• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Abu Hamza US extradition halted

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The European Court of Human Rights has ordered a halt to the extradition to the US on terror charges of radical cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Abu Hamza, jailed in the UK for soliciting to murder and racial hatred, and three other British men complained about the length of sentence they may face if convicted in the US.

Their cases will be delayed for further submissions to the Strasbourg court.
BBC Link
What an irony - we didn't sentence this man and his colleagues properly (Hamza only faces 7 years in prison if he stays in the UK) and the US promises a far more appropriate sentence - however we are possibly sending a man to conditions described as "psychological torture" in the US.

Certainly I believe we should attempt to regain moral standing by investigating whether UK MI5 agents colluded in torture and Hamza should be extradited properly - but should we simply wash our hands and allow what are barbaric conditions or keep him here to see the madness of his release in less than 3-4 years?

Interesting view here in the Telegraph blogs.

Abu Hamza will not be extradited to the United States any time soon, thanks to the European Court of Human Rights and its postmodern and ironic understanding of the term “human rights”.
Hamza and another man, Babar Ahmad, will remain in the UK for the foreseeable future because the court wants more time to consider the extradition, amid fears they may face inhumane conditions in the States. Well, they’re not going to be given a ticker-tape parade, that’s for sure.
Abu Hamza is currently serving time in Belmarsh for inciting hatred, but he’s wanted in the US for alleged links with al-Qaeda terrorists who murdered 16 western tourists in Yemen in 1998.
He’s not going to the US, however, because as his lawyer, Muddassar Arani, told the Guardian:
The issue the court wants to decide is whether the conditions in the US prison are so draconian it amounts to inhumane conditions. It all hangs on ’supermax’ prisons.​
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Once again vermin like Hamza, Binyam Mohamad, Moazzam Begg, Jamil el-Banna, Richard Belmar and other literally lethal specimens are given the benefit of the doubt whilst the likes of Gurkha veterans are stabbed in the back by a country ungrateful for its loyalty and fighting aid.


Indeed, the likes of Begg and el-Banna are being paid loadsamoney in lavish compo because they weren't spoken to as gentlemen by the Americans when being interrogated about their involvement in things like 9/11. And with the PM's slimy blessing:

Britain's torture secrets laid bare as PM orders inquiry into security services | Mail Online



People writing to newspapers here are often incredulous at such political correctness. But we're all so used to this kind of madness that less outrage is now heard, just sighs of resignation.

USA a 'dangerous' place for these vermin? God in Heaven! No wonder I erupt on these boards!

I don't know about those whose favourite scream is 'Racist' (was it their first scream?!), but it looks like one hell of a lashing of special treatment for certain people where I'm standing! Hell, even the Left-endorsed IRA never had it THIS good!!!




_________________________________


DEVIANTS OF THE STAR AND CRESCENT

(Taken from the Daily Express, July 8)

scum watch.jpg
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Once again vermin like Hamza, Binyam Mohamad, Moazzam Begg, Jamil el-Banna, Richard Belmar and other literally lethal specimens are given the benefit of the doubt whilst the likes of Gurkha veterans are stabbed in the back by a country ungrateful for its loyalty and fighting aid.
Hamza for one is still in prison - not given the "benefit of the doubt."

The question is whether we should send him to the US where his treatment may not be of the same standard.

USA a 'dangerous' place for these vermin? God in Heaven! No wonder I erupt on these boards!
Unfortunately the US has already proven that it does not treat some prisoners in a humane manner (Guantanamo) and thus there is legitimate cause for concern. We're not talking about some 3rd world backwater but a supposed superpower and 1st world country.

-- even the Left-endorsed IRA never had it THIS good!!!
There was never any question of extraditing any IRA prisoners to the US so is there any relevance? If you remember anyway, the IRA were freely allowed to fund raise in the US so there is even less similarity to an extremist Islamist group who wouldn't be allowed to operate in the same way in the US anyway.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The question is whether we should send him to the US where his treatment may not be of the same standard.
Well, there wasn't much moaning when Nazi fifth-columnists or traitorous propagandists like Haw-Haw were sorted out by us in a more stringent manner. Perhaps Hamza and the mob are a bit more important somehow.

