View Full Version : So hooked on you
Goodbye Abu Hamza, guess you will just have to have culture in Cuba at hotel Chez Cagesight. I am really glad to see the Brittish being fed up with this crap, the left might hate you for it and will furiously try to claw out your eyes for it but normal muslims who aren't interested in being an actor in a musical from leftieblablastan will thank you for sending this piece of shit somewhere else to herd his wives and love his goats. Or the other way around, who knows.
Chapeau
Rhyfelwyr
10-05-2012, 17:11
lol'd as soon as I seen what the thread title was about.
But yeah, good riddance. Besides the Islamic extremism issue, his whole family are a bunch of scumbags, nearly all of them have been in prison for things like robbery.
lol'd as soon as I seen what the thread title was about.
But yeah, good riddance. Besides the Islamic extremism issue, his whole family are a bunch of scumbags, nearly all of them have been in prison for things like robbery.
They must have been left out somewhere, the left here at least is naturally absolutely heartbroken about this major injustice and are furiously screaming for his release. Ok that was a lie. What I am curious about though, where is the forehead on these people there isn't any http://www.powned.tv/nieuws/buitenland/2012/10/hamza_verliest_zaak_uitleverin.html that is really weird it's no more than a sleepingbag with eyes, no forehead anymore. it's gone
SoFarSoGood
10-05-2012, 21:08
More than anything else the whole affair shows that some laws need ammending so that people like this can extradicted sooner and without costing the tax payer £millions in legal fees.
Conradus
10-05-2012, 21:10
You'd want to deny them right to appeal or something like that?
SoFarSoGood
10-05-2012, 21:21
There's appeal and then there's appeal after appeal after appeal.
Conradus
10-05-2012, 21:49
Just like any other procedure not? I dunno how extradition works in the UK. Is it a judge who has to decide? Then you have a higher court and finally European Human Rights Court. Or does it start at the adminstrative level?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-05-2012, 22:20
Just like any other procedure not? I dunno how extradition works in the UK. Is it a judge who has to decide? Then you have a higher court and finally European Human Rights Court. Or does it start at the adminstrative level?
Hopefully - it won't happen again, as all the law has apparently been worked out.
There is an issue with the fact that it could be dragged out for nine years - which actually makes no sense.
Fisherking
10-06-2012, 07:50
I am a little more skeptical about this whole thing.
I don’t know much about it, actually. And the guy may be a scumbag.
But did he actually do anything other than preach hate?
Did he send money or just tell people they should do things?
With all these anti-terror laws are we starting to prosecute people for what they think as much as what they may have done?
Are we talking about real crimes or thought crimes?
InsaneApache
10-06-2012, 13:20
Are we talking about real crimes or thought crimes?
Sadly there is no difference in the UK anymore. Some say we're sleepwalking to a police state. I say we're already there. People routinely get locked up for saying the 'wrong' things.
Preaching hate IS a crime, if the US wants the miserable bugger byebye no?
InsaneApache
10-06-2012, 13:39
Well you can't have freedom of speech and then go and put a great big bloody BUT at the end.
Or like the lefties is freedom of speech only what you approve of?
You either have it or you don't. I know which option I prefer.
Preaching hate doesn't fall under freedom of speech but under encitement.
rory_20_uk
10-06-2012, 13:56
For this to take longer than 1 year is insane, as is he was ever made a British subject (or stripped of it).
~:smoking:
He is wanted here for trying to set up a jihadist camp in Oregon. Had he been only preaching hate we'd have no case against him.
Fisherking
10-06-2012, 20:22
Was he ever in the US? I don’t see anywhere where he ever traveled there.
At best it would be conspiring with others and maybe funding such a camp but I have not seen any evidence of him having that kind of money.
This is all pretty slippery stuff. I can see why it took courts so long to decide the case. Though I am not sure they decided in favor of democratic values regarding liberties and free speech.
I don’t mind catching bad guys, so long as they did something other than just shoot their mouth off.
If some government decides that they don’t like what you or I say they could just label us as terrorists and ship us off to who knows where because we don’t think the same as them. Not something I would want to see.
rory_20_uk
10-06-2012, 20:49
He should have had his British passport rescinded years ago and booted back to Egypt.
