NationStates Jolt Archive

Thankyou for asking for Abu-Hamsa the hook handed cleric to be extradited, this is one issue on which I have a strong opinion and it seemed as if our courts and police etc were doing very little about his terrorist inclination, despite the fact that he encouraged attacks on this country, even though subtle, so a deep thankyou to the US from the bottom of my heart for wanting him extradited. I will not miss him.

Any other opinions?

About time we got rid of Abu Hamsa

Ha good riddance to him.
Go on Uncle Sam - send him to Guantanamo

Right on. This wanker has been urging attacks on my country for years, and we certainly should've thrown him out by now.

USA - I thank you.

Send him doooown.

We should not be in the business of extraditing people to countries where they may face the death penalty. That goes against EU policy. I am disappointed that the UK government has seen fit to make an exception in this case. It may prove to be the thin end of the wedge. It would have been more in keeping with our values (and this is supposed to be what we are defending, isn't it?) to put him on trial in the UK, where he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

We should not be in the business of extraditing people to countries where they may face the death penalty. That goes against EU policy. I am disappointed that the UK government has seen fit to make an exception in this case. It may prove to be the thin end of the wedge. It would have been more in keeping with our values (and this is supposed to be what we are defending, isn't it?) to put him on trial in the UK, where he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Indeed. The UK should uphold its civility and maintain a policy of not extraditing prisoners to where they will face the deat penalty. It's no better than having capital punishment ourselves.

While I agree with both TGs and Myrth's sentiments as regards the death penalty, and while I'm a strong opponent of it myself, I do have to ask why the UK government wasn't going after this guy themselves? Or were they just under pressure from the US to hand him over to them so we could make an example of the guy? Has there been any official explanation as to why he hasn't been prosecuted under UK law?

I think that the person should only be extradited IF they did commit crimes that were deserving of the death penalty...

As an american, and with my rudimentary knowlege of american law, i do not believe that he could face the death penalty. In america, the death penalty is used only for special and extraordinary cases. It is usually reserved for serial killers and other individuals that committed murder in an especially vicious way. They would also have to directly committ the crime. It has to be a capital crime. The only other way that te Federal Government can institute the death penalty is for treason, but as he isnt a US Resident, he cannot be tried for treason.

Honestly, this case is full of holes. Becasue of the fact that he isnt, or never was, a US citezen, he is not under the laws of the US. AS US laws apply to a person when they enter the country or become a citezen, Being tried for comments he made outside the US juristiction would be a writ of Habeius Corpus (SP???). Eather way, this is probably a publicity stunt.

Feel free to correct me on anything, i have a very rudimentary knowlege of american Federal law.

We should not be in the business of extraditing people to countries where they may face the death penalty. That goes against EU policy. I am disappointed that the UK government has seen fit to make an exception in this case. It may prove to be the thin end of the wedge. It would have been more in keeping with our values (and this is supposed to be what we are defending, isn't it?) to put him on trial in the UK, where he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Indeed. The UK should uphold its civility and maintain a policy of not extraditing prisoners to where they will face the deat penalty. It's no better than having capital punishment ourselves.
I wish the US would start handing over some of the detainees to the Israelis or Egyptians. I promise they won't take pictures of the "interrogation process"

I am a supporter of the death penalty. I do not believe it should apply in most cases but there are those in which, IMHO, it is justified.

I honor opinions to the contrary, everyone has the right to an opinion and I will not argue the point.

It seems that in general, criminals are given more consideration than the victims. That is not right.

We should not be in the business of extraditing people to countries where they may face the death penalty. That goes against EU policy. I am disappointed that the UK government has seen fit to make an exception in this case. It may prove to be the thin end of the wedge. It would have been more in keeping with our values (and this is supposed to be what we are defending, isn't it?) to put him on trial in the UK, where he would face a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Indeed. The UK should uphold its civility and maintain a policy of not extraditing prisoners to where they will face the deat penalty. It's no better than having capital punishment ourselves.
I wish the US would start handing over some of the detainees to the Israelis or Egyptians. I promise they won't take pictures of the "interrogation process"You're a real class act, New Auburnland. So torture is okay as long as the public doesn't know about it? Does that mean that Saddam Hussein's real problem wasn't that he was a murderous psychopath but rather that it got out that he was a murderous psychopath?

