Tick Tock Tick Tock......Abu Hamza

[Skyrad 0]

WOOHOO! Looks like the crockadile just got captin Hook! Abu Hamza the hate spreading terrorist recruiter for OBL has just been nicked and is off out of the UK on a one way all expenses payed holiday to Cuba curtesy of Uncle Sam This guy was destested my the majority of British Muslims and people all over the country.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040527/325/eum7w.html

Good ridence!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Word.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/3752257.stm

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[PhillyKev 0]

Good news, but I wouldn't be too quick to book his trip to Gitmo yet. You guys might be stuck dealing with him. Hopefully you won't have to release him as has happened several times in other countries because we refuse to cooperate with the prosecution.

[Scratch 0]

Such a handsome man.
England will be the less for his absence.

[DrunkMonkey 0]

I wanna go TDY there. I'll go up to him eating a pork & Bacon sandwich, and drinking a beer, and belch loudly in his face...

[Gawain 0]

Quote

WOOHOO! Looks like the crockadile just got captin Hook! Abu Hamza the hate spreading terrorist recruiter for OBL has just been nicked and is off out of the UK on a one way all expenses payed holiday to Cuba curtesy of Uncle Sam This guy was destested my the majority of British Muslims and people all over the country.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040527/325/eum7w.html

Good ridence!

So, now you like that we have Camp X-Ray set up at Guantanamo?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Yea that'll make him change his mind

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I wanna go TDY there. I'll go up to him eating a pork & Bacon sandwich, and drinking a beer, and belch loudly in his face...

Some people here call that 'torture'

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Skyrad 0]

Hey, if it gets Ol' Abu out of here then maybe there is a case for it after all.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[nacmacfeegle 0]

Nah, thats abuse, if its just done for shits and giggles its abuse, if its done for the purpose of coercion, its torture.

Rad, Gitmo is for people who haven't been charged with anything, this will be a first, so someone owes beeeeeer.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Skyrad 0]

Yea, I've tasted American beer!

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

WOOHOO! Looks like the crockadile just got captin Hook! Abu Hamza the hate spreading terrorist recruiter for OBL has just been nicked and is off out of the UK on a one way all expenses payed holiday to Cuba curtesy of Uncle Sam This guy was destested my the majority of British Muslims and people all over the country.
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040527/325/eum7w.html

Good ridence!

It will not happen anytime soon, news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3753341.stm

and he'll have to come to the USA, not Cuba.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,673]

Quote

Such a handsome man.
England will be the less for his absence.

I understand he lost his arms and an eye fighting the USSR in Afghanistan, with our support.

I do voluntary service at a veterans' hospital in Illinois. Some of these guys don't look too good either, but I don't mock them for their injuries.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Newbie 0]

why does it take a foriegn country, the US, to have a guy like this removed from our own country, can someone tell me that?

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[nacmacfeegle 0]

""Obviously if we had that evidence and it related to our country, we would have been able to take action through our courts," Mr Blunkett told the BBC."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3756295.stm

He hasn't committed any crimes here, as I understand it, and his extradition has not been fully agreed yet. He faces the death penalty, if found guilty, and it looks like this may be a stumbling block in the extradition process.
I didn't realise we might not extradite to countries who still kill people in the name of justice.
(another thread entirley methinks)

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

why does it take a foriegn country, the US, to have a guy like this removed from our own country, can someone tell me that?

We had evidence sufficient to revoke his citizenship and deport him. This had been done and there was simply his appeal outstanding. As a democratic nation that believes in the rule of law he had to have the right to appeal the home secretary's decision or else Mr. Blunket becomes a de-facto dictator.

The reason why he didn’t come before a UK court is because the evidence against him is from intelligence intercepts. These are inadmissible as evidence in UK courts. They are admissable in US courts, so he can be tried using that same evidence over there. The gov’t is currently looking at changing the law to allow intelligence intercepts to be admissible in court.

Whether or not intelligence intercepts should be admissible is a different argument. Like most things, it’s a double-edged sword.

[Newbie 0]

thanks - are you a criminal solicitor?

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[Skyrad 0]

Well we're already taking away his British citizenship. I think its also political, by letting him stay in this country we can keep a very close eye on him (keep your friends close and your enemies closer) and by letting him be extradited without the courts being required to see the prima facia evidence we also gain some leverage with the Americans. ie: They get Ol' Abu and we can get a IRA terorist on the run in the US in return. Of course this is speculation but I wouldn't be suprised if someone in Boston is about to be nicked.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[mr2mk1g 10]

No, a Barrister - civil law. But I spent around 5 years studying criminal law at law school. It's not something you forget that easily and besides, half my job is being able to quickly find out about any given law regardless of it's sphere.