~:smoking:
If the British court thought we had no case, there would be no extradition.
Fisherking
10-06-2012, 21:02
He should have had his British passport rescinded years ago and booted back to Egypt.
~:smoking: seems that way to me too.
If the British court thought we had no case, there would be no extradition. If you believe that, would you like to buy a bridge?
You have shown no reason for me to question the judgement of the British court. Show me that, then talk to me about the bridge.
Fisherking
10-06-2012, 21:30
I would have to study the case in the British Courts to be sure but if you had even a passing knowledge of how, what should be only laughingly called, the US Department of Justice works you would fist think political influence of a very sordid kind, not to mention a few lies and not revealing details because it would compromise security…
That is why cases tend to drag on for so long. If it were a clear cut and dry case with real evidence they guy would have been in the US in about a month or two.
I would have to study the case in the British Courts to be sure but if you had even a passing knowledge of how, what should be only laughingly called, the US Department of Justice works you would fist think political influence of a very sordid kind, not to mention a few lies and not revealing details because it would compromise security…
That is why cases tend to drag on for so long. If it were a clear cut and dry case with real evidence they guy would have been in the US in about a month or two.
On one hand we have the decision of the highest British court. On the other hand we have you. I'm gonna go ahead and trust the professionals on this one.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-06-2012, 22:28
On one hand we have the decision of the highest British court. On the other hand we have you. I'm gonna go ahead and trust the professionals on this one.
Nah - he's right, Labour signed a one-sided extradition treaty with the US.
All you need is an accusation.
Nah - he's right, Labour signed a one-sided extradition treaty with the US.
All you need is an accusation.
If an accusation were by itself sufficient, the court could have refused to hear the appeal by Ole Cap'n Hook. No extradition would occur without a valid probable cause.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-06-2012, 23:28
If an accusation were by itself sufficient, the court could have refused to hear the appeal by Ole Cap'n Hook. No extradition would occur without a valid probable cause.
His arguments were variouslt that:
It would be a breach of his human rights
He would not be fit to stand trial.
So far as I know he hasn't disputed the charges in years.
Extraditions to the US from the UK require merely an accusation, take a look: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/the-us-uk-extradition-treaty-fair-balanced-and-worth-defending
Reading is fundamental - worth noting that those two Americans don't know anything either, because they refer to British Citizens and British Subjects, which they are not legally speaking.
The test has become "reasonable suspicion" - which unacceptable when extraditing to the US, as the US makes use of the Death Penalty - pretty much the only Western Nation with it still on it's books.
His arguments were variouslt that:
It would be a breach of his human rights
He would not be fit to stand trial.
So far as I know he hasn't disputed the charges in years.
Extraditions to the US from the UK require merely an accusation, take a look
British court reviewed his arguments and rejected them. And extradition requires probable cause.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
10-07-2012, 00:17
In the case of the US-UK your own academics say it only requires "reasonable suspicion."
And they're trying to defend it.
Like I said, reading is fundamental.
In the case of the US-UK your own academics say it only requires "reasonable suspicion."
And they're trying to defend it.
Like I said, reading is fundamental.
And how does reasonable suspicion differ from probable cause?
SoFarSoGood
10-07-2012, 14:02
Another that should go:
"Lavinia Olmazu helped a gang funnel £2.9 million in false benefits claims to 170 Romanian gipsies and was sentenced to just over two years in prison - meaning she should automatically have been deported.
However she challenged the Home Secretary, Theresa May’s, attempt to have her removed and has now persuaded judges that because she has a 12 year-old son, she can stay in Britain."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9591699/Defiant-judges-ignore-new-human-rights-guidelines.html
rory_20_uk
10-07-2012, 15:33
There should be a requirement an argument for those that should stay. Having a son isn't one. It should be a reason to be a good subject, not a "get out of jail" card.
~:smoking:
Learn from France, they aren't so squimish. Roma's are a plague wherever you find them
Montmorency
10-07-2012, 16:47
Roma's are a plague wherever you find them
Some might even go so far as to say that we ought to kill them where we find them.
Some might even go so far as to say that we ought to kill them where we find them.
Pre-emptive toes to shoe-sole attacks you got to love them. But you are right these exist. There are also people who furiously demand you never ever mention the problems with Roma's because even the possibility of problems can't exist in their worldview. There are a lot more of those.
SoFarSoGood
10-07-2012, 21:44
Well guess why she's allowed to stay? Because it's one of human rights to enjoy a family life. What about our rights not to be stolen from?
You have the right to remain silent and pay taxes
You have the right to remain silent and pay taxes
I find it amusing that these guys seem to have no fear of the British legal system, yet they dread the American system. With this extradition we relieved Britain of a huge headache: once the trial is over (and I'm sure he'll be found guilty), the Colorado Supermax will likely become Hook's new home for the remainder of his life. Britain imho needs to toughen up her law enforcement and punishments that go with it. People should be afraid of breaking British laws as much as they are afraid of breaking ours.
InsaneApache
10-08-2012, 14:56
The law is very selective about who to prosecute.
The law is very selective about who to prosecute.
It's not about quantity as much as it is about quality: those who do get convicted, especially terrorists and the repeat offenders should land in the clink for decades at a time.
I find it amusing that these guys seem to have no fear of the British legal system, yet they dread the American system. With this extradition we relieved Britain of a huge headache
Political correctness mia muca, guys like mullah omar know they have an army of furious leftist desillusioned idiots who will do anything to be able to keep believing. After that, dinner.
...idiots who will do anything to be able to keep believing. After that, dinner.
It's almost as if they're under some sort of spell.
SoFarSoGood
10-08-2012, 21:56
Britain imho needs to toughen up her law enforcement and punishments that go with it. People should be afraid of breaking British laws as much as they are afraid of breaking ours.
Many here would agree with you but unfortunely we are signatories to European Charter of Human Rights, which though it was set up prosecute Nazis and the like now sees fit to declare that people can't be deported if they a child in the country (not sure if the child even has to been here or not) as otherwise this deprives them of their right to a family life...
Then again you have the death penalty over there which is regarded as barborous in Europe so they European Courts are obliged not to send people to countries where they may face the death sentence.
Kralizec
10-08-2012, 22:52
Many here would agree with you but unfortunely we are signatories to European Charter of Human Rights, which though it was set up prosecute Nazis and the like now sees fit to declare that people can't be deported if they a child in the country (not sure if the child even has to been here or not) as otherwise this deprives them of their right to a family life...
Then again you have the death penalty over there which is regarded as barborous in Europe so they European Courts are obliged not to send people to countries where they may face the death sentence.
I'm not an expert on ECHR case law but I think a suspended deportation, i.e. until the kids reach the age of 16-18 would be admissable. Could be wrong though so don't shoot me.
The "main punishment" for the crime (i.e. fine or jail time) ought to be sufficient as a punishment for the crime alone. Otherwise, how are you ever going to adequately punish British criminals? The deportation bit is really secondary in that regard. Two years of jail time for "stealing" that much money seems pretty light to me anyway.
The UK did away with the death penalty long before becoming a signatory to the ECHR. If you reject the death penalty it's a no brainer that you won't extridite people to places where they'll be executed.
Seamus Fermanagh
10-11-2012, 01:36
The law is very selective about who to prosecute.
The law is not -- though those administering it and adjudicating under its dictates may very well be.
rvg: The idea behind probable cause versus suspicion is that one should NOT release one's own citizen/subject/resident to a foreign court's power unless there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial. Without enough evidence to suggest that judicial review is warranted, then extradition would be no more than harassment.
regarding free speech and its curtailment:
The standard that I have always preferred is that of "clear and present danger." Telling people that so-and-so is a racist and should be scorned is hateful but does not constitue a crime. Shouting at an armed mob that they should go and kill that no-good racist so-and-so is curtailable, because it is a specific incitement towards violence delivered in an already tense/charged setting -- a clear and present danger -- that such speech exacerbates.
It's almost as if they're under some sort of spell.
I call it it the suffocating social controll of correctness. Political correctness is social-control after all. Leftist people are just more prone to fear of social exclusion I think. I don't really blame them but I am not taking them all that serious either. The bad part is that they have already won.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.