We get all this about Gitmo, faux-tender bomb plotters, plus moaning 'traitors' (because they're supposed to be British) getting their come-uppance after being caught helping a totalitarian enemy, but I really do struggle to give a fig. It shouldn't be any of our business what happens to them, especially as the Americans are ready to try them - something they've been criticised all this time for not doing, though now they want to they're blocked!

Just seems to me the government make more of a fuss about their welfare than even the old age pensioners who die of cold and malnutrition or, as I keep on and on about, the needs of Gurkha veterans.
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, there wasn't much moaning when Nazi fifth-columnists or traitorous propagandists like Haw-Haw were sorted out by us in a more stringent manner. Perhaps Hamza and the mob are a bit more important somehow.

We get all this about Gitmo, faux-tender bomb plotters, plus moaning 'traitors' (because they're supposed to be British) getting their come-uppance after being caught helping a totalitarian enemy, but I really do struggle to give a fig. It shouldn't be any of our business what happens to them, especially as the Americans are ready to try them - something they've been criticised all this time for not doing, though now they want to they're blocked!
If the US could demonstrate that the punishment is humane then the EU court has no reason to block extradition. It's up to the US to meet our standards. I take the point about Haw-Haw but rules have changed across the world, rules which in some instances even the US signed up to. The problem is the US has shown willingness to bend terms i.e. allowing torture by their own operatives off US soil in order to do what they wish.

Just seems to me the government make more of a fuss about their welfare than even the old age pensioners who die of cold and malnutrition or, as I keep on and on about, the needs of Gurkha veterans.
Well... it's not the Govt, it's the EU court that stopped the extradition. We'd already agreed.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It's up to the US to meet our standards.
Whose standards?!

Call me cynical (and in many ways I know I am) but despite all the recent EU waffle by the likes of Condoleeza Rice, the US Government won't take kindly to dictated terms. Especially terms dictated by a body accountable only to its mates and which most UK citizens look upon with scepticism.

And be it that I may be opening myself up to sharp criticism here, but I know I'm only going to care about Gitmo and its guests if news comes to light that someone who isn't shady and murderously unsavoury got stuffed in there for a good talking-to. Like some Yank cyclist pulled over for a broken headlamp being put there by a clerical mistake or something.

Gitmo was the sharpest of sharp ends. Hardened, lying war criminals won't talk just 'cos you ask them. They're fanatics who need something a bit stiffer, with stuff much stiffer being alleged.

We'd already agreed.
Wandering away slightly, but had the European Court ordered us to look after our pensioners or punish criminals properly, would our government have been so quick to agree?!
 
Last edited:

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Whose standards?!
We have signed up to various treaties regarding prisoner treatment and humane incarceration.

Call me cynical (and in many ways I know I am) but despite all the recent EU waffle by the likes of Condoleeza Rice, the US Government won't take kindly to dictated terms.
COndoleeza Rice didn't waffle on behalf of the EU, she did that for the US.

Anyhow - corrections aside, the US Govt has no jurisdiction over our court system. They put in an extradition request and we agreed. It got held up by the EU court.

-- I'm only going to care about Gitmo and its guests if news comes to light that someone who isn't shady and murderously unsavoury got stuffed in there for a good talking-to. Like some Yank cyclist pulled over for a broken headlamp being put there by a clerical mistake or something.

Gitmo was the sharpest of sharp ends. Hardened, lying war criminals won't talk just 'cos you ask them. They're fanatics who need something a bit stiffer, with stuff much stiffer being alleged.
The principle behind such things as Guantanamo is also how we would want our prisoners treated if captured by enemy forces. That's why we have an interest in humane treatment of our captives and our own.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,125
Reaction score
12,041
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Good for the UK. About time the extradition treaty between the UK/EU and US is ripped up and redone fairly.... along with tons of other treaties.
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
We have signed up to various treaties regarding prisoner treatment and humane incarceration.

COndoleeza Rice didn't waffle on behalf of the EU, she did that for the US.

Anyhow - corrections aside, the US Govt has no jurisdiction over our court system. They put in an extradition request and we agreed. It got held up by the EU court.