Torture is torture no matter who's doing it--and if the US benefits from it, then we're just as guilty as the people who are putting the electrodes on the victims' genitalia. We are just as culpable as any other accessory.

I don't agree with Senator Lindsay Graham very often, but what he said after seeing the first images from Abu Ghraib is absolutely true. "If we're the good guys, then we've got to act like the good guys." If you want to live in a country that thinks it's okay to torture people or tries to excuse itself by allowing others to do so while pretending to be moral, fine--go live somewhere else.

You're a real class act, New Auburnland. So torture is okay as long as the public doesn't know about it? Does that mean that Saddam Hussein's real problem wasn't that he was a murderous psychopath but rather that it got out that he was a murderous psychopath?

Torture is torture no matter who's doing it--and if the US benefits from it, then we're just as guilty as the people who are putting the electrodes on the victims' genitalia. We are just as culpable as any other accessory.

I don't agree with Senator Lindsay Graham very often, but what he said after seeing the first images from Abu Ghraib is absolutely true. "If we're the good guys, then we've got to act like the good guys." If you want to live in a country that thinks it's okay to torture people or tries to excuse itself by allowing others to do so while pretending to be moral, fine--go live somewhere else.
Hey now...
I am not saying torture is okay. I am saying the Israelis and Egyptians interrogation procedures are a little more rigorus than that of the US.

there is far more worse shit than sleep deprovation and "stress posistions" going on at Army or USMC basic training, so I don't see what the big deal is with some of the stuff the media and liberals (aren't they one in the same?) are bitching about. Most of the stuff in the pictures are not acceptable at all. Some of it, I don't see what the big deal is. Fraternities do alot worse than some of the incidents photograped in Iraq.

And I don't give a shit if who we let interrogate our prisoners. As long as we don't know how the information is extracted, we have deniability. Alot of these high level detainees are wanted all over the world, so who are we to keep them when countries like Israel have warrants out for them too?

As an american, and with my rudimentary knowlege of american law, i do not believe that he could face the death penalty. In america, the death penalty is used only for special and extraordinary cases. It is usually reserved for serial killers and other individuals that committed murder in an especially vicious way. They would also have to directly committ the crime. It has to be a capital crime. The only other way that te Federal Government can institute the death penalty is for treason, but as he isnt a US Resident, he cannot be tried for treason.

Honestly, this case is full of holes. Becasue of the fact that he isnt, or never was, a US citezen, he is not under the laws of the US. AS US laws apply to a person when they enter the country or become a citezen, Being tried for comments he made outside the US juristiction would be a writ of Habeius Corpus (SP???). Eather way, this is probably a publicity stunt.

Feel free to correct me on anything, i have a very rudimentary knowlege of american Federal law.

First, the death penalty is often applied in rather unremarkable crimes. A basic premeditated murder, a murder of a police officer, or a murder committed in conjunection with another felony, is all it takes in a majority of the states that execute people in the US.

However, he is unlikely to face court in a federal or state setting, as he is not a US citizen and was not on US soil during the commission of his purported crimes. Rather, he may well face a military tribunal, where the death penalty is far easier to apply.

If you don't understand the difference between what happened in Abu Ghraib and what happens in basic training or, more especially, in fraternity hazing rituals, let me spell it out for you.

Joining the army or joining a fraternity is voluntary, and in the latter of the two examples, getting out of the situation is voluntary and the act is illegal. Got it?

When you're a POW, you don't haev the ability to get out of the situation, period. There's a hell of a difference between the two if you'll only open your eyes and recognize it, and to equate POW abuse with voluntary acts is insulting in the extreme.

Tell you what--if you don't think there's a difference, then let's have a stranger who doesn't speak your language sweep you up at gunpoint, keep you locked away from any contact with family or friends or legal counsel, and then proceed to mistreat you for a few weeks, all the while telling you that you could very well end up dead. Then tell me that you've been hazed.

If you don't understand the difference between what happened in Abu Ghraib and what happens in basic training or, more especially, in fraternity hazing rituals, let me spell it out for you.

