Good

[throdgrain]

Abu Hamza and his chums can hopefully now fuck off

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17657814

 

[Raven]

While I don't think the current extradition agreement is working, this is a good thing. The cunt is America's problem now.

 

[Lamp]

not before time

 

[Tom]

I couldn't care less about Abu Hamza but some of the other cases are rather disturbing, including that of Babar Ahmed, held for eight years without trial. That is a fucking disgrace.

And extraditing men for running a website the yanks don't like, all because its servers were based in the US? What a load of bollocks.

Then you begin to think about Julian Assange, whose hearing is due shortly. If he goes to Sweden then the US will undoubtedly try and extradite him from there.

 

[Ch3tan]

I couldn't care less about Abu Hamza but some of the other cases are rather disturbing, including that of Babar Ahmed, held for eight years without trial. That is a fucking disgrace.

And extraditing men for running a website the yanks don't like, all because its servers were based in the US? What a load of bollocks.

Then you begin to think about Julian Assange, whose hearing is due shortly. If he goes to Sweden then the US will undoubtedly try and extradite him from there.

Yep, exactly, Throd you are missing the wider issues here. Abu Hamza can fuck off, but this sets a bad precedent for other cases.

 

[BloodOmen]

Brilliant, he still has 2-3 months to appeal tho so don't hold your breath yet. Now lets hope this can be the mile stone which allows the gov to push on getting rid of more scum like this.

 

[Hawkwind]

I couldn't care less about Abu Hamza but some of the other cases are rather disturbing, including that of Babar Ahmed, held for eight years without trial. That is a fucking disgrace.

And extraditing men for running a website the yanks don't like, all because its servers were based in the US? What a load of bollocks.

Then you begin to think about Julian Assange, whose hearing is due shortly. If he goes to Sweden then the US will undoubtedly try and extradite him from there.

Do you honestly think they would hold him without trial for 8 years if they had no evidence on him. They have been fighting to extradite them for several of those years. He wants a trial here because he knows how soft the system. Going to the US is a whole other ball game!

Britain is far too weak when it comes to upsetting minorities despite breaking laws. Just look at Muslim TV run out of the UK and regularly breaks the broadcasting rules. A recent report headed by muslims (Quilliam Foundation) found that it presented a very narrow view of islam. It has broadcast speeches by Yemeni extremist - Anwar Al Awlaki. Aired programs that stated that women who wear perfume outside of the family home were prostitutes. Others stating that women should not leave the home without a husbands consent and must have a male escort, that women cannot refuse a husband sexual relations and the funiest, "the majority of people in hell will be women" because they are the cause of "calamities, hardship and suffering" in western society.

Further extract from the report:

"Unfortunately, during the three-month period that we monitored its output, it repeatedly promoted bigoted and reactionary views towards women, non-Muslims and other Muslims who follow different versions of Islam. "Although the channel does not directly call for terrorist violence, it clearly helps to create an atmosphere in which religiously sanctioned intolerance and even hatred might be seen as acceptable.
"By promoting a single, narrow version of Islam, Saudi Wahhabism, the Islam Channel is wasting an enormous opportunity to positively shape the nature of Islam in Britain."

So what did the British authorities do? OFCOM fined them 30,000 GBP three years ago and that was due to its less than impartial coverage of Israel!

I just don't get why British authorities won't do anything about this shit. can you imagine if a hard line christian organisation starting a similar TV channel in any Muslim country. There would be mob lynchings.

 

[Tom]

Do you honestly think they would hold him without trial for 8 years if they had no evidence on him. They have been fighting to extradite them for several of those years. He wants a trial here because he knows how soft the system. Going to the US is a whole other ball game!

If they have evidence on him then let them charge him and use it in a court of law. I don't trust our authorities to unilaterally maintain our human rights and frankly, anyone who does, is a fool.

 

[Raven]

I just don't get why British authorities won't do anything about this shit. can you imagine if a hard line christian organisation starting a similar TV channel in any Muslim country. There would be mob lynchings.