The principle behind such things as Guantanamo is also how we would want our prisoners treated if captured by enemy forces. That's why we have an interest in humane treatment of our captives and our own.
The new ConDem government needs to reject and renegotiate the UK/US extradition treaty. Were Abu Hamza in prison in America, there would be no question of an extradition to Europe. This is currently a festering sore in transatlantic relations...

From wiki:"For example, there is at present a disagreement between the United States and the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003 that dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradition.

It is important to emphasize, however, that even had the treaty been ratified by the U.S., the treaty would still be one-sided, because it stipulates that extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. must show a "reasonable case" that the suspect committed the offense, but requests from the U.S. to the UK have no such requirement imposed on them.

This came to a head over the extradition of the Natwest Three from the UK to the U.S., for their alleged role in the Enron fraud. Several British political leaders were heavily critical of the British government's handling of the issue. The former leader of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, Sir Menzies Campbell, had argued that the U.S. had not ratified the treaty primarily due to the influence of what he calls the "Irish lobby" – which, he said, is opposed to the treaty because it could make it easier for Britain to have alleged IRA terrorist suspects extradited from the U.S.

The precedent of the Natwest Three may also be used to extradite/prosecute Philip Watts in connection with the Royal Dutch Shell reserves scandal. The press has carried vocal criticisms of the present extradition arrangements from the UK's business community, some of whom stated that they were avoiding doing business with or in the U.S. because of legal concerns such as the extradition treaty, among other concerns."
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The principle behind such things as Guantanamo is also how we would want our prisoners treated if captured by enemy forces.
I understand that priciple and it's perfectly logical. Rational too.

But in dealing with an enemy who believes that prisoners are less than human and can be killed (on video if a handy Sony's nearby), they're hardly going to fall in and behave when in captivity themselves. Hell, even in normal criminal jails it's not been unknown for gangs of Islamic fundamentalist prisoners to convert other inmates by force and threat.

Gitmo's different then - less a conventional POW camp for enemy soldiers captured during time of battle, according to universally-agreed rules of war, and more a secure holding pen for unlawful terrorist agents. People who voluntarily become outlaws by betraying the nations they supposedly made their homes using deception, violence and conspiracy to murder. So the Yanks get benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited:

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
8,489
Reaction score
2,856
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Just let him go. Then when he gets back to Yemen Obama can give him due process with a Hellfire missile.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,504
Reaction score
8,591
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The new ConDem government needs to reject and renegotiate the UK/US extradition treaty. Were Abu Hamza in prison in America, there would be no question of an extradition to Europe. This is currently a festering sore in transatlantic relations...

From wiki:"For example, there is at present a disagreement between the United States and the United Kingdom about the Extradition Act 2003 that dispenses with the need for a prima facie case for extradition.

It is important to emphasize, however, that even had the treaty been ratified by the U.S., the treaty would still be one-sided, because it stipulates that extradition requests from the UK to the U.S. must show a "reasonable case" that the suspect committed the offense, but requests from the U.S. to the UK have no such requirement imposed on them.

This came to a head over the extradition of the Natwest Three from the UK to the U.S., for their alleged role in the Enron fraud. Several British political leaders were heavily critical of the British government's handling of the issue. The former leader of the UK's Liberal Democrat party, Sir Menzies Campbell, had argued that the U.S. had not ratified the treaty primarily due to the influence of what he calls the "Irish lobby" – which, he said, is opposed to the treaty because it could make it easier for Britain to have alleged IRA terrorist suspects extradited from the U.S.

The precedent of the Natwest Three may also be used to extradite/prosecute Philip Watts in connection with the Royal Dutch Shell reserves scandal. The press has carried vocal criticisms of the present extradition arrangements from the UK's business community, some of whom stated that they were avoiding doing business with or in the U.S. because of legal concerns such as the extradition treaty, among other concerns."
Gotta say "thank you" for educating me on the extradition treaty.

I understand that priciple and it's perfectly logical. Rational too.

But in dealing with an enemy who believes --
It's far easier to have a unitary policy. Operational staff in all sorts of areas tend to find things easier if there's one standard to work with.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Agreed. In normal matters, but I contend this isn't normal, hence the interference of the European judges in the first place. Just gets my goat that the Governments, as I say, puts more effort into 'regaining' and buying off Islamonutzis like Binyam whilst the truly needy get nothing.

