Abu Hamza Extradition

You know, this is one of those tough cases whih rather test one\’s devotion to civil liberties. That Abu-Hamza\’s a bad \’un is, I think, beyond doubt. However:

Abu Hamza al-Masri can be extradited to the United States, a judge ruled yesterday – three and a half years after the extremist preacher was arrested on a “fast-track” warrant.

Not happy about that. For, you see, he\’s a British citizen. Yes, I know, he may have got that through a bigamous marriage but the solution there is to prove that and then strip him of that citizenship.

Hugo Keith, representing the US Government, told the court that the cleric had been involved in “blatant violence, kidnapping and terrorist training”. Mr Keith said: “The general allegation is that Hamza is a member of a global conspiracy to wage jihad against the US and other western countries. He advocates the defence of Islam through violent, unlawful and armed aggression against the enemies of Islam in order to influence the US government.”

He may well be, I think the allegations (for whatever tiny amount my opinions are worth) probably are true. But, you see, in a free country, it is up to you to show that you have sufficient evidence for trial before you whisk him off to another country to try him. Whether or not he should be a British citizen, whether or not he will remain one, are not the issues: he is at present one and so should be afforded the protection of the State.

Yes, even though we\’ve got a law allowing these fast track extraditions: we shouldn\’t have that law is the point.

As Larry Flynt said about freedom of speech (wasn\’t it?), that\’s the whole point of such laws. If they\’ll protect bastards like me then you can be sure that they\’ll protect you, too.

I\’ve no problem with Abu Hamza being extradited, no hassle with the idea that he\’ll likely spend the rest of his life in jail, whether in Yemen or the US. All I want is that he gets the same treatment I would want for myself: that before extradition those doing the extraditing show that they have reasonable evidence for a trial.

Not this fast track shit.

12 thoughts on “Abu Hamza Extradition”

  1. They do have to show reasonable evidence, Tim. They have to show that the person requested is the person to be hand-cuffed and put on a plane. That this has to be enunciated in the law speaks volumes about the Government’s attitude to us all.

    This extradition – or rendition, as it should be properly called – is a scandal. His alleged crimes in the US are also crimes here, yet we render him to the US because it can cut corners to get a conviction (or, indeed, not even bother with a conviction and simply throw him into Gitmo).

  2. “the solution there is to prove that and then strip him of that citizenship”: why has no one troubled to do that?

  3. Are you sure about this, does that mean someone not of British Citizenship, or who was never a British Citizen, is chucked on a plane and flown off to a country where they’ll promptly get their head chopped off, and perhaps tortured beforehand ?

    I’d rather think civil liberty is about making sure they get a fair trial, if that can be done in another country then doesn’t that fulfill the obligation in any case ? Why waste time and money proving him guilty if they are going to do it all over again (and probably to a better standard) in the US ?

  4. The idea that anyone can get a fair trial in the US is questionable. The idea that a hook-handed Islamist can get a fair trial in the US is frankly risible.

  5. You not down wit’ de war on terra den?

    Tim adds: It’s far too close to the war on civil liberties for my liking.

  6. “The idea that anyone can get a fair trial in the US is questionable.”

    I wonder if, somewhere, O.J. Simpson is nodding thoughtfully at that comment?

  7. Why fast track – he ain’t goin nowhere!

    Even if it is Abu Hamster, I think due process should be performed – if only to avoid yet another disingenuous stance by Islamists over human rights.

  8. So Much For Subtlety

    Sorry but three years is fast track? Why? I would be more concerned about the existance of a slow track to extradition. Why not abolish that instead?

    The real crime here is that the legal system is in the hands of the lawyers who are doing everything they can to milk the system of every penny they can get. Which is why it takes three bloody years to extradite someone. Why British courts have refused for a decade to extradite terrorists to France, of all places. Why Islamist terrorists have escaped justice in Italy because they delayed extradition for so long the statute of limitations expired.

    Justice is not served by these long drawn out processes. Lawyers are. We need faster legal decisions and less money flowing to Chambers.

    And of course leaving the EU and the UN would be good too.

  9. Pingback: Longrider » 56 Days - First Salvo

  10. “war on” is the biggest lie going.. Whether on terror drugs or global warming its just a phony phrase. Let’s get real please. Politicians are second rate buffoons who couldn’t run a piss up in a brewery… That is why they are politicians and not wealthy business men or women. Discuss.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *