Something to worry about ?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 11:18 am

Abu Hamza is on his way......possibly....to an American jail.

Babar Ahmad.... has been in jail uncharged for 8 eight years

I am in two minds which of the stories has more to concern me.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 1:26 pm

The second without a doubt - we can do nothing about the conditions in US jails but corruption and mismanagement within the UK justice system are of direct consequence to us and things we should fight against every time (as is the one sided US / UK Extradition Treaty but that's another story).

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:14 pm

I was surprised the European court agreed to extradite him, one because no evidence has been presented to justify it and arguably the extradition treaty offends natural justice. but also because the prison in which he will be held contravenes article three of the convention on human rights. We wouldn't send him top jordan because he wouldn't get a fair trial I doubt he'll get one in america. The extradition treaty is a farce. The treatment of Babar Ahmad is something that should concern us all.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:42 pm

To be honest I haven't followed the Hamza saga, it has been going on forever.

I understand he is not a British patriot, and that his allegiance lies elsewhere, and he fought and was badly injured in Afghanistan, and he has a potty mouth.

He has outspoken views and spoken out, and broken UK Law by doing so.

He was a Jordanian citizen and now he is a British citizen, so why is he being sent to the USA ?

I can understand that he should have some action taken against him, for promoting terrorism at least, but how can the UK Government do a Pontious Pilot and wash their hands of him, by passing him on to America.

Babar Ahmad's case beggars belief................how on earth can that happen ?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:59 pm

Bruv;1391029 wrote: To be honest I haven't followed the Hamza saga, it has been going on forever.

I understand he is not a British patriot, and that his allegiance lies elsewhere, and he fought and was badly injured in Afghanistan, and he has a potty mouth.

He has outspoken views and spoken out, and broken UK Law by doing so.

He was a Jordanian citizen and now he is a British citizen, so why is he being sent to the USA ?

I can understand that he should have some action taken against him, for promoting terrorism at least, but how can the UK Government do a Pontious Pilot and wash their hands of him, by passing him on to America.

Babar Ahmad's case beggars belief................how on earth can that happen ?

There are, supposedly, laws in this country governing how long a man can be held without trial - by any definition this breaches them wholesale.

There are police states where a political prisoner can be held indefinitely for unspecified crimes against the state - we are not one of them.

This is an abomination! Those involved should should be jailed to the day for as long as the collective terms these people have served without charge.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 3:18 pm

The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/world ... wanted=all

methinks there is something badly wrong in america the land of the free.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Apr 10, 2012 6:11 pm

Babar Ahmad is a 38 year old British Muslim and the longest detained-without-charge British detainee held as part of the global ‘war on terror’. In December 2003 Babar was arrested at his London home under anti-terror legislation. By the time he reached the police station Babar had sustained at least 73 forensically recorded injuries, including bleeding in his ears and urine. Six days later he was released without charge.

In August 2004 Babar was re-arrested in London and taken to prison pursuant to an extradition request from the US under the controversial, no-evidence-required, Extradition Act 2003. The US has alleged that in the 1990s Babar was a supporter of “terrorism”. Babar denies any involvement in terrorism. He has now been in prison for more than eight years even though he has not been charged in the UK, despite 141,000 British citizens signing a petition to put him on trial in the UK.

(Appears to be quoted from: http://www.freebabarahmad.com/ )

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:16 am

The world has gone mad........

Who has the final say about Ahmad ?

Surely the procedures that limit detention must have a figure at the top to say yay or nay ?

Who has the ultimate responsibility ?

Does anyone know why Hamza should be sent to America, none of that bit makes any sense to me.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 5:05 am

Abu Hamza’s Extradition: European Court Approves Moving Terror Suspect to the United States | Global Spin | TIME.com

Has he been fighting extradition for this long? If so, that's entirely different than just sitting uncharged for eight years would imply.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:58 am

I am In two minds over this.

First of all, the threat to UK national security Is enormous. Most of It never makes the media and we never get to hear of foiled plots and known terror suspects arriving In this country. Most people don't know the half of what Is plotted against us In the name of Islam...

