Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

[anonymous-user]

I see no agenda, other than a legitimate concern about the assertion of exorbitant jurisdiction by the US. I agree that extradition based on web hosting is troubling. This implies no support for jihadist websites. Trying to shout down discussion of this is not very British. We do not live in a McCarthyite or Stasi state in which any expression of dissent indicates disloyalty.

[anonymous-user]

Lordbenny said:

My cousin kicked him out personally (well, he put him on the plane) last night!

What fun! He can dine out on that one for a while.

[anonymous-user]

As to legal representation for Hamza in the US, if he is without funds, he will be assigned a Public Defender, paid for by the Federal Government. PDs are usually young, and not very good. Nutty Jihadis could club together to hire a lawyer for Hamza if they wish. Hamza's wife and family will not receive UK taxpayer funding to travel to visit him.

I mentioned before that Hamza's QC also acts for the Hillsborough families. He does not choose his clients. Hero today, villain tomorrow.

[theironduke]

Breadvan72 said:

Lordbenny said:

My cousin kicked him out personally (well, he put him on the plane) last night!

What fun! He can dine out on that one for a while.

Thats got to be worth a few pints!

Is your cousin a servant of this country or Uncle Sam? just out of interest

[RedTrident]

Lost_BMW said:

What was the nature of his website/the text he posted? Did it encourage or excuse violence against the west etc.?

I'm not defending his actions at all. Let me make that completely clear.

If I commit a crime in this country I expect to be put on trial in this country. That's really as far as my agenda on this goes.

I don't buy into this wider 'the West' legal jurisdiction that means US law has precedence.

[Ozzie Osmond]

RedTrident said:

If I commit a crime in this country I expect to be put on trial in this country. That's really as far as my agenda on this goes.

I don't buy into this wider 'the West' legal jurisdiction that means US law has precedence.

Your point is well made.

[Lost_BMW]

Breadvan72 said:

As to legal representation for Hamza in the US, if he is without funds, he will be assigned a Public Defender, paid for by the Federal Government. PDs are usually young, and not very good. Nutty Jihadis could club together to hire a lawyer for Hamza if they wish. Hamza's wife and family will not receive UK taxpayer funding to travel to visit him.

I mentioned before that Hamza's QC also acts for the Hillsborough families. He does not choose his clients. Hero today, villain tomorrow.

But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?

[Mermaid]

RedTrident said:

If I commit a crime in this country I expect to be put on trial in this country. That's really as far as my agenda on this goes.

I don't buy into this wider 'the West' legal jurisdiction that means US law has precedence.

Agreed - the UK government missed a trick here, and it will bite them at some stage. If Tony had said "No" to the Iraq war, would Bush have carried on?

[Lordbenny]

theironduke said:

Thats got to be worth a few pints!

Is your cousin a servant of this country or Uncle Sam? just out of interest

He's the top extradition copper over here, if your a foreign baddie he's got your number!

[anonymous-user]

Lost_BMW said:

Breadvan72 said:

As to legal representation for Hamza in the US, if he is without funds, he will be assigned a Public Defender, paid for by the Federal Government. PDs are usually young, and not very good. Nutty Jihadis could club together to hire a lawyer for Hamza if they wish. Hamza's wife and family will not receive UK taxpayer funding to travel to visit him.

I mentioned before that Hamza's QC also acts for the Hillsborough families. He does not choose his clients. Hero today, villain tomorrow.

But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?

A solicitor can choose his or her clients, and may act out of ideological conviction. Or, it may be just be a job, intended to generate money. People go on about lawyers charging for their services. I assume that those who complain about that do all their own work for free.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Lost_BMW said:

Breadvan72 said:

As to legal representation for Hamza in the US, if he is without funds, he will be assigned a Public Defender, paid for by the Federal Government. PDs are usually young, and not very good. Nutty Jihadis could club together to hire a lawyer for Hamza if they wish. Hamza's wife and family will not receive UK taxpayer funding to travel to visit him.

I mentioned before that Hamza's QC also acts for the Hillsborough families. He does not choose his clients. Hero today, villain tomorrow.

But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?

A solicitor can choose his or her clients, and may act out of ideological conviction. Or, it may be just be a job, intended to generate money. People go on about lawyers charging for their services. I assume that those who complain about that do all their own work for free.

