View Full Version : Abu Hamza al-Masri
BBC: "The Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, a court has ruled."
'Oh good'
Which I posted on 15th November 2007 (got told off for that one) never mind; five years and he's getting there!
John Little
10-Apr-12, 19:24
Considering that I see no use for harbouring enemies of our way of life at our own expense, I can only echo your sentiment....
weezer 316
10-Apr-12, 20:35
He's a moron. However, free speech is worthless unless you are willing to allow people to have opposite and extreme views. Lest we forget John, you criticise this countrys way of life regularly. Should we stick you somewhere abroad?
John Little
10-Apr-12, 20:38
He's not British.
He's not European.
He does not like our views or our way of doing things.
Why should we harbour, and support on welfare, a Jordanian citizen who despises us?
And when did I ever criticise this country's way of life?
so much for folks opposing the extradition of the arms dealer the other week.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 20:54
The man who is charged as being an arms dealer, but not judged yet, is British.
He's a moron. However, free speech is worthless unless you are willing to allow people to have opposite and extreme views.
Good God man "free speech" ? that's one of the most naive statements I've heard for a long, long time; you certainly need to get out more (especially to the real world)
oh I see so we should have one set of rules for nationals and another for the rest living in the country?
John Little
10-Apr-12, 20:57
oh I see so we should have one set of rules for nationals and another for the rest living in the country?
You are missing my point.
I see no reason why he should be here and no reason for us to protect him.
But as to your question - yes - of course.
Foreign nationals are the responsibility of their own governments.
I see your point, and i fully hope he is extradited to face his accusations along side the alleged arms dealer.
My point is the caithness.org double sandards striking once again.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:05
So let me get this straight.
You are quite happy that a British citizen be extradited to face trial in a country which does not reciprocate with us.
You are happy that a non- British citizen, given asylum on humanitarian grounds, supported by our welfare system, who still preaches violent jihad, despises our values and society and would like to see its overthrow in favour of some sort of Caliphate, should not be?
weezer 316
10-Apr-12, 21:11
You regularly do, calling for huge changes in both govt and the economy, critical of what you see as excessive materialism.
I know, he should be deported, but you either have your principles and stick by them all the time, or have none at all.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:12
Let's take it a stage further shall we?
Shall we put up a noticeboard at our airports and advertise that every firebrand Islamist, every jihadi, every supporter of violence may come and find safe haven with us? They need not fear for we shall, out of our taxes, provide them with money and a house to live in.
So you will happily harbour such folks?
Whilst taking the security you live in for granted?
You bring 'double standards' into this?
Just to avoid any confusion whatsoever.
I am happy for an alleged British arms dealer to be extradited to the USA.
I am also happy for Abu Hamza to be extradited to the USA to face whatever charges they want to throw at him.
I am merely pointing out that in the alleged arms dealer thread the other week several posters were up in arms (no pun intended) about the deportation of the alleged arms dealer, yet I do not see the same level of protest against Abu Hamza's potential deportation.
Hence the double standard comments. Im my book what is good for Jock should be good for Jessie whilst dwelling on UK soil.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:16
You regularly do, calling for huge changes in both govt and the economy, critical of what you see as excessive materialism.
I know, he should be deported, but you either have your principles and stick by them all the time, or have none at all.
I think you are conflating my criticisms of particular views with 'our way of life'. Clearly our 'way of life' means something different to you than it does to me
To me our way of life involves plural democracy, freedom with greater involvement for citizens, freedom of speech for citizens, a fair and equitable deal for all and a reduction of unwarranted privilege. So yes - I criticise the Conservatives, and irresponsible Capitalism, and bonuses for bankers.
But that ain't 'our way of life'.
That's perversion and twisting which needs putting right.
weezer 316
10-Apr-12, 21:17
Good God man "free speech" ? that's one of the most naive statements I've heard for a long, long time; you certainly need to get out more (especially to the real world)
Oh do one. Religion is such nonsesne it seems to even have poisoned those who dont adhere to it.
If his views on jihad (supported in the Koran), a caliphite being re-established and the general demise of western civilization are "offensive" to you then i suggest you go live somewhere were such offence simlpy cant happen. Otherwise understand the fact that you disagreeing with him, or you thinking his views are despicable is irrelevant, he has a right to them.
Anything less and you are kissing yourself you live in a free country.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:18
Just to avoid any confusion whatsoever.
I am happy for an alleged British arms dealer to be extradited to the USA.
I am also happy for Abu Hamza to be extradited to the USA to face whatever charges they want to throw at him.
I am merely pointing out that in the alleged arms dealer thread the other week several posters were up in arms (no pun intended) about the deportation of the alleged arms dealer, yet I do not see the same level of protest against Abu Hamza's potential deportation.
