Abu Hamza US extradition halted

[PeteEU]

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*)

LOL using the "liberal" slur just because you dont agree with it. You do know that idea of law and order is a conservative trait right, or should be..

Then why did the British sign it? I don't think they're complete nincompoops, are they?

(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? In any case, they can't blame the 2003 treaty on Thatcher.

Have no clue why they signed it but it is not the first time the UK and Europe sign idiotic deals with the US that means Europe gives everything but the US gives nothing. Another example is the new cross Atlantic airline deal. American airlines who are protected by the requirement of at least 51% US ownership, can fly from European city to European city, where as European airlines can not fly from US city to US city, and US airlines cant be owned by non Americans.. never understood that deal or why we agreed to such limiting of the free market.

 

[PeteEU]

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.

They should have the same rights as a child rapist or murderer.

Governments have a major depression to sort out, less time spent on worthless scum the better.

Agreed.

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.

I have no problem with this, as long as the description of what a terrorist is, is very very accurate. The problem with what the American's did in their panic after 9/11, was that they never ever defined what a terrorist is, so anyone they grabbed world wide they designated as terrorists and put in that hell hole, only to find out later that many had nothing to do with terror.

Like it or not the difference between us and the terrorists is that we have laws and rules that we have set up to run our societies and we have to follow those or we loose our way. Sure I have no problem making the punishment for terror activities be harsh, as long as it is well defined what terror is and that the rules are fair. The last thing I want is a 12 year old boy rotting away in a jail for throwing rocks at troops and getting charged with terror. The last thing I want is a taxi driver being thrown in jail on terror charges because his competitor "fingered him" as a terrorist and the authorities did nothing to investigate before arresting.

 

[kaya'08]

Like it or not the difference between us and the terrorists is that we have laws and rules that we have set up to run our societies and we have to follow those or we loose our way. Sure I have no problem making the punishment for terror activities be harsh, as long as it is well defined what terror is and that the rules are fair. The last thing I want is a 12 year old boy rotting away in a jail for throwing rocks at troops and getting charged with terror. The last thing I want is a taxi driver being thrown in jail on terror charges because his competitor "fingered him" as a terrorist and the authorities did nothing to investigate before arresting.

Time out, i want to be childish for a second and have a quick giggle. :lamo

Ok back on topic. I agree. Its like allowing the government to decide what is and what is not moral (i remember locking heads with Korimyr on this one. We where discussing porn and programmes of a sexual nature regardless of how small btw, and how governments should censor the internet and such content, because it damages the "moral fibre of society"). Its dangerous to give government powers to throw whoever they want in prison without defining the terms of a criminal properly so as not to create a police state without civil liberties

 

[Republic_Of_Public]

Not just some, but the vast majority of them were innocent.

Be that as it may (link leading nowhere, as Times ones often do), but if such were true then let's bung 'em before a tribunal.

Yep, countless Germans were put before de-Nazification tribunals, especially in the East Germany under the communist regime close to many on this board.

Let's put these 'British' Muslims before a similar institution, in order for those who suspiciously scurried off to be the Taliban's errand boys during a war to be investigated and then passed or failed. Then we'll know.

And not just a wad of arbitrary compo from the PM in their back pockets, as if these people were just silly little buggers testing their parents' boundaries!

 

[Ahlevah]

Another example is the new cross Atlantic airline deal. American airlines who are protected by the requirement of at least 51% US ownership, can fly from European city to European city, where as European airlines can not fly from US city to US city, and US airlines cant be owned by non Americans.

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but Europe is a continent and the United States is a single country. What's to stop a European airline from flying from, say, Atlanta to Toronto and points beyond? And I don't think Delta or American can just show up and offer service from Heathrow to Manchester or Newcastle, can it? In fact, until recently getting gate space at Heathrow if your name wasn't British Airways was damn near impossible. Was that fair? One more thing. Privately-owned U.S. airlines have had to compete against large government-owned (and subsidized) airlines. Was that fair?

 

[kaya'08]

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but Europe is a continent and the United States is a single country. What's to stop a European airline from flying from, say, Atlanta to Toronto and points beyond? And I don't think Delta or American can just show up and offer service from Heathrow to Manchester or Newcastle, can it? In fact, until recently getting gate space at Heathrow if your name wasn't British Airways was damn near impossible. Was that fair? One more thing. Privately-owned U.S. airlines have had to compete against large government-owned (and subsidized) airlines. Was that fair?

Well no, the US is a republic not a country and so is the EU in much looser terms.
And your right its hard to get a slot in Heathrow but thats only because its so overused planes have to circle the airport at least once just to wait for the terminals to be free of departing planes before it can land. Just wanted to point those out.

 

[PeteEU]

Pardon me for pointing out the obvious, but Europe is a continent and the United States is a single country. What's to stop a European airline from flying from, say, Atlanta to Toronto and points beyond?

They are not allowed to fly from say Atlanta to LA unless they come from Europe first off. So a plane from Paris to LA can land in Atlanta, but Air France cant start a route from Atlanta to LA.

And I don't think Delta or American can just show up and offer service from Heathrow to Manchester or Newcastle, can it?

There is nothing legally stopping them from doing so. In the US there is legal ban on European carriers from starting a service from LA to Washington for example. In fact there are two bans. One states that no airline based in the US can be owned by non Americans, and that no non US airline can fly routes between US cities.

In fact, until recently getting gate space at Heathrow if your name wasn't British Airways was damn near impossible. Was that fair?

That is a size and space issue at Heathrow. There is nothing legally preventing airlines to getting space at Heathrow. But space on ground and in the air does prevent airlines getting more slots.

One more thing. Privately-owned U.S. airlines have had to compete against large government-owned (and subsidized) airlines. Was that fair?

What large government-owned (and subsidized) airlines are we talking about?

First off subsidizing national airlines is illegal in the EU, as Berloscoloony and Al Italia found out not long ago. Al Italia is one of the only state run airlines left in Europe

Secondly, most airlines in Europe are private companies listed on stock exchanges. One exception is SAS, which is technically owned by Denmark, Sweden and Norway equally, although the company gets no money from the state what so ever (it is illegal), and is run as a private company and does have private stock holders too.

British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, Iberia, KLM (now part of Air France), Austrian Airlines and so on and so on are all private companies. Now some have the local government holding a large, (but not majority) stock holding, but that is hardly uncommon.

 

[Ahlevah]

(T)he US is... not a country....

:shock: This is news to me. I always thought it was a country with a republican form of government. States can't negotiate treaties, coin their own money, regulate interstate and international commerce, exchange ambassadors with other nations, issue passports, or do many of the other things independent countries generally take for granted.

 

[kaya'08]

:shock: This is news to me. I always thought it was a country with a republican form of government. States can't negotiate treaties, coin their own money, regulate interstate and international commerce, exchange ambassadors with other nations, issue passports, or do many of the other things independent countries generally take for granted.

No but they have a lot more autonomy then they would say, if there where not individual states in a non-federal country.

 

[Ahlevah]

No but they have a lot more autonomy then they would say, if there where not individual states in a non-federal country.

OK, but they don't have the autonomy to negotiate open skies agreements like European countries do, since international commerce is regulated by the federal government. In that regard I don't see much difference between, say, Schleswig-Holstein and Wisconsin.

 

[kaya'08]

OK, but they don't have the autonomy to negotiate open skies agreements like European countries do, since international commerce is regulated by the federal government. In that regard I don't see much difference between, say, Schleswig-Holstein and Wisconsin.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with your argument i just made a statement.

 

[Ahlevah]

I wasn't actually disagreeing with your argument i just made a statement.

OK. eace