- Joined
- Oct 28, 2007
- Messages
- 23,964
- Reaction score
- 16,602
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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
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.
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.
USA a 'dangerous' place for these vermin? God in Heaven! No wonder I erupt on these boards!
-- even the Left-endorsed IRA never had it THIS good!!!
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.
It's up to the US to meet our standards.
We'd already agreed.
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.
-- 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 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 principle behind such things as Guantanamo is also how we would want our prisoners treated if captured by enemy forces.
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."
I understand that priciple and it's perfectly logical. Rational too.
But in dealing with an enemy who believes --
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!
It is not the ECHR fault that the British government time and time again pisses on the human rights of its subjects.
They're not POWS but terrorists.
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]
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.
- Google search return summary.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 ...
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.
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
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:
A little introspection and humility work wonders. Trust me.
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.
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....
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?