Bye bye!

[Digit]

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16205641

Roy.

 

[Blister]

That will be overturned

breach of human rights :roll:

 

[Digit]

Unless he can produce some new evidence he has run out of options. If the smart arse hadn't obtained UK nationality by deception he could probably have returned to his native Egypt, they want him as well.
Looks as though a whole bunch of 'em have got to face reality as well.

Roy.

 

[Jonzjob]

Quote from the link

"Ahmad's sister Anna Ahmad said she had spoken to her brother on the phone after the ruling and that he was "composed, but anxious about the future" "

Do I remember an American saying about if you don't want the time don't comit the crime? And as for human rights, they should have what they give. How's about shot whist trying to escape?

Perhapse he should sling his hook :twisted: :twisted: before the tick tock crockodile gets him? Well, it did in Peter Pan.

 

[brianhabby]

I can never understand the argument for the human rights of people like terrorists. When you commit those kind of crimes you give up all humanity.

Good riddance, I say.

regards

Brian

 

[Digit]

Simple answer John, as far as he is concerned he hasn't commited any crime. He's right, everybody else is wrong!¬

Roy.

 

[cambournepete]

Surely the whole point of the extradition is so that he can stand trial in the US and that he currently hasn't been found guilty by them?
The grounds of worse treatment there than in the UK don't make much sense to me though so I can see no reason not to send them (and then not ever let them back here).

 

[Digit]

Surely the whole point of the extradition is so that he can stand trial in the US and that he currently hasn't been found guilty by them?

Yep! As I understand it.

Roy.

 

[Jonzjob]

BUT !! i think that they may just have enough to find him guilty maybe?

I seem to remember in my yoof and sentence from a cowboy film that went along the lines of " Give him a fair trial and then hang him" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

 

[Jacob]

I can never understand the argument for the human rights of people like terrorists.

First he hasn't been found guilty yet and second you have human rights even after you are found guilty. Seems to be a surprise to many who obviously still iive in the middle ages

... When you commit those kind of crimes you give up all humanity......

What crimes? He hasn't been tried yet. Anyway you never know with terrorists - quite likely to be promoted to "freedom fighter" or some such, depending on the turn of history.

 

[Digit]

As I understand it John to obtain an extradition the country involved has to make its case to the UK authorities, only if they are satisfied that the accused has a case to answer can they extradite.
So a US court could find him and the others 'not guilty.' That being so we have an a situation where some are UK citizens and some are not. The UK citizens would have right of entry but the others could be denied entry, in some cases this would render them stateless, a situation that permits them then to claim asylum, if thay can find a country willing to accept them.

Roy.

 

[Digit]

What crimes?

He wasn't born without hands you know. The reason for extradition is so that he can face his accusers.

Roy.

 

[DrPhill]

I can never understand the argument for the human rights of people like terrorists. When you commit those kind of crimes you give up all humanity.

Good riddance, I say.

And that is my gut reaction too.

[soap box]

We need to remember however that all the arguments about him forfeiting his human rights are based on an assumption of guilt. An assumption that has never been tested in a court of law. I am all for this individual being tried in a reasonably fair way, and if found guilty being banged up for a good long time.

Indeed, it makes my blood boil when we find someone guilty of a crime against our society, but that someone hides behind our civil codes to avoid grief (forget the details of the recent case). I do worry though that we are being manipulated into a lynch mob mentality.

We should always remember that our governments and media (both sides of the pond) are quite capable of misleading us into supporting actions that we later regret (WMD anyone? Saddam behind the Twin Towers bombing? Try googling 'the sixteen words'). The only real strategy we have to defeat extremism is careful, balanced and reasoned response. The rule of law is often the only restraint on the excesses of the governing classes - we should be careful of overturning it or calling for its abeyance. It may be the only thing protecting us from them one day.

[/soap box]

Anyway, I am quietly pleased the (alleged) scrote is going to trial.

 

[Digit]

We need to remember however that all the arguments about him forfeiting his human rights are based on an assumption of guilt.

Quite agree, but he has been found guilty, of 11 charges by a UK court ranging from terrorism, soliciting murder and racial hatred. He's not in Belmarsh to do the gardening!
Also guilt has nothing to do with a trial, if we take that course then Hitler wasn't a criminal. If you break the speed limit and no one noticies, you are still guilty of breaking the law.

Roy.

 

[DrPhill]

We need to remember however that all the arguments about him forfeiting his human rights are based on an assumption of guilt.

Quite agree, but he has been found guilty, of 11 charges by a UK court ranging from terrorism, soliciting murder and racial hatred. He's not in Belmarsh to do the gardening!

Fair enough. He has been found guilty of stuff here. I have no problem with the extradition, just the assumption that he is guilty of the crime that he is being extradited for, and therefore we do not need to worry about his rights in this case. Careful attention to legal niceties means we retain the moral highground, which means that we fight from a position of advantage.

Also guilt has nothing to do with a trial, if we take that course then Hitler wasn't a criminal. If you break the speed limit and no one noticies, you are still guilty of breaking the law.

Hmmmmm, nice grey area. Lets forget the hitler bit and think about speeding. If you got charged with speeding when you were not speeding, how would you feel with the prosecution line "he was speeding, which is breaking the law. therefore he is a criminal, and does not deserve the protection of the law". It would seem a little unfair, would it not? So the prosecution have to prove that you broke the law before they can demand punishment. If they cannot prove it (because you were not speeding) then you are a free man.

Unfortunately, if you had been speeding (i.e. it was not your wife after all :lol: ) and they could not prove it you would be a free man again.

We work in this country on a 'presumption of innocence' to protect the innocent. This means that some criminals go unpunished, which hurts. But not as much as it would hurt to have an innocent person punished.

An imperfect system, but there to protect us.

 

[Digit]

I never suggested that I or he shouldn't recieve the protection of the law Phil, I simply pointed out that 'not guilty' in law does not mean no guilt.
Morally there is a good argument that those who step outside of civilised society have no right to live within that society. To attempt destruction of a society then claim its protection is morally corrupt.
Islam requires that you respect the law of the country, as stated by Islamic jurists. Hamza, IIRC, is also wanted in the Yemen, perhaps he would prefer extradition to an Islamic state?

Roy.

 

[DrPhill]

I never suggested that I or he shouldn't recieve the protection of the law Phil, I simply pointed out that 'not guilty' in law does not mean no guilt.
Morally there is a good argument that those who step outside of civilised society have no right to live within that society. To attempt destruction of a society then claim its protection is morally corrupt.
Islam requires that you respect the law of the country, as stated by Islamic jurists. Hamza, IIRC, is also wanted in the Yemen, perhaps he would prefer extradition to an Islamic state?

Roy.

We are agreeing violently then :lol: .

Guilt (in an abstract absolute way) is independent of proof, but punishment (and public declarations of guilt) should be dependent upon it.

Peace.

 

[Digit]

Guilt (in an abstract absolute way) is independent of proof, but punishment (and public declarations of guilt) should be dependent upon it.

That was exactly my point Phil.

Roy.

 

[DrPhill]

Guilt (in an abstract absolute way) is independent of proof, but punishment (and public declarations of guilt) should be dependent upon it.

That was exactly my point Phil.

Roy.

And mine. As I said, we are agreeing violently. I am not sure why it looks like a dispute between us, but if that is my fault I apologise.

I wonder what happens when and if the american system finds him not guilty. Does he come back here (I do hope not), or does he become their problem? Of course they may show more enthusiasm for sending him back to another country (Yemen?).

 

[Digit]

To be honest Phill I think your explanation was beautifuuly expressed, significantly better than my own.

Roy