Some Christian nutjob was whining that Christian bigotry was being punished the other day.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17712028

 

[Cadelin]

Do you honestly think they would hold him without trial for 8 years if they had no evidence on him. They have been fighting to extradite them for several of those years. He wants a trial here because he knows how soft the system. Going to the US is a whole other ball game!

If they had evidence why wouldn't they charge him? The problem seems to be that in the UK their crimes amount to a slap on the wrist (if that), while in the US, their crimes carry a held in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Something is wrong. Even if you believe that the UK laws are way to soft, surely the answer is to toughen the laws?

I just don't get why British authorities won't do anything about this shit. can you imagine if a hard line christian organisation starting a similar TV channel in any Muslim country. There would be mob lynchings.

And that's why people would rather live in the UK than elsewhere. The problem with free speech is that it allows people to say some things you dislike and its very difficult to stop them. Your example is of a TV station, I am sure they have a lawyer watch the programs and point out what is and what isn't allowed.

 

[Ch3tan]

His alleged crimes where not committed in the US though, or against the US, so he should be tried here. Every case should be judged on it's merits, we should not have a broad sweeping decision to throw cases over to the US because it's easy.

Brilliant, he still has 2-3 months to appeal tho so don't hold your breath yet. Now lets hope this can be the mile stone which allows the gov to push on getting rid of more scum like this.

Nope, the appeal is meaningless now, as is pointed out in the article. Like I said each case on it's merits, you cannot apply the same rule to each case without examining it first. The UK needs to be able to charge and prosecute people it thinks are responsible of criminal actions, and if our laws are not sufficient to do so, then the laws need reviewing.

 

[Hawkwind]

If they had evidence why wouldn't they charge him? The problem seems to be that in the UK their crimes amount to a slap on the wrist (if that), while in the US, their crimes carry a held in solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Something is wrong. Even if you believe that the UK laws are way to soft, surely the answer is to toughen the laws?

The crimes were mainly against US. UK agreed to extradite and been fighting to do that at a great expense to the UK taxpayer. the only people enjoying this are the civil liberties lawyers and barristers getting paid a fortune to fight it on both sides.

Regards the law in general, they exist they just won't enforce them for fear of a minority crying foul.

And that's why people would rather live in the UK than elsewhere. The problem with free speech is that it allows people to say some things you dislike and its very difficult to stop them. Your example is of a TV station, I am sure they have a lawyer watch the programs and point out what is and what isn't allowed.

Agree somewhat, just wish they would enforce the laws that are there. Equality is a great thing but not when one side plays by a different set of rules. As for Muslim TV they push the limits with some of their programming. The fact that a muslim group writes a report stating the issues why OFCOM sit on their arses says all you need to know.

 

[Hawkwind]

Nope, the appeal is meaningless now, as is pointed out in the article. Like I said each case on it's merits, you cannot apply the same rule to each case without examining it first. The UK needs to be able to charge and prosecute people it thinks are responsible of criminal actions, and if our laws are not sufficient to do so, then the laws need reviewing.

Agree but in these cases the criminal activity was not against the UK right? They were just perpetrated from UK soil in the main, hence the extradition request to US. In cases like this the US has to present evidence and make the extradition request.

 

[Scouse]

Do you honestly think they would hold him without trial for 8 years if they had no evidence on him.

Do you honestly think they'd hold him without trial for 8 years if they had enough evidence to convict him?

the US has to present evidence

The US does not have to present evidence...

 

[Cadelin]

Agree but in these cases the criminal activity was not against the UK right? They were just perpetrated from UK soil in the main, hence the extradition request to US. In cases like this the US has to present evidence and make the extradition request.

Some of the crimes are against the US (eg., being accused of planning an attack on a US embassy) but some are also pretty generic (eg, being accused of running a website providing information useful to terrorists).

Also, the current state of the the extradition treaty doesn't require the US to provide evidence of a crime. This is why the appeals (and others like that Hacker) have been based on human rights. Eg., they can't be extradited because it would violate some of their human rights.