So hooked on you

[Fragony]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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/buitenla...itleverin.html that is really weird it's no more than a sleepingbag with eyes, no forehead anymore. it's gone

[SoFarSoGood]

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]

You'd want to deny them right to appeal or something like that?

[SoFarSoGood]

There's appeal and then there's appeal after appeal after appeal.

[Conradus]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

Preaching hate IS a crime, if the US wants the miserable bugger byebye no?

[InsaneApache]

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.

[Fragony]

Preaching hate doesn't fall under freedom of speech but under encitement.

[rory_20_uk]

For this to take longer than 1 year is insane, as is he was ever made a British subject (or stripped of it).

[rvg]

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]

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]

He should have had his British passport rescinded years ago and booted back to Egypt.

[rvg]

If the British court thought we had no case, there would be no extradition.

[Fisherking]

He should have had his British passport rescinded years ago and booted back to Egypt.

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?

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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/rep...orth-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.

[rvg]

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]

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.

[rvg]

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]

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/ukne...uidelines.html

[rory_20_uk]

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.