No I charge for my work. It's just that I don't work for child molesters, rapists, or terrorists. People who do are universally scum.

[anonymous-user]

So, a person who has a legally enforceable professional obligation to work for whichever client comes through the door is scum?

Does he become scum only when the client is convicted, or is it enough for the client to be accused of something bad?

What about a prison doctor who attends a sick prisoner? Is the doctor scum?

[Oakey]

RedTrident said:

I'm not defending his actions at all. Let me make that completely clear.

If I commit a crime in this country I expect to be put on trial in this country. That's really as far as my agenda on this goes.

I don't buy into this wider 'the West' legal jurisdiction that means US law has precedence.

This is nothing new. See those websites that had links to torrents (TVShack?) and MegaUpload and the Kim DotCom case.

[Mr_B]

RedTrident said:

I don't doubt that there was just evidence to charge him with the crimes he's alleged to have commited. The simple fact is that he didn't commit any of these crimes in the USA.

The webpage that he set up from his London home was hosted in the States. That is the only link to why he's being extradited.

Hamza meanwhile is accused of setting up terrorist camps whilst he was in the USA. Completely different and justifiable reason why he should be extradited.

What about tha allegation he recieved classified military information on shipping movements of US vessels ? Should he not answer that in a US court ? Just because he may have been in London at the time, doesnt't to my mind mean he can do what the hell he likes thinking as long as he is not on US soil he is safe.
If his website also violated US law and they want him, they are welcome to him. He is actually going to the US to stand trial in court , and hasn't been convicted.

[Lost_BMW]

Breadvan72 said:

Lost_BMW said:

Breadvan72 said:

As to legal representation for Hamza in the US, if he is without funds, he will be assigned a Public Defender, paid for by the Federal Government. PDs are usually young, and not very good. Nutty Jihadis could club together to hire a lawyer for Hamza if they wish. Hamza's wife and family will not receive UK taxpayer funding to travel to visit him.

I mentioned before that Hamza's QC also acts for the Hillsborough families. He does not choose his clients. Hero today, villain tomorrow.

But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?

A solicitor can choose his or her clients, and may act out of ideological conviction. Or, it may be just be a job, intended to generate money. People go on about lawyers charging for their services. I assume that those who complain about that do all their own work for free.

My remark was predicated on the inferences one might make from their very 'agitist' website; 'seems more than a client-representative relationship based on money/it being a job and more a constant and active fight for the man based on some 'small p' political stance.

[TallbutBuxomly]

Mr_B said:

RedTrident said:

I don't doubt that there was just evidence to charge him with the crimes he's alleged to have commited. The simple fact is that he didn't commit any of these crimes in the USA.

The webpage that he set up from his London home was hosted in the States. That is the only link to why he's being extradited.

Hamza meanwhile is accused of setting up terrorist camps whilst he was in the USA. Completely different and justifiable reason why he should be extradited.

What about tha allegation he recieved classified military information on shipping movements of US vessels ? Should he not answer that in a US court ? Just because he may have been in London at the time, doesnt't to my mind mean he can do what the hell he likes thinking as long as he is not on US soil he is safe.
If his website also violated US law and they want him, they are welcome to him. He is actually going to the US to stand trial in court , and hasn't been convicted.

Mt take on this as well. If he set up a website in the US to raise funds for terrorism which would be used against the US and the west then the US have every right to try him in their court of law on terrorism charges.

[Oakey]

But when the US arm extremists in the Middle East who then use those weapons to kill Westerners, we just turn a blind eye to that?

[princeperch]

Lost_BMW said:

But what of the loyal solicitor who stuck with him for years?

she was last seen clinging to the landing gear of a certain plane in suffolk as it took off late last night shouting to someone on board that everything will be alright...











(this is not true but if it were it wouldn't surprise me)

[Drclarke]

Lordbenny said:

He's the top extradition copper over here, if your a foreign baddie he's got your number!

I'm intrigued. Were they put on the planes in chains, was it a chartered commercial aircraft?

[Drclarke]

Lordbenny said:

He's the top extradition copper over here, if your a foreign baddie he's got your number!

I'm intrigued. Were they put on the planes in chains, was it a chartered commercial aircraft?