Joining the army or joining a fraternity is voluntary, and in the latter of the two examples, getting out of the situation is voluntary and the act is illegal. Got it?

When you're a POW, you don't haev the ability to get out of the situation, period. There's a hell of a difference between the two if you'll only open your eyes and recognize it, and to equate POW abuse with voluntary acts is insulting in the extreme.

Tell you what--if you don't think there's a difference, then let's have a stranger who doesn't speak your language sweep you up at gunpoint, keep you locked away from any contact with family or friends or legal counsel, and then proceed to mistreat you for a few weeks, all the while telling you that you could very well end up dead. Then tell me that you've been hazed.
You obviously have never served in the military or been in a fraternity. Hazing and/or physical abuse by a fraternity or the military is part of the training. In the military you do not have the option of just "quitting." During the pledge process in a fraternity, there is so much pressure on you to not quit, because you will feel like you let your pledge brothers down. If you quit you are viewed as a "pussy." There were a few people who quit during hazing when I was a pledge, and even though i like them as people, they do not associate with me because they know they are not worthy. In the military or in a fraternity you are to some extent held against your will, because the consequences of quitting are not worth it.

Like I said, there is some stuff I see in the photographs that are unacceptable, but alot of it is not that bad and the people whop are pissed about the sleep deprevation need to cowboy the fuck up.

I've never heard of this guy before today, but we are glad to have him extradited here. About the death penalty, btw, I think EU policy is to extradite only if US prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty. That's fine, I guess. Just don't demand something like parole for this guy. Anything less than a life sentence for guys like him makes it hard for me to sleep soundly.

Not in the military, but I was in a fraternity, and went through every one of the rituals, and to compare what happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib to fraternity hazing--even at its very worst--is still complete and utter bullshit.

I've made my case. Fraternity members are never prisoners in fear for their lives and had the ability--as you conceded by saying that you knew pledges who quit--to leave the situation at any time. Prisoners in Abu Ghraib had every reason to think they weren't getting out alive and didn't have the option to leave. If you can't see that simple difference, then you're more far gone than even I thought.

On a side note, New Auburnland, you know I'm no prude when it comes to salty language, and I've used bb code to get around the censor to say fuck on occasion, but just to let you know I saw a mod earlier warning someone about getting around it that way. It's apparently against the rules, and as much as I disagree with you on issues, I wouldn't want to see you deated for something like that. Just giving you the heads up.

Not in the military, but I was in a fraternity, and went through every one of the rituals, and to compare what happened to prisoners in Abu Ghraib to fraternity hazing--even at its very worst--is still complete and utter bullshit.

I've made my case. Fraternity members are never prisoners in fear for their lives and had the ability--as you conceded by saying that you knew pledges who quit--to leave the situation at any time. Prisoners in Abu Ghraib had every reason to think they weren't getting out alive and didn't have the option to leave. If you can't see that simple difference, then you're more far gone than even I thought.
The way my university defines hazing is "anything that causes unwanted mental or physical discomfort." I would having to be put on a leash falls under that definetion. I have know of people in other fraternities forced into having anal sex with a goat. I have known of poeple having to hold golf tees with their teeth while the actives hit balls off them. There is the peer presure, from the actives, your pledge brothers, your family, and from the university's society to not quit. Recently at my university a pledge from another fraternity hung himself in his dorm because of this pressure. He could not just quit, in some respects in the same ways detainees cannot just quit.

I can see that there are some differances in what goes on at basic training or in a fraternity than what tactics are being used by MPs in Iraq, but the physical and mental abuse the detainees are being subjected to are not that bad.

Thanks for the Mod watch report.

he's gone. thats good.

