Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again

[Soovy]

Apache said:

Breadvan72 said:

My professional life would be a lot easier if people like Hamza did not have safeguards available to them, but they do, and I think that they should, even though his interests are adverse to those of my client Brenda.

I reiterate that I do think that Hamza abused the system, and I am critical of his lawyers for aiding him, but I don't go so far as to say that he should have had no process, and no representation, and we have to recall that he is not yet convicted of the charges made against him in the US. He may well be convicted, and I won't be sorry if he gets a stiff sentence.

I do not oppose Supermax prisons. I do oppose doing whatever our enemies do because they do it to us. One reason why we deserve to win (and I think we will win) is that we are better than they are.

Would I be correct in saying that the lengths exhausted by Hamza's legal team mean that the next terrorist or hate filled scumbucket will just go straight to wherever he came from or wants him?

No.

They'll have the same rights of appeal, although one suspects that Madge might have had a word and things will move along somewhat more expeditiously.

I can quite imagine that the Judge on decision day last week got a call on the morning of the decision.

Judge's wife said:

I've got HM The Queen on the phone, dear. Something about today's case.........

[anonymous-user]

I do not believe that there is an over arching Al Qeda conspiracy against us. I think there are many disparate group of nutters, some more effective and dangerous than others. Hamza might, however, be steered along by cleverer people. He was probably at least shrewd enough to see that playing the system would pish us all off.

Qatada seems a bit cleverer than Hamza. OBL himself was reputedly no slouch, and the guys who did 911 were pretty switched on, in a very bad cause. Contrary to urban myth, they included licensed commercial pilots. The problem for the beardo-nutters is that the best teams in that game can only be deployed once.

[James P]

Breadvan72 said:

I often wonder whether those most critical here of the legal system have had much personal interaction with it, or have met many lawyers or Judges. Taking views of the system from the popular media can be distorting. The system is far from perfect, but compares well with what I have seen in Europe and elsewhere.

Of course, there are plenty of lawyers who are tosspots, but a fair few who aren't. Naturally, I strive for tosspottery in all that I do, but I sometimes fall short and do something useful by accident.

Same applies to most professions. Find one you dislike or who (you have been told) has done something you dislike and tar all with the same brush. Avoids the difficulty of actually having to think.

[Murph7355]

Apache said:

Would I be correct in saying that the lengths exhausted by Hamza's legal team mean that the next terrorist or hate filled scumbucket will just go straight to wherever he came from or wants him?

No. Quite the contrary IMO. Now that the path has been exposed, expect every ne'er-do-well to try to take it.

I agree with breadvan in that people should have the right to a defence. We simply need to tweak that to note how far it will be provided. As I've noted before, allowing ECHR interference is a step too far IMO. Beyond that, one appeal for each side should be all that is needed.

The govt need to implement change quickly to avoid this happening again.

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

I do not believe that there is an over arching Al Qeda conspiracy against us. I think there are many disparate group of nutters, some more effective and dangerous than others. Hamza might, however, be steered along by cleverer people. He was probably at least shrewd enough to see that playing the system would pish us all off.

Qatada seems a bit cleverer than Hamza. OBL himself was reputedly no slouch, and the guys who did 911 were pretty switched on, in a very bad cause. Contrary to urban myth, they included licensed commercial pilots. The problem for the beardo-nutters is that the best teams in that game can only be deployed once.

I tend to agree with this too - the clever part is that it's an ideology. Doesn't really need leaders in the traditional sense, which makes it all the harder to fight and undermine. This is something the US and UK govts fail to grasp when they engage traditional military approaches. The only way to kill it is from within - families, friends and associates of the extremists need to educate and if necessary expose.

I'd disagree with them only being able to engage their best exponents once (though appreciate this was being humorous ). I am fairly certain that the next attacks won't be quite so suicidal (in the same vein anyway). Bringing our system to its knees does not need one to die IMO. Technology advances are our biggest strength and weakness. Imagine the chaos if a particular flavour of beard were to focus their attention on causing harm...

[tubbystu]

Murph7355 said:

I'd disagree with them only being able to engage their best exponents once (though appreciate this was being humorous ). I am fairly certain that the next attacks won't be quite so suicidal (in the same vein anyway).

Unfortunately it is all about martyrdom, and thus getting your 240 virgins............