[Newbie 0]

nac do you think the US didn't share this info with relevant parties in the UK? That's a rhetorical question by the way. I like the way how Blunkett says "...and it related to our country". It almost implies, well if we find evidence he was involved in something dubious that didn't directly have repercussions for the UK or any British citizen, then let's keep our noses out of it. That's how it reads to me anyway. Maybe that's UK law, mk2 might know more about the in's and out's of the law here, but if that's the case, that we can't hold people accountable here, as UK citizens, who had been involved in terrorist activities abroad, well, that's just bizarre to me.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[mr2mk1g 10]

For the most part, UK courts only have jurisdiction to hear cases involving crimes committed in the UK. The big new change is under the Terrorism Act 2000 which allows courts to hear cases involving certain terrorist offences regardless of where they took place or who they involved.

The problem is that if the illegal act took place before the Terrorism Act came into force you can't prosecute them under it. That wouldn't be fair because at the time they committed the act, it would have been legal - (eg if tomorrow there was a law which said driving is illegal and that it was to be retrospective, we all would have committed a crime driving to work this morning without knowing it).

UK courts deal with things that happen in the UK, American courts deal with things that happen in the US. It doesn't matter what nationality the person doing the act is or where they now live, only where they were when they did the act.

If you reverse the rule and have your national laws follow you abroad you have some very bizarre situations - (eg a US citizen could be jailed in the US for drinking at the age of 20 whilst on holiday in the UK even though it's perfectly legal to drink here from the age of 18).

So basically yes, legally if he didn’t do anything here we can’t prosecute him for it. If we know about it though we can deport him for being a toe-rag and tell on him to the people who can prosecute him. I think that’s possibly what’s happened here. Possably.

The other possibility is that he had done enough here to warrant prosecution but the only evidence we had against him was intelligence intercepts. As these are inadmissible in a UK court there was no real prospects of actually getting a conviction because we would not been able to put any evidence before the court.

[Newbie 0]

good explanation - although don't you think driving/drinking under age is different from "terrorist activity"? That's another rhetorical question, i know you know it's different.

I wonder why we can't have a simple law that states that, regardless of historical activities, if you were involved in organised terror or links to organised terrorist groups or assistance to those groups and their activities, regardless of when this was - if we can prove this, even though the law is being passed now, then why can't that be admissable? I mean, the terrorists aren't wiping the pre 2000 slate clean, so why should a law being brought in to help prevent terrorist attacks going forward do so? It's bizarre.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"if that's the case, that we can't hold people accountable here, as UK citizens, who had been involved in terrorist activities abroad, well, that's just bizarre to me."
Agreed, wholeheartedly, however we do try and keep things legal here.
This guy has been under the watchful eye of our men in black for a while. If there was a legal way of detaining him, revoking his right to be here etc I'm pretty sure it would have been done by now. He's a well known shit stirrer. A quick search of the beeb's website shows he has been (to public knowledge) associated with terrorist activities since january 99.
I'd agree that mk2 probably has a better knowledge about our rights to detain people like this than I have. >edit to add, aha I see he has just clarified that, thanks Matt.<
I'm not even sure that we can extradite him if he faces the death penalty in the USA.
Which puts our government in a bit of a quandary.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"if you were involved in organised terror or links to organised terrorist groups or assistance to those groups and their activities, regardless of when this was - if we can prove this, even though the law is being passed now, then why can't that be admissable?"

Cool, we could arrest Tony Blair for shaking hands and being all pally with Gadaffi.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Newbie 0]

aparently we can't extradite him on those grounds, but:

"Under current laws, Britain must ask the US to pledge they will not apply the death penalty before any extradition is approved.

The US will use every diplomatic, legal and administrative tool to pursue and to prosecute those who facilitate terrorist activity

But a barrister specialising in extradition cases, Paul Garlick, says that guarantee would have no legal standing once Abu Hamza was in the US.

Former assistant US attorney-general Victoria Tonsing insisted there would be no possibility of an execution: "If you ever broke a promise like that, there would never be another extradition."

That's from the link you posted earlier i think (well the link to Blunkett defending the extradition case, i forget who posted it).

I mean this makes sense - if they promised not to allow him to be sentenced to death and subsequently did do, i think that would be the end of diplomatic relations between us and them. Or at least it should be if they renege on such an agreement.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts