Abu Hamza not guilty [Archive]

Tribesman

02-07-2006, 20:39

Justice at work , the mad "preacher" has been found not guilty in a court of law , justice has been done .
This shows that the British courts can sometimes work well and they must be congratulated on bringing in not guilty verdicts on the four charges .

They must be congratulated even more on bringing in guilty verdicts on the other 11 charges .

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 20:46

Good for him, now he can go back to preaching and leading muslim youths to terrorist acts. Please tell me that you think this man should walk do you?

rory_20_uk

02-07-2006, 20:49

Can't you (i.e. America) extradite the bugger to Texas and solve this problem once and for all?

That he loathes Britain, yet lives on benefits and in court was given a lawyer is vexing to say the least. He wastes resources others might need, such as oxygen :skull:

~:smoking:

Ironside

02-07-2006, 21:20

Good for him, now he can go back to preaching and leading muslim youths to terrorist acts. Please tell me that you think this man should walk do you?

Well if I read Tribesman correctly he was convicted on 11 charges and freed on 4. I hardly call that walking free.

My guess for the initial post is that's kudos to the court for still doing fair judgements and not running with the "He's guilty" even before the trail have started. Mixed with a little :smug: and :sneaky: to make the blood run in some conservative veins. :idea2:

Marcellus

02-07-2006, 21:24

Just to make it triple clear to people reading this thread, Hamza was found guilty on eleven charges, including incitement to murder and stirring up racial hatred, and has been sentenced to seven years in prison.

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 21:26

7 years is considered justice?

Monarch

02-07-2006, 21:39

Divinus Arma

02-07-2006, 21:47

Tribesman,

Your post suggests that you favor Hamza. It appears that you support his release and that you support his teachings. Am I misunderstanding you?

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 21:49

Tribesman,

Your post suggests that you favor Hamza. It appears that you support his release and that you support his teachings. Am I misunderstanding you?Hahahahaha!!! :laugh4:

Divinus Arma

02-07-2006, 21:51

Hahahahaha!!! :laugh4:

Why is this funny?

Duke Malcolm

02-07-2006, 21:53

I believe Tribesman was implementing that arcane skill known only as "sarcasm"...

Devastatin Dave

02-07-2006, 21:53

I just think it's so ironic. He married (though probaby divorced?) a western woman, he was happy to take british citizenship, use our health care, our everything else and yet he hates Britain so much. Well Mr. Hamza, why dont you leave?

I just never understood that....

Anyway,
Its amazing isn't it. Its like watching professional black athlets here in the States whine about being held down by the Man while recieving millions playing kids sports and banging a hot white trophy wife.

Ser Clegane

02-07-2006, 21:59

Why is this funny?

They must be congratulated even more on bringing in guilty verdicts on the other 11 charges .

Very clear statement I would say...

Adrian II

02-07-2006, 22:07

Why is this funny?Because it is so obvious what Tribesman was stating: a functioning court (one that dare stand up to public expectations and refuses to chose the easy way out of a difficult case) is as least as important in the fight against terrorism as a timely conviction --if not more important. And because your post made it so blatantly obvious that the whole concept is alien to you.

Goofball

02-07-2006, 22:19

Its amazing isn't it. Its like watching professional black athlets here in the States whine about being held down by the Man while recieving millions playing kids sports and banging a hot white trophy wife.

Okay you win Dave, I can't resist feeding the troll.

I know it's OT but why did the words "black" and "white" have to be in that sentence?

And what could you possibly find offensive about an athlete having sex with his own wife?

Seamus Fermanagh

02-07-2006, 22:29

Okay you win Dave, I can't resist feeding the troll.

I know it's OT but why did the words "black" and "white" have to be in that sentence?

And what could you possibly find offensive about an athlete having sex with his own wife?

Actually, its the whining he finds offensive. He's using the black/white dichotomy to emphasize even further that these highly paid entertainers should be, logically, in no position to complain about being "kept down" by the majority white society. The classic counter-argument is the marginalized gladiator thing, wherein the "gladiator" is well rewarded but doomed to an unusually short and "dead-end" career/existence.

It is, also, a pretty irresistable troll.

Hey, mods, we need a really big hairy smiley-troll for the smilies list. Anybody got one?

Divinus Arma

02-07-2006, 22:30

Actually I read his post wrong.

Tribesman, my apologies. This is why I asked if I read your post correctly.

I thought you wrote that the courts must be congratulated more for the innocent findings than the guilty findings.

InsaneApache

02-07-2006, 22:37

Indeed. A good show for Her Majesties Judiciary.

Perhaps a message has been sent, perhaps not. The fact that this 'scholar' was allowed to roam free for so long is nothing but testimony to our tolerance of free speech. However, as it has been demonstrated in another thread, free speech presents it's own quandaries.

Mount Suribachi

02-07-2006, 22:53

7 years is considered justice?

Oh, but it gets better!

The judge said he would have to serve "one half to two thrids of the sentance" :dizzy2:

But it gets even better!

Thats, between 1/2 and 2/3 of the sentence less time already served awaiting trial and less time spent fighting extradition!!! :no:

Wow, first backroom post in like, forever :help:

Watchman

02-07-2006, 23:09

Around here "imprisoned for life" means "sit tight about 12 years, after which the President automatically lets you go free." I don't think the Prez actually gets much say in the matter either, actually...

Odd as it may be for some, it seems to work well enough.

Tribesman

02-07-2006, 23:36

Actually I read his post wrong.

Divinus , it was written that way and given the title that it has specifically to see who would jump .

Don Corleone

02-08-2006, 00:06

Okay, the phrase 'too clever by half' comes to mind. I know I'm not the clever wordsmith Tribesman tends to be, and granted, I've been obsessing about WCDMA constellation error vector magnitude results for the past 10 hours, but would somebody kindly help this feeble-mind get to the point of Tribesman's original post. I see three possible meanings:

1) He's glad that the court returned not guilty on some charges but guilty on others... i.e. that the court took the time to weigh each charge and didn't just drop the hammer or kick him loose.... (based on the discussion of sarcasm and Adrian's sardonic laughter, I doubt option 1 is correct)

2) He was being sarcastic in the first part of the post yet truthful in the 2nd.... he was upset they returned 'not guilty' on any of the charges (seems to make the most sense reading the post as clearly I can, in light of option 1 being removed, but given Tribesman's past views, I find this unlikely)

or

3) He was being truthful in the first part of the post and sarcastic in the 2nd. He thinks the guy is totally innocent and the Brittish court should have let him go with an apology for the inconveniance. (Based on what I know of Tribesman's views from his posting history, I'd have to guess option 3, but it's not supported (in my mind) by the actual text, even accounting for sarcasm).

So Tribesman, have a good laugh at that ignant Merican, but PLEASE, while you do, tell me what exactly were you saying?

Proletariat

02-08-2006, 00:16

Divinus , it was written that way and given the title that it has specifically to see who would jump .

Considering how seldom you're ever heard on this board being concerned with terrorists being brought to justice, I don't see why you're being so smug about someone 'taking the bait.'

If I spoke in ebonics on this forum for months and then one day posted a picture of myself as a black woman, I wouldn't be saying 'GOTCHA! UR DUMM!!' to anyone who fell for it.

Divinus Arma

02-08-2006, 00:22

Tribesman, what's your deal?

I said I read your post wrong. I apologized with respect. Then you rub it in my face?

Proly, thanks for lookin out...

Goofball

02-08-2006, 00:25

It is, also, a pretty irresistable troll.

I know!

And it drives me crazy, because no matter how much I know I should stay away from it, I just can't help myself! I'm all over it like a fat kid on a Smartie!

I'm weak...

:shame:

Don Corleone

02-08-2006, 00:30

EDIT:
Okay, maybe my blood sugar's a little low. But all kidding aside folks, would somebody please spell out in plain English, no sarcasm, no double entendres, what exactly Tribesman meant by this thread and his initial post in this thread. Option 1, 2, 3 or 'none of the above' is fine (provided you explain what should have been above). I'm not kidding, I feel like I'm trying to look at 'Magic Eye' again, I just don't get it...

Watchman

02-08-2006, 00:37

By general consensus, apparently the one you labeled #1. My reading of the OP says the same.

I also somewhat fail to perceive the difficulty.

Goofball

02-08-2006, 00:42

I also somewhat fail to perceive the difficulty.

Me three.

Papewaio

02-08-2006, 00:58

#1

It was worded to appear that he was happy with not guilty... however
They must be congratulated even more on bringing in guilty verdicts on the other 11 charges . Means that he was even happier with guilty.

So overall he is very very happy with a fully functional court that considered each of the verdicts. Rather then having closed trials that have a political need to be all guilty or not guilty...

They must be congratulated even more on bringing in guilty verdicts on the other 11 charges .

BTW DC the WCDMA... is it professional or amatuer level astronomy?

lancelot

02-08-2006, 01:04

I just pray that our yankee cousins will do something useful for once and extradite this sick freak and relieve him of that oxygen habit he has got...

I mean really..what has the world come to when you can have a mosque full of terrorist training manuals, guns, knives, gas masks!!! etc etc and then waste tax-payer time and money by basing your whole courtroom defence on the fact that he was only preaching spiritual jihad and not physical jihad!?!? WTF?

All to remain a free man in a nation he described as 'a toilet'....this guy must be laughing all the way to the bank...

7 years...no way is that enough....once again the UK justice system benefits the criminal....and he will appeal, wasting more of our money....

Watchman

02-08-2006, 01:08

Gawain of Orkeny

02-08-2006, 01:15

All I can say is some of you guys are mean
Div obviously mis read or missed the part about the other 11 charges. And going by the title and the author of this thread I almost fell into the trap as well. Some people are just so clever. Tribesman is without a doubt the master baiter here.:laugh4:

Watchman

02-08-2006, 01:16

"...and he didn't even have the red clotch! What skill!"

Tribesman

02-08-2006, 01:25

Divinus , thats not rubbing it in your face at all , Dave was the one who initially jumped without understanding what was written .
However you did come in after two other posters had commented that Hamza was sentanced to 7 years for incitement to murder and incitement to racial hatred , which should have made it abundantly clear , even if my description of Hamza as a mad "preacher" had left you in some strange doubt about my thoughts on this particular extremist nutter .

Considering how seldom you're ever heard on this board being concerned with terrorists being brought to justice,
Prole, either you have not been reading my posts on this board , or you do not understand what I write .
I am very concerned about terrorists and justice , not only that justice is done , but that it is seen to be done , which is why a fair and open trial is important .
The not guilty verdicts on 4 counts show that it was a fair trial , though I am not happy with the sentance , the judge should have made the jail terms on the other 11 charges consecutive not concurrent .

I'm not kidding, I feel like I'm trying to look at 'Magic Eye' again, I just don't get it...
No worries Don , you have your hands full at the moment with your new arrival . So despite your doubtsI doubt option 1 is correct , its option 1 .

Edit to add
And going by the title and the author of this thread I almost fell into the trap as well.
Ah , that little thing about addressing the post not the poster , cheers Gawain

Proletariat

02-08-2006, 01:34

I am very concerned about terrorists and justice , not only that justice is done , but that it is seen to be done , which is why a fair and open trial is important .
The not guilty verdicts on 4 counts show that it was a fair trial , though I am not happy with the sentance , the judge should have made the jail terms on the other 11 charges consecutive not concurrent .

How does being judged not guilty on four charges show that the trial was fair? Is there some clause over there dictating that any trial must be horse **** if four out of eleven charges aren't proven?

When a man like this basically gets sentenced to three or four years in jail, knowing what we know about him, it wouldn't strike me as the right moment to go hailing the British legal system.

Don Corleone

02-08-2006, 02:11

#1

BTW DC the WCDMA... is it professional or amatuer level astronomy?

Cellular communication basestations, particularly the transceiver architecture. In this particular case, Siemmens. :dizzy2:

Papewaio

02-08-2006, 03:29

So the reference to constellations is the base stations that a cell phone can finger in range?

Divinus Arma

02-08-2006, 03:41

So the reference to constellations is the base stations that a cell phone can finger in range?

:focus:

Soulforged

02-08-2006, 03:51

7 years is considered justice?
Just to make it triple clear to people reading this thread, Hamza was found guilty on eleven charges, including incitement to murder and stirring up racial hatred, and has been sentenced to seven years in prison.Yes.

EDIT: Bolded the text.

Gawain of Orkeny

02-08-2006, 06:28

And going by the title and the author of this thread I almost fell into the trap as well.
Ah , that little thing about addressing the post not the poster , cheers Gawain

I may not agree with your politics but your teaching me to pay close attention to whats posted.:laugh4: I hate to say it but your starting to make some sense. I dont know if its because of you or me,

Maybe its something I smoked.

rory_20_uk

02-08-2006, 12:17

How does being judged not guilty on four charges show that the trial was fair? Is there some clause over there dictating that any trial must be horse **** if four out of eleven charges aren't proven?

When a man like this basically gets sentenced to three or four years in jail, knowing what we know about him, it wouldn't strike me as the right moment to go hailing the British legal system.

OK, I agree that a clever showtrial would aim to appear fair. Having some charges found innocent when you are still sentencing the person to 190 years without the possibility of parole. He himself has not committed that many acts, merely demanded others do so as well. I guess if we locked him up for 30 years for inciteful behaviour then that is a precident for all others. We've got enough problems with jailspace as it is!!

I think that he should be deported to somewhere else. If America wants him I think he should be handed over. Perhaps this will happen in a few months quietly when the storm has died down. The UK is seen as America's lapdog enough as it is, and doing that now would only inflame Muslims.

~:smoking:

lancelot

02-08-2006, 15:04

That's what fair and equal trial for everyone, innocent-until-proven-guilty, habeas corpus and the rest are all about. Live with it. I'd suggest you do, anyway, as the places that don't practice this stuff tend to be somewhat unpleasant and not really terribly fun to live in anyway.

Er....where did I suggest he didnt deserve a fair trial?... my comments suggested that I did not believe his punishment is severe enough, thats all... :wall:

Devastatin Dave

02-08-2006, 15:51

Oh, but it gets better!

The judge said he would have to serve "one half to two thrids of the sentance" :dizzy2:

But it gets even better!

Thats, between 1/2 and 2/3 of the sentence less time already served awaiting trial and less time spent fighting extradition!!! :no:

Wow, first backroom post in like, forever :help:
Unbelievable!!! Again, this is not justice. Well Europe, I hear the fashion trend this summer will be suicide bomber belts and berkas.

King Henry V

02-08-2006, 16:47

Just send him back to Egypt where his countrymen can deal with him in their version of justice.

rory_20_uk

02-08-2006, 17:21

The papers did say that we can deport him to the US after he has served his time here. The sentence he's likely to get over the pond renders whatever we do somewhat immaterial. Personally I'd have sentenced him to time already served and given him to US justice ASAP.

~:smoking:

Devastatin Dave

02-08-2006, 19:58

Watchman

02-08-2006, 21:41

Er....where did I suggest he didnt deserve a fair trial?... my comments suggested that I did not believe his punishment is severe enough, thats all... :wall:My point exactly. Excessively severe punsihements tend to be signs of badly working justice systems - few culprits are actually caught, but those that are get punished severely.

And if a perfectly legitimate and fair court of law, going through all the procedures, weighing charges and evidence and so on and so on as courts now do, decides seven years is what he can be convicted of where the Heck do you suddenly get the right to claim it's "not enough" ? Western justice system is supposed to punish people only of what they are proven guilty of, and proportionally to the severity of the offense, not of what they think or how odious little turds they happen to be.

I happen to hate the populist primitive reaction "not hard enough!", myself. But then it's probably fairly obvious.

lancelot

02-08-2006, 21:59

My point exactly. Excessively severe punsihements tend to be signs of badly working justice systems - few culprits are actually caught, but those that are get punished severely.

Well, you are entitled to your opinion but I feel that perhaps harsher punishments may deter people from commiting offences...and considering some killers here can get out after 10 years for example, I can see why people commit serious crimes....hell, if there is someone you want dead that badly and you only have to pay with 10 years of your own life...it might actually be worth it...assuming you are that un-hinged anyway to kill in the first place.

How can such a large re-offending rate be curtailed if the criminal does not fear the punishment?

And if a perfectly legitimate and fair court of law, going through all the procedures, weighing charges and evidence and so on and so on as courts now do, decides seven years is what he can be convicted of where the Heck do you suddenly get the right to claim it's "not enough" ?

So what...Im not allowed to have an opinion on what I think is appropriate punishment???

I happen to hate the populist primitive reaction "not hard enough!", myself. But then it's probably fairly obvious.

So, a populist argument is automatically primitive in your book because a possible majority ascribe to it?

Proletariat

02-08-2006, 22:12

So what...Im not allowed to have an opinion on what I think is appropriate punishment???

Shame on you for using your position as a citizen to speak your opinion on how other citizens are punishing other citizens. What the hell do you think this is? Some sort of democracy?

Watchman

02-08-2006, 22:13

Fear of severe punishements is well known to be a pretty crappy psychological preventive. Fear of virtually certain prosecution for your sins tends to work a lot better.

You are, of course, allowed to have opinions. But I'm under no obligation to like them or accept them, all the more so if they possess no argumentative fibre beyond knee-jerk populism.

Populism is primitive in my books because it relies on emotional appeal and visceral primitive reactions. It is what rabble-rousers use to incite mobs, and what the local variation of rednecks reduce issues to over beer. It is offering simple answers to complex questions, and that is never a good thing.

As for majorities, I've a figure of speech for you. "A billion flies can't be wrong; eat manure." Majorities have and do support the stupidest things on nothing more than knee-jerk reactions.

It's not that I can't understand the feeling of frustration when a confessed and unrepentant asshole "gets off lightly" because he simply cannot be found guilty of anything meriting heavy sentences. I tend to get the same feeling about those domestic violence cases where the authorities know perfectly well what's going on but are powerless to do anything.

That, however, is specifically the primitive reaction that is to be avoided and kept separate from decision-making. Laws must apply equally to all, and on basis of proven facts and not opinions and the usually bloothirsty howl of the angry mob. Anything else leads to witch hunts, justice murders and dire discrimination of "unpopular" groups.

lancelot

02-09-2006, 03:07

Populism is primitive in my books because it relies on emotional appeal and visceral primitive reactions. It is what rabble-rousers use to incite mobs, and what the local variation of rednecks reduce issues to over beer. It is offering simple answers to complex questions, and that is never a good thing.

Just out of curiosity...so are all majority decisions populist in nature?