Hence the double standard comments. Im my book what is good for Jock should be good for Jessie whilst dwelling on UK soil.
Then we must disagree for I do not give a flying fig what happens to the man; he does not like us and I do not like him. He's an enemy of what I value and he's not a citizen of the UK.
weezer 316
10-Apr-12, 21:20
I think you are conflating my criticisms of particular views with 'our way of life'. Clearly our 'way of life' means something different to you than it does to me
To me our way of life involves plural democracy, freedom with greater involvement for citizens, freedom of speech for citizens, a fair and equitable deal for all and a reduction of unwarranted privilege. So yes - I criticise the Conservatives, and irresponsible Capitalism, and bonuses for bankers.
But that ain't 'our way of life'.
That's perversion and twisting which needs putting right.
Fairly snuff, I stand corrected. However,. regardless of his nationality, in the UK he should be free to say as he feels, regardless of who it offends. This world offensive really has no meaning at all in a democracy.
Then we must disagree for I do not give a flying fig what happens to the man; he does not like us and I do not like him. He's an enemy of what I value and he's not a citizen of the UK.
I do not disagree with any of your above statement, however I also couldnt give a hoot about the Iranian arming poor old grandpappy.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:21
Oh do one. Religion is such nonsesne it seems to even have poisoned those who dont adhere to it.
If his views on jihad (supported in the Koran), a caliphite being re-established and the general demise of western civilization are "offensive" to you then i suggest you go live somewhere were such offence simlpy cant happen. Otherwise understand the fact that you disagreeing with him, or you thinking his views are despicable is irrelevant, he has a right to them.
Anything less and you are kissing yourself you live in a free country.
Spurious argument Weezie - there is no such thing as a 'free' country - you know that.
We all live and play by rules and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded - you know that too.
And a country which cannot distinguish in its treatment between its citizens and those who wish it ill has weak rules.
Fairly snuff, I stand corrected. However,. regardless of his nationality, in the UK he should be free to say as he feels, regardless of who it offends. This world offensive really has no meaning at all in a democracy.
Not according to Eck
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:25
Fairly snuff, I stand corrected. However,. regardless of his nationality, in the UK he should be free to say as he feels, regardless of who it offends. This world offensive really has no meaning at all in a democracy.
LOL! That's not so either.
Paedophilia?
Rape?
Murder?
etc - they are offensive in a Democracy.
We have our rules - everywhere. And they are necessary are they not?
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:27
I do not disagree with any of your above statement, however I also couldnt give a hoot about the Iranian arming poor old grandpappy.
'Alleged' is what you said earlier.
British citizen.
Innocent until proven otherwise.
Fine - then extradite him; but give us the same in return.
Perhaps I have missed some news here but was Abu Hamza not granted British citizenship in 1986?
'Alleged' is what you said earlier.
British citizen.
Innocent until proven otherwise.
Fine - then extradite him; but give us the same in return.
Yup totally agree with you John
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:32
Perhaps I have missed some news here but was Abu Hamza not granted British citizenship in 1986?
Wrong word- he 'acquired' it through a marriage which did not last very long- less than 3 years I believe.
LOL! I concede the point! Since citizen he is then he should not be extradited unless we have the same privilege.
Neatly done, and appreciated.
Such marriages' are another debate!
weezer 316
10-Apr-12, 21:33
LOL! That's not so either.
Paedophilia?
Rape?
Murder?
etc - they are offensive in a Democracy.
We have our rules - everywhere. And they are necessary are they not?
Clearly the acts are. You want to spout your support for them, crack on. I'm not a fan if the US in many things, but their protection of freedom of speech is a good thing. You dont deal with extremists by driving them underground, you let them talk and watch as their delusions crumble about them.
Tell me, where does it stop john? Where does free speech stop and offence start? And for whom? Are we going to go closer to Saudi Arabia where people can be executed for tweets agains the prophet Mohammed or are we going to be like the US or denmark in that respect?
John Little
10-Apr-12, 21:41
Clearly the acts are. You want to spout your support for them, crack on. I'm not a fan if the US in many things, but their protection of freedom of speech is a good thing. You dont deal with extremists by driving them underground, you let them talk and watch as their delusions crumble about them.
Tell me, where does it stop john? Where does free speech stop and offence start? And for whom? Are we going to go closer to Saudi Arabia where people can be executed for tweets agains the prophet Mohammed or are we going to be like the US or denmark in that respect?
My view is that we have enough troubles of our own without taking on folk from other countries with dubious beliefs. I've met people like him and they are not reasonable.
As to your question - I have no answer. Our society finds its own levels of freedoms and attempts to protect them by various means by trial and error. Every society has rules- but where the bar is set is not laid down but is beaten out, in this country, through the courts. Your mob are threatening to put surveillance on routine emails. Cutting back on legal aid makes redress through the courts rather more difficult for the ordinary person in the street.
Jean Jaques Rousseau said that man is born free but is everywhere in chains and that is true - but the chains vary.
Freedom is a balance; we used to have an offence called 'Sedition' to guard against violent overthrow of the state- but although it worked sometimes, in other cases the law was used to suppress legitimate dissent. It does not involve giving succour to your enemies.
How do we find the balance?
If I knew that then I'd be a politician...
Just to be clear, I am totally apposed to selective extradition to the United States.
John Little
10-Apr-12, 22:42
Oh well - if you are apposed there's no more to be said!
Does this mean that in this matter I iz more right wing than you?
Just to be clear, I am totally apposed to selective extradition to the United States.
and any other country I trust?
Martin Amis coined a wonderfully apposite category for Hamza and his like, underlining the fact that individuals whose belief system does not recognise western democracy, and who seek actively to destroy it, should neither deserve nor expect the same treatment from such society as do those who embrace it.
Amis refers to his kind as "omnicidal nullities"
Their natural home, given their unnatural anti-life postures, should recognise such nihilism.
A stout cell for a lifetime in a USA prison seems an effective home for such creatures, as our own system can not provide the requisite impact of justice.
Oh well - if you are apposed there's no more to be said!
Does this mean that in this matter I iz more right wing than you?
No, I think everyone should be extradited to the United States
Oh do one. Religion is such nonsesne it seems to even have poisoned those who dont adhere to it.
If his views on jihad (supported in the Koran), a caliphite being re-established and the general demise of western civilization are "offensive" to you then i suggest you go live somewhere were such offence simlpy cant happen. Otherwise understand the fact that you disagreeing with him, or you thinking his views are despicable is irrelevant, he has a right to them.
Anything less and you are kissing yourself you live in a free country.My, my, we are excitable aren't we?
Yes I agree, religion is (sic) 'nonsesne' in my personal opinion.
Having lived/worked in many many countries, including (sic) 'caliphite' states (and not lived in Caithness since I was a toddler) I'd say modestly - of course - I'm pretty au fait with interaction with a plethora of peoples, so I have no need to (sic) 'simlpy' live somewhere else.
Additionally having a good friend who was of the Muslim Fundamentalist persuasion, has given me a rather deep personal insight. Modus vivendi raised its head quite often!
I respectfully suggest you look into what actually this chappie is getting done for..
so much for folks opposing the extradition of the arms dealer the other week.
I'd argue they're different situations: In the Hamza et al case it's been going on for about 5 years with many appeals etc. The evidence has already been tested in local and EU courts but in the cases of Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer, Christopher Tappin and Ian Norris it's a different situation. The evidence hasn't been heard or tested before a local or EU court and in some cases the charges aren't even considered crimes in the UK.
The treaty in general is lopsided favouring the US, all I can say is that we must have a bunch spineless diplomats, politicans and civil servants.
On the topic of free speech I'm all for it, the only way I can assure that I'm allowed to say what I want is to make sure others can. With Hamza and the others it's gone beyond this though. They leech on our good intentions and help fund provable violent activities.
I like how some people - in the media especially - pick and choose their battles:
BNP Speaking at universities = Bad
National Front marches = Bad
Violence and Nudity in games, on the Internet and TV = Bad
Crazy religious extremists = Good
I don't like any of them, but I'd prefer any tyranny pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy. Just because someone happens to be a member of 'protected group' - hate that term BTW - or in the minority, or oppressed that doesn't mean they can't be a dick and it doesn't mean they can't be bad people either.
I'd argue they're different situations: In the Hamza et al case it's been going on for about 5 years with many appeals etc. The evidence has already been tested in local and EU courts but in the cases of Gary McKinnon, Richard O'Dwyer, Christopher Tappin and Ian Norris it's a different situation. The evidence hasn't been heard or tested before a local or EU court and in some cases the charges aren't even considered crimes in the UK.
I know next to nothing about the details of any of these cases, but I'm assuming that as they are all being extradited then the crimes they have committed fall under another countries jurisdiction, in the majority or all of those cases the country being the United States. Therefore I would assume that in the majority of the cases a local court could do pretty much nothing about any of them, guilty or not. And whether or not they committed an act that is not considered a crime in the UK or not, they have still committed a crime, and just because they are a British citizen I don't think they have the right to come back home and then suggest they should not be extradited. I'm completely in favour of extradition if it means people having to pay for the crimes they commit. I have little sympathy for these people as I'm sure the majority knew that what they were doing was illegal at the time. Unless there is some valid reason for not extraditing them (ie they'll be taken away and executed as soon as they arrive in country X), then I see no reason not to extradite them.