(Haven't we got enough of these people infesting the country without re-importing extra terrorists?!)

...Particularly when, in all the propaganda, the politicians sound halfway like me in condemning Islamic extremists and fifth-columns!

They're not POWS but terrorists.

If Hamza faces the death penalty for his crimes then it's all he deserves. The arrogance of unelected Euro judges shouldn't have any sway on the matter at all, especially as it deals with a nation outside its jurisdiction. And if, as Pete EU always claims, all these Euro matters are only binding here with our consent, then it just shows the blinkered stupidity of OUR OWN people to keep us in this mess with the USA, just to make it look like we can have some influence and power in all this too!
 
Last edited:

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,125
Reaction score
12,041
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Agreed. In normal matters, but I contend this isn't normal, hence the interference of the European judges in the first place. Just gets my goat that the Governments, as I say, puts more effort into 'regaining' and buying off Islamonutzis like Binyam whilst the truly needy get nothing.

(Haven't we got enough of these people infesting the country without re-importing extra terrorists?!)

...Particularly when, in all the propaganda, the politicians sound halfway like me in condemning Islamic extremists and fifth-columns!

They're not POWS but terrorists.

If Hamza faces the death penalty for his crimes then it's all he deserves. The arrogance of unelected Euro judges shouldn't have any sway on the matter at all, especially as it deals with a nation outside its jurisdiction. And if, as Pete EU always claims, all these Euro matters are only binding here with our consent, then it just shows the blinkered stupidity of OUR OWN people to keep us in this mess with the USA, just to make it look like we can have some influence and power in all this too!
Yes they are only binding with your consent, a consent you put in place 50+ years ago when you signed the treaty after you had written it...

It is not the ECHR fault that the British government time and time again pisses on the human rights of its subjects.
 
Last edited:

Gardener

free market communist
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 5, 2005
Messages
26,661
Reaction score
15,927
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It is not the ECHR fault that the British government time and time again pisses on the human rights of its subjects.

You're d@mned tootin, Pete!

Especially since we all know our hero, the honorable Mr. Hamza, would never even CONSIDER pissing on anybody else's human rights.
 

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
8,489
Reaction score
2,856
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
They're not POWS but terrorists.
According to BObama, they, and anyone they commune with, are terrorists and fodder for a Hellfire missile fired from a drone--unless they're captured first, at which time they're entitled access to the American court system and an army of lawyers, even though they're not American citizens and were not captured on American soil. Moral of the story: Kill 'em first and be done with it. Personally, I don't want the f***** here where we can spend money on a trial during which he can present public tirades and make a mockery of our courts like Zacarias Moussaoui did. I'd rather the POS perform his sentence in Britain, then let our intelligence services track him to Yemen or North Waziristan where we can send his body parts to Paradise with a drone. There he can join the ten or so "al-Qaeda Number Threes" we've already taken out.

Al-Qaeda No. 3 Yazid reported killed by U.S. drone
 

Andalublue

Hello again!
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
27,097
Reaction score
12,352
Location
Granada, España
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
And if, as Pete EU always claims, all these Euro matters are only binding here with our consent, then it just shows the blinkered stupidity of OUR OWN people to keep us in this mess with the USA, just to make it look like we can have some influence and power in all this too![/B]
Good God. We actually agree on one small point. It is blinkered stupidity that allows British politicians to agree to an extradition agreement that is totally one-sided. It's the kind of agreement that Britain itself used to make with its overseas 'dominions', the actions of a vassal state. Thank God that the ECHR (nothing to do with the EU, remember) is showing some backbone where the British government is rolling over to have its tummy tickled.

Personally, I'd be perfectly happy for Abu Hamza to rot away in Belmarsh for the rest of his evil days. That isn't the issue here. The issue is that this extradition agreement is not equitable and prejudices the right to fair treatment of British citizens, as we've already seen too many times with such cases as the NatWest Three and the shameful attempted extradition of the Asberger's sufferer, and computer hacker, Gary McKinnon.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,125
Reaction score
12,041
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You're d@mned tootin, Pete!

