Abu Hamza extradition halted .. again
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I am not sure, but think that Dewani might be detained in the UK pending possible extradition to South Africa to stand trial, but subject to assessment of his mental health. Incidentally, why describe Dewani as an Asian guy? Would you say "what happened to that Caucasian guy who was arrested for that thing"? Dewani was born in Bristol, so why not say "what happened to that guy from Bristol"? I am not accusing you of anything. I'm genuinely curious about the choice of words.
The suggestion made above about treating anyone accused of certain types of naughtiness as fit to be extradited and/or guilty on the basis that it's better to pot the innocent than let the guilty go free I took as made in jest. If it was a serious suggestion, it hardly needs answering, and has been answered above anyway. I wonder what "people like this" is supposed to mean.
Assange - still in the embassy taking the piss, last I heard.
You are correct in my describing him as Asian, as I didn't know he was British born and bred. I think the point was how he, the Bristol chap, developed a medical mental condition not long after being accused of something rather serious. In a similar vein to a British female former MP, again quickly suffering from some mental medical condition that prevents her from compensating the public purse of the £50k she was found guilty of lifting? The judge acknowledging public feelings by saying that it could be viewed she had got away with it , but has been dealt with within the terms of the law.The suggestion made above about treating anyone accused of certain types of naughtiness as fit to be extradited and/or guilty on the basis that it's better to pot the innocent than let the guilty go free I took as made in jest. If it was a serious suggestion, it hardly needs answering, and has been answered above anyway. I wonder what "people like this" is supposed to mean.
Assange - still in the embassy taking the piss, last I heard.
I understand the frustrations of toponepercent when viewing the above .
(Not really but there isn't one for mildly annoyed)Breadvan72 said:
Why do you guys object to this? The Court said that all the other beardies could go, but this guy has mental health issues, supported by medical evidence. I'm not a doctor. Are you guys doctors? Have you examined this bloke and found that he is OK to be extradited? Some doctors have examined the bloke, currently held in Broadmoor (that may give a clue as to his condition), and concluded the opposite. A court has thought about all the evidence, and made a decision. Why is that such a big deal?
That alleged computer hacker bloke isn't going to the US, either, and that decision wasn't even made by a court, but not that many people seem very upset about that.
Other threads claim that we are too soft on extradition to the USA, and hand over too many Brits to them (this guy is a Brit). There is particular upset, I gather, that some business dude was extradited to the US. He was accused, rightly or wrongly, of helping one of our worst enemies with tech that could be used for missiles. He may or may not have done the blag. He eventually pleaded guilty, whether for pragmatic reasons or otherwise. Sending him over was, however, considered a bad thing.
PH? Confused? Surely not!
Its an interesting point that occurs quite frequently on pistonheads. Courts and doctors don't interface well. There is quite a powerful argument that any terrorist could possibly have a mental health problem.That alleged computer hacker bloke isn't going to the US, either, and that decision wasn't even made by a court, but not that many people seem very upset about that.
Other threads claim that we are too soft on extradition to the USA, and hand over too many Brits to them (this guy is a Brit). There is particular upset, I gather, that some business dude was extradited to the US. He was accused, rightly or wrongly, of helping one of our worst enemies with tech that could be used for missiles. He may or may not have done the blag. He eventually pleaded guilty, whether for pragmatic reasons or otherwise. Sending him over was, however, considered a bad thing.
PH? Confused? Surely not!
Edited by Breadvan72 on Tuesday 16th April 13:05
Its a bit like a similar review of the homeless tramps that said 90% of them had a mental health problem.
It all stems from the idea that the mental health services have no objective means of assessing madness. Phobia, delusion, hallucination, persecutory ideation are all subjective. Although the Courts want a answer to the question of 'Mad or Bad', and on the face of it that is a very sensible request. I suggest its almost impossible to give with any certainty. This is even more acute when the patient has something to gain or lose.
I remember being a young medical student at a place called hyroids up in leeds. A large old fashoined institution with various long stay inmates. Walking down a corridor, it was impossible to tell the staff from the inmates unless you had been there long enough to remember faces. This was compounded by the psychiatrist in charge of us who had a perchant for deciding on the day whether we would interview a real patient or a staff member doing role play. There were also well known patients who you could sit and have a cup of tea with in the canteen, only to find tham acting in a completely contrary way if they were being interview for possible release. I assume this was because they had anxiety about release or had just made the decision they were going to subvert the process because they didn't want release.