I've never heard of this guy before today, but we are glad to have him extradited here. About the death penalty, btw, I think EU policy is to extradite only if US prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty. That's fine, I guess. Just don't demand something like parole for this guy. Anything less than a life sentence for guys like him makes it hard for me to sleep soundly.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I can assure you he is a very nasty piece of work. And yes, no EU country will extradite a suspect until it receives an assurance (in this case, the US) that the death sentence will not be imposed. We could have extradited him long ago to the Yemen but they would not agree to those terms.
I can also assure you that once he's over there, you'll hear alot about him. The reason he's not been arrested here is simply that, in law, he would be able to offer a decent defence. Why this has come about (and I'm certain that this has all been 'stitched up' between the US and GB) is because America now has evidence that he opened up a terror training camp in Oregon and some other violations of US law that he won't be able to evade, including the killing of four hostages.
I too wish we had put him in the nick for the rest of his life and thrown the key away but the law is the law....thank God.
As far as saying that you hope we don't ask for any parole or such-like, no. Once he's extradited, he's under full American juristiction and I think I can promise you the man will never be free again.

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3754651.stm

[You're a real class act, New Auburnland. So torture is okay as long as the public doesn't know about it? Does that mean that Saddam Hussein's real problem wasn't that he was a murderous psychopath but rather that it got out that he was a murderous psychopath?

Torture is torture no matter who's doing it--and if the US benefits from it, then we're just as guilty as the people who are putting the electrodes on the victims' genitalia. We are just as culpable as any other accessory.

I don't agree with Senator Lindsay Graham very often, but what he said after seeing the first images from Abu Ghraib is absolutely true. "If we're the good guys, then we've got to act like the good guys." If you want to live in a country that thinks it's okay to torture people or tries to excuse itself by allowing others to do so while pretending to be moral, fine--go live somewhere else.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I agree 100%.
But.
It has been common practice for a few decades now for the US and some other Western countries to hand over 'suspects' to nations like Syria and Turkey for 'interrogation'. The reason is, to use Auberns horrible but correct term 'deniability'. The moral case against this doesn't need to be stated but countries do it to achieve results that they, themselves, cannot get. It's sad to see Americans now resorting to doing it directly in Iraq and probably Cuba (the General flown in to Iraq to institute these new 'procedures' was in charge of Guantanamo). Let's just hope that the democratic investigations now going on lead to the end of that.

Its Auburn, not Aubern

2 Bits
4 Bits
6 bits
a Dollar
If you're for Auburn stand up and holler!
Waaaaaaaarrr Eagle, Hey!

I've never heard of this guy before today, but we are glad to have him extradited here. About the death penalty, btw, I think EU policy is to extradite only if US prosecutors promise not to seek the death penalty. That's fine, I guess. Just don't demand something like parole for this guy. Anything less than a life sentence for guys like him makes it hard for me to sleep soundly.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

I can assure you he is a very nasty piece of work. And yes, no EU country will extradite a suspect until it receives an assurance (in this case, the US) that the death sentence will not be imposed. We could have extradited him long ago to the Yemen but they would not agree to those terms.
I can also assure you that once he's over there, you'll hear alot about him. The reason he's not been arrested here is simply that, in law, he would be able to offer a decent defence. Why this has come about (and I'm certain that this has all been 'stitched up' between the US and GB) is because America now has evidence that he opened up a terror training camp in Oregon and some other violations of US law that he won't be able to evade, including the killing of four hostages.
I too wish we had put him in the nick for the rest of his life and thrown the key away but the law is the law....thank God.
As far as saying that you hope we don't ask for any parole or such-like, no. Once he's extradited, he's under full American juristiction and I think I can promise you the man will never be free again.

Read this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3754651.stm

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/27/hamza.indict/index.html) reports the UK did receive the promise that the death penalty would not be applied.

Interesting though that GB didn't take on the issue of the kidnapping and subsequent death of three of their subjects and one Aussie. Granted, it may have been the Yemeni rescuers bullets but under US law Hamza would still be liable since he created the need for their rescue.

All in all it will be good to see a successful prosecution in a court of law. It's good to get back to the rule of law.

SHL

[

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/27/hamza.indict/index.html) reports the UK did receive the promise that the death penalty would not be applied.

Interesting though that GB didn't take on the issue of the kidnapping and subsequent death of three of their subjects and one Aussie. Granted, it may have been the Yemeni rescuers bullets but under US law Hamza would still be liable since he created the need for their rescue.

All in all it will be good to see a successful prosecution in a court of law. It's good to get back to the rule of law.