Especially since we all know our hero, the honorable Mr. Hamza, would never even CONSIDER pissing on anybody else's human rights.
I could give a rats ass about Mr Hamza and I hope he has it coming to him, but I refuse to break human rights and our laws to do so. That would make us no different than him.
 

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
According to Nick Griffin, Abu Hamza is a "shiehk" and a person he admires.
 

Republic_Of_Public

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
2,922
Reaction score
343
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
ISLAMOPHOBIC POLITICIANS SCARED OF WHAT THEY'VE IMPORTED:



There is a darker fear for me in how the British politicians are making a stand for the baddies in all this.

I think, beyond hypocritical claims of fairness, that there's the Muslim vote to consider. Frighteningly, the Muslim vote is 'pivotal' in EIGHTY-TWO PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES! Fair almost knocked me out of my chair to discover that. They're a monority but, like the Lib-Dems now, can have the capacity to swing the balance with politicians. So they have to be 'looked after'. *


Remember that it took a lot less than this to have politicians grovelling and fearing some huge Islamic wrath if they didn't obey or pacify. For example, Tessa Jowell refused to launch an enquiry on 7/7 because it might fuel 'tensions'. Community leaders threaten 'tensions' if they're not bought off with bribes, er 'investment grants', to reward the very communities incubating the extremists. And various cultural concessions are made on their behalf (that swimming pool rubbish, ever more numerous and opulent mosques thrown up whilst churches are left to rot or civil servants banned from eating bacon sandwiches in shared canteens), regardless of whether they've been asked for or not.

Effluencial politicians!




* Well, slung in the 'sin bin' if being held to some kind of political ransom is the option!

________________________________________________

SOURCES:


Ethnic minority news service report: http://www.foreignersinuk.co.uk/news-muslim_vote_decisive_in_82_constituencies_mpacuk_1 723.html

Craven political cowardice: Government renames Islamic terrorism as 'anti-Islamic activity' to woo Muslims| News | This is London

Learn from France and Greece's experiences: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/article-367860/Ghettoes-race-riots-lessons-all.html

Money for old rope: http://www.edgehill.ac.uk/gber/pdf/vol6/issue2/Article5.pdf

Muslim areas are told to be vigilant and Muslim community leaders are .... unhealthy environment for the nurturing and development of Muslim ... Government launched another £12000 grant scheme to 'tackle extremism' in communities. ..... The riots and related events in Oldham Burnley and Bradford in 2001 bear ...
- Google search return summary.


Bleeding selective on which violence these Lefties downplay and which they puff up isn't it: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...m.-July-7-bombs-No-inquiry-too-expensive.html

We should be a little more careful who gets the government grants in future: Britons who HATE Britain: The Muslim extremists hell-bent on segregation rather than integration | Mail Online

It's only money, with other big mosques planned and built in my town, though none for the local crumbling churches. (One of which has some marvellous old cathedral organ going broken)..... Slow progress of

Ouch! Tears to the eye: £1.3million Blackburn mosque opens (From Lancashire Telegraph) , etc.







But not even all this can be appreciated......


If this is the way many of them behave, even to one of their own, I don't want any swaying the decisions of MY elected MP!!
 
Last edited:

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
8,489
Reaction score
2,856
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I could give a rats ass about Mr Hamza and I hope he has it coming to him, but I refuse to break human rights and our laws to do so. That would make us no different than him.
Any idea that Europe/Britain embodies virtue and purity compared to the draconian Evil Empire in North America is a bit difficult to swallow. Look, for example, at France's repression in Algeria, Britain's in British East Africa, and the brutal repression of the natives by the Dutch in the East Indies. For a more recent example, look at Britain's anti-terrorism and sedition laws, which would make Palpatine proud. We get clues to the way Britain upholds human rights by the way it treated IRA members it incarcerated and, when they weren't playing cricket in Basra, Iraqi civilians British soldiers were beating and killing with official stonewalling and a coverup by the Ministry of Defense:

At least eight Iraqi civilians are now acknowledged to have died while being held by the British military after the 2003 invasion, including Baha Mousa, the hotel receptionist who was beaten to death while in army custody in Basra. Inquiries by lawyers representing a number of families of abused Iraqi civilians suggest the death toll may have been higher still.

In seven cases raised by the Guardian, the MoD is refusing to explain why the individuals were detained, or say where, how or why they died. Officials have refused even to disclose whether or not the deaths were investigated.

Iraq deaths in British custody could see military face legal challenges | World news | The Guardian
A little introspection and humility work wonders. Trust me.
 

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
35,125
Reaction score
12,041
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Any idea that Europe/Britain embodies virtue and purity compared to the draconian Evil Empire in North America is a bit difficult to swallow.
Never claimed that Europe's or Britain's history or even recent history is anything to be proud off.. we all make mistakes. But regardless of that we should not disregard our basic laws and rules just because we are fearful of people like him or/and what he believes in. That makes us no different than him.. willing to piss away our laws just because we are reacting irrationally.

Look, for example, at France's repression in Algeria, Britain's in British East Africa, and the brutal repression of the natives by the Dutch in the East Indies.
Happened a half plus century ago. But lets not forget the genocide of the natives by the US, or the segregation between black and white up till a few decades ago. Or the subjugation of natives in US colonies. All countries have "colourful" pasts.

For a more recent example, look at Britain's anti-terrorism and sedition laws, which would make Palpatine proud.
Which have been struck down often by the ECHR or high courts. Thatcher got a lot of her "security" measures struck down by the ECHR and British court system. The British governments through history have spit on basic freedoms just as any other government does during times of conflict. But that does not mean it is right or that we should not complain and fight such attempts to curb our freedoms. That is what makes us different from "them".. we cherish our freedoms even though our politicians time to time would love nothing but to curb them. We have a rule of basic law and we should fight government and anyone else who attempts to break those laws.

We get clues to the way Britain upholds human rights by the way it treated IRA members it incarcerated and, when they weren't playing cricket in Basra, Iraqi civilians British soldiers were beating and killing with official stonewalling and a coverup by the Ministry of Defense:
And so what? Does not mean we have to make it worse and release people into the custody of other nations that have shown a tendency to piss on the others rights over and over again.... Gitmo....

A little introspection and humility work wonders. Trust me.
My point has been that the extradition treaty between the UK and US is a scandal of epic proportions. The UK can basically never get an American sent over for trial, but the US just has to ask basically. Another example is the US wanting to have a hacker extradited, a man that is clinically diagnosed as handicapped.
 

Winston Smith

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
915
Reaction score
204
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
And be it that I may be opening myself up to sharp criticism here, but I know I'm only going to care about Gitmo and its guests if news comes to light that someone who isn't shady and murderously unsavoury got stuffed in there for a good talking-to. Like some Yank cyclist pulled over for a broken headlamp being put there by a clerical mistake or something.
Not just some, but the vast majority of them were innocent.
 

Ahlevah

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 21, 2009
Messages
8,489
Reaction score
2,856
Location
Pindostan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And so what? Does not mean we have to make it worse and release people into the custody of other nations that have shown a tendency to piss on the others rights over and over again.... Gitmo....
I'm still trying to figure out the liberal mentality on this. They get their panties all tied up in a wad over Gitmo and how we treat terrorists (or "alleged" terrorists), but then you hear nary a peep from them when it comes to BObama's missile campaign that most certainly is killing civilians. (Report of the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Philip Alston*)


My point has been that the extradition treaty between the UK and US is a scandal of epic proportions. The UK can basically never get an American sent over for trial, but the US just has to ask basically.
Then why did the British sign it? I don't think they're complete nincompoops, are they? :confused:

(Or are they? :lol:) They must have gotten something out of it. Britain's Home Secretary at the time, John Reid, a champion of average working stiffs and a lifelong member of Labour, said he was "delighted" with it. What was he so happy about? :confused: In any case, they can't blame the 2003 treaty on Thatcher.
 
Last edited:

kaya'08

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
6,363
Reaction score
1,318
Location
British Turk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think we should take an interest in the rights of these terrorists, but i dont think we should bother ourselves too much with it. Governments have a major depression to sort out, less time spent on worthless scum the better. Personally i think Gitmo took it too far but i like the idea of changing laws to allow us to hold terrorists in custody for as long as it takes to get them convicted basically. I also like the idea of extending "life sentences" (typically 25 years in Britain) for convicted terrorists up to 100 years.
 
Top Bottom