should remain in place where people are entitled to a trial.

I believe you will find that the US justice system is more than even handed, and, that in the US the accused has more access to a fair trial than he/she would have in most other countries. Much better than in, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

[egg&chips]

Originally Posted by Eric

I believe you will find that the US justice system is more than even handed, and, that in the US the accused has more access to a fair trial than he/she would have in most other countries. Much better than in, say, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.

No argument there, but we don't send Internet criminals etc to any of those countries, I think. Also Guantanamo, camp x ray was set up outside of US jurisdiction so that the facilities there do not have to comply with their fair trial system or constitution.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by egg&chips

No argument there, but we don't send Internet criminals etc to any of those countries, I think. Also Guantanamo, camp x ray was set up outside of US jurisdiction so that the facilities there do not have to comply with their fair trial system or constitution.

Guantanamo is reserved for non-American enemy combatants captued in the War on Terror. It is not "outside of US jurisdiction". All they face at Guantanamo is a fair trial. They get a far better deal than would any US, UK, or Canadian soldier captured by the Taliban.

[DaveinGermany]

End of the day fella, the creature & his sort have been spouting bile & hatred about the British (and western society) for a long time now & been getting away with it because Britain & Western society are so tolerant, but who's been funding his life style & right to deride & denegrate ?

Yep, the society he so despises, what goes around comes around & the sooner he's away from these shores the better. Hopefully now the first stones have started to trickle down the mountainside & the lets hope the rest of the avalanche isn't to far behind.

[egg&chips]

Originally Posted by Eric

Guantanamo is reserved for non-American enemy combatants captued in the War on Terror. It is not "outside of US jurisdiction". All they face at Guantanamo is a fair trial. They get a far better deal than would any US, UK, or Canadian soldier captured by the Taliban.

Again I agree that suspected proponents of terrorism sent to Guantanamo get infinitely better treatment than would captured alliance military or civilian personnel, however here's a quote from that never be doubted font of knowledge, Wikipedia.

After the US Department of Justice advised that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp could be considered outside U.S. legal jurisdiction, the first twenty captives arrived at Guantanamo on January 11, 2002. After the Bush administration asserted that detainees were not entitled to any of the protections of the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld on June 29, 2006, that they were entitled to the minimal protections listed under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[4] Following this, on July 7, 2006, the Department of Defense issued an internal memo stating that prisoners would in the future be entitled to protection under Common Article 3.[5][6][7] Susan J. Crawford, who was appointed by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to review practices used at Guantanamo Bay, told Bob Woodward of the Washington Post in an interview in January 2009 that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured while being held prisoner at Guantanamo Bay, making her the first Bush administration official to concede that torture occurred there.

[Eric]

You don't have to wade thru all of this ... but try to tell me the guy wasn't treated fairly:

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[egg&chips]

Originally Posted by DaveinGermany

End of the day fella, the creature & his sort have been spouting bile & hatred about the British (and western society) for a long time now & been getting away with it because Britain & Western society are so tolerant, but who's been funding his life style & right to deride & denegrate ?

Yep, the society he so despises, what goes around comes around & the sooner he's away from these shores the better. Hopefully now the first stones have started to trickle down the mountainside & the lets hope the rest of the avalanche isn't to far behind.

I have no time at all and no sympathy for Hamza and his ilk. Lock him in an oubliette and let him rot. BUT do not send the dudes who have infringed US law from the UK to America. It's a route that several Brits are already travelling and more will if we roll over and let it happen.

[egg&chips]

Originally Posted by Eric

You don't have to wade thru all of this ... but try to tell me the guy wasn't treated fairly:

Omar Khadr - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wouldn't. He was treated fairly. That's not my point. I'm no bleeding heart liberal, I'm just worried about the increasingly nebulous nature of international jurisdiction and the willingness of some governments to nestle in the pockets of more powerful neighbours in the global village.