SHL
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes but the attack was in the yemen, hence the fact that they wanted the original extradition. I'm no legal expert but we couldn't get him for it here, probably because the crime was commited in Yemen. Anyway, as you say, justice is coming to the bastard.

[

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/27/hamza.indict/index.html) reports the UK did receive the promise that the death penalty would not be applied.

Interesting though that GB didn't take on the issue of the kidnapping and subsequent death of three of their subjects and one Aussie. Granted, it may have been the Yemeni rescuers bullets but under US law Hamza would still be liable since he created the need for their rescue.

All in all it will be good to see a successful prosecution in a court of law. It's good to get back to the rule of law.

SHL
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Yes but the attack was in the yemen, hence the fact that they wanted the original extradition. I'm no legal expert but we couldn't get him for it here, probably because the crime was commited in Yemen. Anyway, as you say, justice is coming to the bastard.

I guess the difference is in our systems of justice. From what I've heard of the man he was quite a problem for the Brits and a facilitator to the Islamo Facists. Life in an Alaskan prison around Barrow would be fair enough. No need to kill the bastard.

SHL

This turd has been living off the state and preaching hate for so long and the UK government has been slack in solving the problem.
Its a shame that we havent got the b@lls to do this ourselves. So thank you USA. If he gets fried and the UK govt kicks up a fuss they need only consider that if theyd locked him up themselves the problem wouldn't have arisen.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/27/hamza.indict/index.html) reports the UK did receive the promise that the death penalty would not be applied.

Interesting though that GB didn't take on the issue of the kidnapping and subsequent death of three of their subjects and one Aussie. Granted, it may have been the Yemeni rescuers bullets but under US law Hamza would still be liable since he created the need for their rescue.

All in all it will be good to see a successful prosecution in a court of law. It's good to get back to the rule of law.

SHLIt's interesting, though, that while making the announcement, John Ashcroft specifically mentioned the death penalty, and the story at MSNBC.com said If convicted of the most serious charge — hostage taking — al-Masri, 47, could face the death penalty. But British Home Secretary David Blunkett said in a radio interview Thursday that an agreement with U.S. officials specified that in al-Masri’s case, “they will not carry out an execution.” The U.S. Justice Department would not confirm such an arrangement.

Can any of you from the UK tell me what the outcry will be if the US decides to go for the death penalty in this case? Will the outrage be directed at the US or at the Blair government or will there be any outrage at all?

Can any of you from the UK tell me what the outcry will be if the US decides to go for the death penalty in this case? Will the outrage be directed at the US or at the Blair government or will there be any outrage at all?

According to British law, he cannot be extradited if it is possible that he will face the death penalty. If assurances are given that he won't face the death penalty and he does then it will cause a serious diplomatic incident and may place the whole extradition treaty in jeopardy.

Can any of you from the UK tell me what the outcry will be if the US decides to go for the death penalty in this case? Will the outrage be directed at the US or at the Blair government or will there be any outrage at all?

According to British law, he cannot be extradited if it is possible that he will face the death penalty. If assurances are given that he won't face the death penalty and he does then it will cause a serious diplomatic incident and may place the whole extradition treaty in jeopardy.Glad to hear it. I imagine that Ashcroft was just talking tough for the sake of the cameras then.

Can any of you from the UK tell me what the outcry will be if the US decides to go for the death penalty in this case? Will the outrage be directed at the US or at the Blair government or will there be any outrage at all?

According to British law, he cannot be extradited if it is possible that he will face the death penalty. If assurances are given that he won't face the death penalty and he does then it will cause a serious diplomatic incident and may place the whole extradition treaty in jeopardy.Glad to hear it. I imagine that Ashcroft was just talking tough for the sake of the cameras then.
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~jeff/earthgifs/world.gif

Rest assured friends, the UK has been promised the death penalty will not be sought. And to the poster above (sorry, forgot name), it wasn't a case of GB not having the balls for the job. We just didn't have the reason (yet) to put him on trial. The Americans have the evidence that crimes have been commited against them both on American soil and to American targets abroad. I think Britain has shown balls enough in this 'war on terror', more than most. If we thought we could have got a successful prosecution, we would have. Why don't people read through threads before posting? I have already given the reasons he couldn't be prosecuted here.