UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal.

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 9/24/2012 5:12:47 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

After many years these guys have lost the final chance of appeal at the UK and then the European Courts. They are likely to be extradited in days, or at most a few weeks.

This has taken eight years, due to constant appeals allowed (rightly so) under due process.

There is an interesting sideline about Abu Hamza which I will get around to mentioning on the three speech thread.

I know these men wont face the death sentence (Or we couldnt have sent them under UK law) and am confident they will get a fair trial (Legality wise) Do people feel they will get an impartial jury ?

I am unsure myself, I am also unsure they would get a fully impartial jury in the UK, given the amount of media exposure the case is sure to bring.

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 9/24/2012 5:22:49 PM

kdsub

Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline

The below from your link

"Abu Hamza had alleged that he faced inhumane and degrading treatment if imprisoned for life without possibility of parole.

The other four men said that they faced an inhumane regime of solitary confinement in a special "supermax" prison."

Oh the humanity

I do hope they get a trial period...if they do It will be fair enough. I know I could be impartial when entrusted with the life of another human being...and I'm just an average joe.

Americans are just as fair-minded as Brits I believe.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 9/24/2012 5:30:45 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 9/25/2012 12:32:32 AM

tweakabelle

Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

After many years these guys have lost the final chance of appeal at the UK and then the European Courts. They are likely to be extradited in days, or at most a few weeks.

This has taken eight years, due to constant appeals allowed (rightly so) under due process.

There is an interesting sideline about Abu Hamza which I will get around to mentioning on the three speech thread.

I know these men wont face the death sentence (Or we couldnt have sent them under UK la?w) and am confident they will get a fair trial (Legality wise) Do people feel they will get an impartial jury ?

I am unsure myself, I am also unsure they would get a fully impartial jury in the UK, given the amount of media exposure the case is sure to bring.

Politesub, I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for an odious creep like Abu Hamza. However, I do have some more general resevations about the level of justice that seems to apply in many cases with terrorist overtones,

If my reading of the BBC report is correct, some of these people are being tried for matters that are illegal in the UK too. If this is the case, why aren't they being tried in the UK? Are the UK authorities happy to pass the bucket to the Americans because they're only too glad to find any reason to get rid of a troublesome thug?

At a broader level, I doubt that anyone being tried on terrorism charges in the West today receives a fair trial or impartial jury . The gross miscarriages of justice that occurred in the cases of the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6 are relevant here. There has been a number of terrorism cases with questionable outcomes here in Australia too. In all these cases, there seems to be a tendency to convict on the flimsiest of evidence.

It used to be the case pre-9/11 that extradition in cases with political overtones were prohibited. Is this another one of our 'freedoms' that have been lost in the (so-called) fight to defend 'freedom'?

_____________________________

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 9/25/2012 4:08:00 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

The below from your link

"Abu Hamza had alleged that he faced inhumane and degrading treatment if imprisoned for life without possibility of parole.

The other four men said that they faced an inhumane regime of solitary confinement in a special "supermax" prison."

Oh the humanity

I do hope they get a trial period...if they do It will be fair enough. I know I could be impartial when entrusted with the life of another human being...and I'm just an average joe.

Americans are just as fair-minded as Brits I believe.

Butch

I wasnt suggesting Americans per se are not fair minded Butch. Personally I dont care what happens to Abu Hamxa, and guess I am far from alone in the UK in thinking that. My reason for mentioning a fair trial, is that he has been jailed for terrorist related offences before, all of which have had huge media coverage. This makes me feel he woulc be hard pressed to get a jury in the UK, with 12 people who had not heard of him already.

Few of us would admit to being 100% sure they could "Forget" everything they have read, whilst being a juror in the case. For instance, there are his previous jail temrs for similar crimes, as well as the fact one of his sons has been jailed in Yemen for the very offence Abu Hamza is wanted for, to do with kidnapping tourists.

Hand on heart, I cant and indeed wont try and argue I could be fully objective.

(in reply to kdsub)

Profile

Post #: 4

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 9/25/2012 4:23:02 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Politesub, I find it very difficult to feel any sympathy for an odious creep like Abu Hamza. However, I do have some more general resevations about the level of justice that seems to apply in many cases with terrorist overtones,

If my reading of the BBC report is correct, some of these people are being tried for matters that are illegal in the UK too. If this is the case, why aren't they being tried in the UK? Are the UK authorities happy to pass the bucket to the Americans because they're only too glad to find any reason to get rid of a troublesome thug?

At a broader level, I doubt that anyone being tried on terrorism charges in the West today receives a fair trial or impartial jury . The gross miscarriages of justice that occurred in the cases of the Guildford 4 or the Birmingham 6 are relevant here. There has been a number of terrorism cases with questionable outcomes here in Australia too. In all these cases, there seems to be a tendency to convict on the flimsiest of evidence.