[anonymous-user]

Steady on, you only get 70. Also, according to some scholars, it's a mistranslation, and you get 70 raisins instead.

[drivin_me_nuts]

Breadvan72 said:

Steady on, you only get 70. Also, according to some scholars, it's a mistranslation, and you get 70 raisins instead.

Well then, the American approach of wanting to pass a few but different sort of currents through them, in some circles might be considered to be 'foreplay'.

[anonymous-user]

Arf!

I must say that 70 raisins is pretty tempting. If you wanted me to fly a jet into a tall building, I wouldn't do it for peanuts.

[Marf]

Not even chocolate covered peanuts?

[anonymous-user]

You are Satan AICMFP.



PS: did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?

[Marf]

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

You are Satan AICMFP.



PS: did you hear about the dyslexic devil worshipper who sold his soul to Santa?

Or the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up all night wondering if there is a dog?

(breadvan - I hope for your clients' sake that your legal prowess is better than your joke repertoire )

[Murph7355]

Breadvan72 said:

Steady on, you only get 70. Also, according to some scholars, it's a mistranslation, and you get 70 raisins instead.

Can you imagine the disappointment when they get to the pearly gates and realise they were had (both on the virgin/raisin front and also ending up at the pearly gates ).

[Marf]

[anonymous-user]

Murph7355 said:

(breadvan - I hope for your clients' sake that your legal prowess is better than your joke repertoire )

Well, the Judge always laughs whenever I say anything....

[kowalski655]

And vice versa.. the Judge is ALWAYS hilarious

[zcacogp]

Breadvan72 said:

OBL himself was reputedly no slouch

OBL was, by all accounts, a very sharp player indeed. (And meant to be a very amiable guy to meet, as well!) Every inch the perfect gentleman, in many ways.


Oli.

[Mr_B]

Not a good week for Mrs Hamza either, she has been asked to move out of her 5 bed council home to something smaller now

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

Here are sone serious questions for you, Top One Per Cent.

At what point must a lawyer decline to represent someone?

At the point they become a convicted terrorist would seem to be more than enough. Put another way - who wouldn't you represent? Myra Hindley? Gary Glitter?

This explanation is tantamount to a concentration camp guard stating "Well who else would guard the prisoners? They can't guard themselves". The time to decline work is the time it becomes morally reprehensible at the latest, not once you think you've made as much money as you can out of the job.

Breadvan72 said:

Hamza was convicted of offences in the UK and sentenced for those offences. He is now accused of further offences, of which he may be guilty, but he has not yet been convicted of those. Must he have no representation, because he has unpleasant views and a bad reputation?

A bad reputation? He's been convicted of terrorist activities in which British people have died. You see no wrong in his lawyer stringing out his extradition for 8 years?! It is this kind of moral terpitude that is destroying the country.

Breadvan72 said:

Two lawyers in New York have been appointed to defend him. Are they really acting in a manner comparable to an SS guard at Dachau? Staying with Nuremberg analogies for the moment, should the Nazi Defendants simply have been hanged without trial, or not allowed to be represented?

No, they should have been shot. Put another way, what value to justice do you feel the Nazi defendants lawyers added?

Breadvan72 said:

Mark Bridger is accused of murdering a child. He may be guilty, but we don't know if he is. Must he be unrepresented because he is accused of a particularly unpleasant crime?

Upon conviction? Yes!! If not then, when?

Breadvan72 said:

Due process is a bulwark of a civilised society. Do we only allow due process to people we approve of?

Only so far as it is in the interests of justice and not one step beyond. Handza's legal case bore no resemblance to justice.

Breadvan72 said:

I happen to agree that some (not all) of the lawyers who act for alleged terrorists play the system, and they may do so for cynical reasons associated either with ideology or with money, but does abuse of a system invalidate the system?

The systems inability to provide justice is wholly due to the people working within it now and in the past. Yes, the system is invalid, and should be replaced if it cannot be reformed.

Breadvan72 said:

Imagine that you were falsely accused of a heinous crime. It does happen - look at the landlord of Jo Yeates, or the chap whose DNA was confused with that of a rapist. Who would you turn to, to assist you through the trial process?

If I was convicted, several times of several different murders, I would not expect the state to be picking up the tab on my appeals. Squealing about the unfairness of facing the consequences of your actions shows a distinctly un-British lack of testicular fortitude.