I know next to nothing about the details of any of these cases, but I'm assuming that as they are all being extradited then the crimes they have committed fall under another countries jurisdiction, in the majority or all of those cases the country being the United States. Therefore I would assume that in the majority of the cases a local court could do pretty much nothing about any of them, guilty or not. And whether or not they committed an act that is not considered a crime in the UK or not, they have still committed a crime, and just because they are a British citizen I don't think they have the right to come back home and then suggest they should not be extradited. I'm completely in favour of extradition if it means people having to pay for the crimes they commit. I have little sympathy for these people as I'm sure the majority knew that what they were doing was illegal at the time. Unless there is some valid reason for not extraditing them (ie they'll be taken away and executed as soon as they arrive in country X), then I see no reason not to extradite them.
That kind of sabre rattling is counter-productive, this isn't an issue of justice. It's an issue of fairness and freedom. This treaty is heavily in favour of the US because:
It allows the US to request the extradition of UK citizens for offences which aren't considered crimes in the UK, but it doesn't allow the UK to request the extradition of US citizens for offences which aren't considered crimes in the US. Basically if it's not a crime in UK but is in the US they can ask for extradition, but not other way around if it's not a crime in the US but is in the UK we can't ask for extradition.
It allows the US to request extradition of UK citizens without providing prima facie evidence they just need to prove 'reasonable suspicion' whatever that means. The UK however has to show probable cause in front of a US judge.
There's no provision of legal aid for UK citizens extradited to the US.
Various other things to due with legal technicalities.
Lots of the extraditions requested by the US have seemed petty whereas the UK has really only requested tje extradition of people on the run or with outstanding criminal convictions.
Actually the issue of jurisdiction is another point of contention. What O'Dwyer did isn't even a crime under UK law, he ran a website which happened to link to some material that was copyrighted by US companies, he didn't host any of it. Most search engines do the same thing BTW. A few of these companies tried to sue Google in the US and were laughed out of court yet O'Dwyer is considered a master criminal. Anyway there's an argument to be made that as the website was hosted in the UK and as he lived here that he should be tried in a UK court. Same with a lot of the other extraditions.
I do not agree with the treaty but I DO agree that british citizens should and MUST be held accountable for crimes in another country. The issue of fairness is very relevant here and the current treaty is unfair and bizarre in that. If the "crime" is not a crime int he Uk and is committed in the UK then no extradition should be agreed.
What worries me also is the fact that British Societies allow people to be held for years without trial. That makes me very uneasy. If there is insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution then why are we holding people in jail without any right to state their case before a court? And how on earth if we have held them for seven years and then "find" a reason to extradit them to the US after seven years? IM not sure about that at all!
That kind of sabre rattling is counter-productive, this isn't an issue of justice. It's an issue of fairness and freedom. This treaty is heavily in favour of the US because:
It allows the US to request the extradition of UK citizens for offences which aren't considered crimes in the UK, but it doesn't allow the UK to request the extradition of US citizens for offences which aren't considered crimes in the US. Basically if it's not a crime in UK but is in the US they can ask for extradition, but not other way around if it's not a crime in the US but is in the UK we can't ask for extradition.
It allows the US to request extradition of UK citizens without providing prima facie evidence they just need to prove 'reasonable suspicion' whatever that means. The UK however has to show probable cause in front of a US judge.
There's no provision of legal aid for UK citizens extradited to the US.
Various other things to due with legal technicalities.
Lots of the extraditions requested by the US have seemed petty whereas the UK has really only requested tje extradition of people on the run or with outstanding criminal convictions.
Actually the issue of jurisdiction is another point of contention. What O'Dwyer did isn't even a crime under UK law, he ran a website which happened to link to some material that was copyrighted by US companies, he didn't host any of it. Most search engines do the same thing BTW. A few of these companies tried to sue Google in the US and were laughed out of court yet O'Dwyer is considered a master criminal. Anyway there's an argument to be made that as the website was hosted in the UK and as he lived here that he should be tried in a UK court. Same with a lot of the other extraditions.
My point is not about whether the treaty is biased or not. The point is that regardless of whether the treaty is biased, British citizens should have to pay for the crimes they commit, regardless of the bias or non bias of the treaty. I don't disagree with what you say, it's just besides the point.
And your point about O'Dwyer has been rabbited by many people these past couple of years, starting from when the thepiratebay.org (http://thepiratebay.org) founders found themselves in court. As I'm sure you're very much aware, the idea of precedence is very common in law, and the fact that he is not hosting the material himself but linking to it was the crux of the case against thepiratebay.org founders and they were found guilty. And if that wasn't a wake up call for the guy, I don't know what is. If you know people are being found guilty for something that you are doing, it might be a good idea to stop if you don't want to end up in a court room somewhere.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.