It used to be the case pre-9/11 that extradition in cases with political overtones were prohibited. Is this another one of our 'freedoms' that have been lost in the (so-called) fight to defend 'freedom'?

Several points to address here Tweakable. The Birmingham Six and Guildford Four cases were not a miscarriage of justice by the court and jury, only by the investigating police officers, witholding evidence that proved them innocent and such. The court and jury can only judge on what is presented to them, so the blame for this blot on our system lies with the police and not the court.

As for Hamza, he was tried on some 15 counts I think, and the jury found him not guilty on 4 or 5. So I am guessing his trial was fair enough. One of the charges was to do with the incitement to murder Americans inside and outside of the UK.

Regards us not wanting to try those concerned here, the evidence needed to convict is of a much higher standard than that to extradite someone to the US. The CPS (Prosecutors) probably felt some of the crimes he is now charged with either wouldnt stand up in our courts, or fell outside our juristiction. I will take a look around and try and find you some more details on this.

(in reply to tweakabelle)

Profile

Post #: 5

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 10/5/2012 1:00:05 PM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

Heading to the airport.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19852506

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 6

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 10/5/2012 4:51:44 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

Abu who????
Two of these guys are supposedly tied to the embassy bombings in Kenya.
The others had something to do with a kidnapping in Yemen?
Why are they being tried in the United States?
Who needs this?
WTF?

< Message edited by vincentML -- 10/5/2012 4:54:01 PM >

(in reply to Politesub53)

Profile

Post #: 7

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 10/5/2012 5:34:49 PM

vincentML

Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline

~FR~

opinion piece 12 April 2012 by Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari:

Whilst some of our senior politicians have expressed their delight at this verdict, this case raises serious questions about the fairness of justice in Britain. It also shines an uncomfortable light on the role of our police and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and the imbalance against Britain in its extradition treaty with the US.

Babar Ahmad is the longest serving British detainee-without-charge, having been held in a high-security prison for eight years. If this is not a violation of human rights, then what is?

Ahmad's case is a tragedy in itself. In December 2003, he was arrested at his London home during an anti-terror operation, sustaining over 73 forensically-recorded injuries, including bleeding in his ears and urine, before reaching the police station. He was released without charge six days later. The Metropolitan Police later paid him £60,000 in compensation.

In August 2004, he was re-arrested and imprisoned, pending an extradition request from the US under the one-sided "2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty", part of the Extradition Act 2003. The police sent all the evidence against Ahmad to the US without giving the CPS an opportunity to consider any of it.
There is a separate deep concern about how the case has been handled by the CPS itself, especially considering the fact that it admitted in November 2011 that it had not reviewed a "significant amount" of evidence seized from Ahmad's home.

Can anyone justify this?
Or explain it to me?

< Message edited by vincentML -- 10/5/2012 5:36:50 PM >

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 8

RE: UK terror suspects lose extradition appeal. - 10/6/2012 4:21:10 AM

Politesub53

Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline

Vincent, I am unsure exactly which part you want explained. I will take a stab but get back to me if I have missed your point.

The reasons for extradition was an application under the following agreement. Many, if not most, in the UK feel this is onesided. In as much as its far easy for the US to Extradite someone from here to the US, than the US to here. Other cases include the Nat West Three and Gary Mckinnon. (SP)

quote:

Below is from Babar Ahmads wiki page and is about right. The cock up for this part lays with UK legislators

Under the Extradition Act 2003, the US does not have to provide any evidence before seeking the extradition of a British citizen.[5]

US extradition documents state that "at all times material to the indictment" Babar Ahmad was resident in London, UK. However, the UK Crown Prosecution Service declared in July 2004 and December 2006, as did the UK Attorney General Lord Goldsmith in September 2006, that there was "insufficient evidence" to charge Ahmad with any criminal offence under UK law

With regards to the delay, it isnt the fault of the UK Courts. Every European Citizen has the right to appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights. Since Blair signed up to this it has caused much controversy. It is also the case the EU Court is slow to function, if you consider the number of nations involved, it is no wonder there is a back log of delays. Each time an appeal is refused, the accused can appeal to a higher court. So by going through first the UK legal system and then the EU one, long delays are inevitable.

One bone of contention arose as Ahmads Solicitor claims the offence took place on a UK web site, the UK posit that it was indeed a UK web site but hosted on a US server.

The BBC link below gives a bit more information on each suspect. Please note Ahmad has already been compenseted in the UK courts for damages, due to injuries received when arrested. My own view is the constant delay to justice, is understandable, if not fully acceptable, for the reasons I have mentioned. I think the decision to extradite is correct though.

Edits to add........ Oopss.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17662054

< Message edited by Politesub53 -- 10/6/2012 4:22:11 AM >

(in reply to vincentML)

Profile

Post #: 9