The USA has legitimate reasons for wanting Abu Hamza because It's alleged he was Instrumental In orchestrating the training camp In Oregan USA which trained the 9/11 pilots. They certainly have evidence, following the paper trail, that he directed funds from Pakistan to fund the operation. The UK can also link him to home grown British Muslims who have been brainwashed Into plotting atrocities at Finsbury Park.

The problem as I see It Is conflicting treaty's here. On one hand we the UK signed a extradition treaty with the USA where ' without any evidence' they can ask for any suspect to be handed over.

On the the other hand, we have signed up to the European Union which means terror suspects can appeal over and over again to the European Court of Human Rights. One reason most global suspects seek asylum In the UK Is because we will not extradite them to any country wanting them who uses torture t gain Information.

In fact, Hamza etc have not come to the end of the road just yet. They can now appeal to The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights but very few have ever been successful there. It will however, drag this mess on for another few months.

The reason they have been held for so long without trial as I understand It, Is because all 5 were due to be extradited to stand trial In the USA and It Is their constant repeated appeals to the European Courts of Human Rights that have delayed their extraditions, so In many ways, It's their own doing that has kept them In prison without trial this long. The UK has every right to hold any terror suspect In custody If an extradition treaty has been sought as It was by the USA eight years ago.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:11 am

flopstock;1391046 wrote: Abu Hamza’s Extradition: European Court Approves Moving Terror Suspect to the United States | Global Spin | TIME.com

Has he been fighting extradition for this long? If so, that's entirely different than just sitting uncharged for eight years would imply.

Two different people, there is no evidence against the guy in jail for eight years, he was arrested and severely beaten by the police who, eventually (after a mistrial the first time round) were charged for their actions, he was released after a few days because all of the charges proved to be unsubstantiated, all of the actions he is alleged to have committed took place in the UK and affected only people in the UK - what jurisdiction does the US have?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:38 am

gmc:

methinks there is something badly wrong in america the land of the free.
Methinks too. We have too many jailed for non-violent offenses, particularly drugs AND, if you are black you will be charged & imprisoned for offenses that, although the same, whites have gotten off scot-free for committing.

rajakrsna · Post by **rajakrsna** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:46 am

AnneBoleyn;1391069 wrote: gmc:

Methinks too. We have too many jailed for non-violent offenses, particularly drugs AND, if you are black you will be charged & imprisoned for offenses that, although the same, whites have gotten off scot-free for committing.

Was Anne Boleyn beheaded or burned at the stake for being a witch?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:58 am

rajakrsna;1391073 wrote: Was Anne Boleyn beheaded or burned at the stake for being a witch?
That's what Google is for.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:27 pm

Bryn Mawr;1391064 wrote: Two different people, there is no evidence against the guy in jail for eight years, he was arrested and severely beaten by the police who, eventually (after a mistrial the first time round) were charged for their actions, he was released after a few days because all of the charges proved to be unsubstantiated, all of the actions he is alleged to have committed took place in the UK and affected only people in the UK - what jurisdiction does the US have?

Any thoughts on why your folks signed that treaty?

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:30 pm

flopstock;1391097 wrote: Any thoughts on why your folks signed that treaty?

I only wish I did - on the face of it there is neither rhyme nor reason to it so I can only guess some form of backroom deal.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;1391099 wrote: I only wish I did - on the face of it there is neither rhyme nor reason to it so I can only guess some form of backroom deal.

Wasn't It that ' Special Relationship' ? :wah:

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;1391099 wrote: I only wish I did - on the face of it there is neither rhyme nor reason to it so I can only guess some form of backroom deal.

I agree. The intent had to be to cover something specific at that moment. But your parliment passed it, correct? I just skimmed a few pages, but surely there was something to your advantage in it.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 2:46 pm

flopstock;1391102 wrote: I agree. The intent had to be to cover something specific at that moment. But your parliment passed it, correct? I just skimmed a few pages, but surely there was something to your advantage in it.

Not on the face of it - if there was they'd have told us what to quiet the rumblings.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:00 pm

oscar;1391056 wrote:

Most people don't know the half of what Is plotted against us In the name of Islam...
Isn't this just a way of saying "do what we say......it's for your own good.....we don't tell you everything because we know best ?"

The UK can also link him to home grown British Muslims who have been brainwashed Into plotting atrocities at Finsbury Park. Don't think brainwashing is a crime.........yet.

Maybe ....perhaps.....the so called brainwashed, have brains of their own and reasons for thinking the way they do.

It is at least worth considering......don't you think ?

The problem as I see It Is conflicting treaty's here. On one hand we the UK signed a extradition treaty with the USA where ' without any evidence' they can ask for any suspect to be handed over.What a bloody silly thing to do then........they whistle and we sling em another citizen ?

..........suspects can appeal over and over again to the European Court of Human Surely not over and over without end ?

It's their own doing that has kept them In prison without trial this long. The UK has every right to hold any terror suspect In custody If an extradition treaty has been sought as It was by the USA eight years ago.
" It's their own doing that has kept them In prison without trial this long.?"

So if they are innocent, Allah forbid, they should just throw themselves on American justice ?

And even if they are guilty as sin, shouldn't justice be swift ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Apr 11, 2012 3:44 pm

Bruv;1391107 wrote: Isn't this just a way of saying "do what we say......it's for your own good.....we don't tell you everything because we know best ?" Don't think brainwashing is a crime.........yet.

Maybe ....perhaps.....the so called brainwashed, have brains of their own and reasons for thinking the way they do.

It is at least worth considering......don't you think ?What a bloody silly thing to do then........they whistle and we sling em another citizen ? Surely not over and over without end ?

" It's their own doing that has kept them In prison without trial this long.?"

So if they are innocent, Allah forbid, they should just throw themselves on American justice ?

And even if they are guilty as sin, shouldn't justice be swift ?

Oh come on now...

In May 2004, Hamza was arrested on a US extradition warrant. The US want him on charges of conspiring to take Western hostages in Yemen, funding terrorism, and organising a terrorist training camp in Oregon between 1998 and 2000.

- In October 2004, he was charged with 15 offences under the Terrorism Act, including incitement to murder and possession of a terrorism document, temporarily staying the US extradition process.

- On February 7 2006, Hamza was jailed for seven years after being found guilty on 11 of 15 charges.

Read more: Abu Hamza extradition: Hate preacher facing up to 50 years in US jail after losing appeal | Mail Online

What do you suggest the UK does with him then Bruv?

Why Is being tried In the US any different to being tried here? Why do you think his ooooman rights will be breached In the USA?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 4:03 am

oscar;1391114 wrote: Oh come on now...

What do you suggest the UK does with him then Bruv?

Why Is being tried In the US any different to being tried here? Why do you think his ooooman rights will be breached In the USA?

First I have a confession..............prepare yourself.

I have a certain amount of sympathy for 'the cause'

What I suggest is that if there is good reason for him to be extradited, then he should be.

But.......it should be done expeditiously. What ever holds the process up should be cast aside, a decision will be made at some time, the sooner the better for justice sake.

I can only presume that both cases are weighed down by indecision caused by the so called Human rights involved, these appear to be challengeable on many levels........it cannot be beyond all the Law brains involved to come up with a definative solution.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:39 am

Off topic, but in response to a statement in this thread -

I no longer buy into the notion of "Most of It never makes the media and we never get to hear of foiled plots and known terror suspects arriving In this country. Most people don't know the half of what Is plotted against us In the name of Islam...

"

IMO, that has been thrown out there so often as justification for actions or proposed actions, that we have simply come to accept it as a matter of fact when it isn't. In actual fact, we do get bold public disclosures of foiled plots and both suspected terrorists captures and spottings all the time.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:26 am

flopstock;1391150 wrote: Off topic, but in response to a statement in this thread -

I no longer buy into the notion of "Most of It never makes the media and we never get to hear of foiled plots and known terror suspects arriving In this country. Most people don't know the half of what Is plotted against us In the name of Islam...

"

IMO, that has been thrown out there so often as justification for actions or proposed actions, that we have simply come to accept it as a matter of fact when it isn't. In actual fact, we do get bold public disclosures of foiled plots and both suspected terrorists captures and spottings all the time.

I watched a documentary very recently on the UK's Intelligence MI5 and It was quite frightening.

I agree with them, If they disclosed every threat we have to the media, the country would go Into a panic and cause racial unrest.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Apr 12, 2012 11:28 am

oscar;1391181 wrote: I watched a documentary very recently on the UK's Intelligence MI5 and It was quite frightening.

I agree with them, If they disclosed every threat we have to the media, the country would go Into a panic and cause racial unrest.

Or......it's a very good ploy ?

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:28 am

oscar;1391181 wrote: I watched a documentary very recently on the UK's Intelligence MI5 and It was quite frightening.

I agree with them, If they disclosed every threat we have to the media, the country would go Into a panic and cause racial unrest.

I think that is the purpose of these shows - to be frightening.

If we are going to opt to give up liberties, it needs to be based on more than a 'if you only knew' mentality. Potential loss of liberty = Need To Know, IMO.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Fri Apr 13, 2012 7:32 pm

flopstock;1391250 wrote: I think that is the purpose of these shows - to be frightening.

If we are going to opt to give up liberties, it needs to be based on more than a 'if you only knew' mentality. Potential loss of liberty = Need To Know, IMO.

Totally agree, using scare stories is one of the first tools in the armoury of those trying to manipulate public opinion.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 3:04 am

Bryn Mawr;1391282 wrote: Totally agree, using scare stories is one of the first tools in the armoury of those trying to manipulate public opinion.

Like these results ?

Weapons of mass destruction my arse !!!!!!

Apologies, to the sensitive among us, being offended is a privilege only afforded to the living.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 7:27 am

WTF

Personally I think ya'll should keep them.

We got enough of these type already here.

The further they are from American soil, the happier I would be.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 8:46 am

LarsMac;1391296 wrote: WTF

Personally I think ya'll should keep them.

We got enough of these type already here.

The further they are from American soil, the happier I would be.

We didn't offer to give him to you.............you pleaded for the right to punish them in your own imitable manner.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 10:26 am

Bruv;1391291 wrote: Like these results ?

Weapons of mass destruction my arse !!!!!!

Apologies, to the sensitive among us, being offended is a privilege only afforded to the living.

So is eating, singing, writing, boating, playing football, walking, dancing and a host of other privileges... with the exception of having sex.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:12 am

flopstock;1391306 wrote: So is eating, singing, writing, boating, playing football, walking, dancing and a host of other privileges... with the exception of having sex.

You forgot breathing ?

I fail to see what you are getting at though................and where you are going with reference to sex.

Post by **LarsMac** » Sat Apr 14, 2012 12:15 pm

Bruv;1391300 wrote: We didn't offer to give him to you.............you pleaded for the right to punish them in your own imitable manner.

I am sure that somewhere in the halls of gummint here in the good ol' US of A, some minor bureaucrat is chomping at the bit to have these guy spend the rest of their lives enjoying the hospitality of SuperMax.

Personally, if the never set foot on US soil, I could sleep better.

I guess there are some folks here who think y'all are just to easy on terrorists, or something.

flopstock · Post by **flopstock** » Wed May 09, 2012 5:33 am

oscar;1391181 wrote: I watched a documentary very recently on the UK's Intelligence MI5 and It was quite frightening.

I agree with them, If they disclosed every threat we have to the media, the country would go Into a panic and cause racial unrest.

These are the type of headlines that have convinced me that we are having mind games played on us by those we are meant to trust

'Mission Impossible': Mole infiltrated al-Qaida - Yahoo! News

'If we only knew' is used when they plan to do things(or have done things) we would not approve of.

Why were these details given out? That operative is no good to them anymore now, is he/she?

It's a sure bet that if it has any real good PR value, they don't mind letting us hear what 'might have been'. Or if they want to scare up some support.

YZGI · Post by **YZGI** » Wed May 09, 2012 7:08 am

flopstock;1393291 wrote: These are the type of headlines that have convinced me that we are having mind games played on us by those we are meant to trust

'Mission Impossible': Mole infiltrated al-Qaida - Yahoo! News

'If we only knew' is used when they plan to do things(or have done things) we would not approve of.

Why were these details given out? That operative is no good to them anymore now, is he/she?

It's a sure bet that if it has any real good PR value, they don't mind letting us hear what 'might have been'. Or if they want to scare up some support.

I think he became a double agent when he realized his options:

1. Blow myself and a bunch of people I don't know up, knowing that the first thing to blow will be my junk..

2. Become a double agent, live, junk intact..