In the more high profile public cases, there is more than a suspicious that politics plays at least a part in influencing the decision, as well as a number of other factors which probably make the mad, or bad question a bit blurry to say the least.
How do politics influence a decision of this kind? US policy may influence its reluctance to co-operate with what it regards as lesser legal systems, and in particular its reluctance to give the assurances that would be needed in order to extradite this beardy, but UK politics don't appear to have much bearing here. A Labour Home Secretary approved the extradition, and a Tory Home Secretary has agreed that the beard should go. The UK Courts agreed also. An international court, composed of various Judges including one Brit Judge, has said that the beard can't go, because he is a loony, and the Feds won't give assurances about how they will deal with him being a loony if they get him.
I have done a fair bit of medico-legal stuff, including mental health stuff, and although I take your point about how mental illness is diagnosed and classified, I would say that courts and doctors can rub along pretty well most of the time.
I have done a fair bit of medico-legal stuff, including mental health stuff, and although I take your point about how mental illness is diagnosed and classified, I would say that courts and doctors can rub along pretty well most of the time.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 19th April 06:30
Somewhere down the line a doctor made the diagnosis of loony using subjective criteria. He did that knowing the weight of the worlds legal system was staring at him.
At this Hyroids place the consultant psychiatrist use to insist we sat in on MDT meetings. Pretty much a meeting where every health professional turned up and had a say. There was often conflict regarding a diagnosis, and sometimes these became quite heated.
After a particularly heated meeting I asked how we were expected to give opinions on a persons mental state as a student when even people who had been doing this for years often had differing opinions on any particular case. As far as i can remember his answer was 'Everyone has an opinion, but some peoples opinions are worth more than others'. Therefore the degree to which a diagnosis in the mental health field is subjective is to my mind at the very extreeme of science.
To put it another way the standard questions we needed to ask involved leading questions such as 'Do you hear voices when no one is around', 'Do you ever see things that other people can't'
On the basis that you are a terrorist, and not mad, and by answering questions such as these you will be making a active decision whether you go to America or stay here. How would you answer?
The lack of interface relates to the difference in motive between doctors and lawyers. Lawyers ask pointed clever questions to get the answers they want out of the people they question. Doctors ask unacceptably leading questions, and open ended questions which make the assumption the patient has no motive other than to improve.
At this Hyroids place the consultant psychiatrist use to insist we sat in on MDT meetings. Pretty much a meeting where every health professional turned up and had a say. There was often conflict regarding a diagnosis, and sometimes these became quite heated.
After a particularly heated meeting I asked how we were expected to give opinions on a persons mental state as a student when even people who had been doing this for years often had differing opinions on any particular case. As far as i can remember his answer was 'Everyone has an opinion, but some peoples opinions are worth more than others'. Therefore the degree to which a diagnosis in the mental health field is subjective is to my mind at the very extreeme of science.
To put it another way the standard questions we needed to ask involved leading questions such as 'Do you hear voices when no one is around', 'Do you ever see things that other people can't'
On the basis that you are a terrorist, and not mad, and by answering questions such as these you will be making a active decision whether you go to America or stay here. How would you answer?
The lack of interface relates to the difference in motive between doctors and lawyers. Lawyers ask pointed clever questions to get the answers they want out of the people they question. Doctors ask unacceptably leading questions, and open ended questions which make the assumption the patient has no motive other than to improve.
Relax, he'll be out soon enough with care in the community to help support him. Its not like terrorists get an easy ride in the UK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saajid_Badat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saajid_Badat
I belive the crux of the issue is that Mr Joe Public is highly suspicious of people claiming a mental state issue shortly after getting caught for doing something the shouldn't and the Medicals not being able to agree to the condition (see above) with the defendandt receiving strong intelligent support from his legals.
It can be argued that terrorists are mad, but similarly you could say the same for paedo's and a whole raft of other non desirables, such as individuals who put at risk killing their 6 children for the sake of a larger house/increased benefits (was that really the plan of a sane man).
I am at a loss to see how to improve it without a draconian approach, but hey if there was a referendum for excluding the "mental" issue for terrorists I think it would get sufficient support.
(Edited for spelling)
It can be argued that terrorists are mad, but similarly you could say the same for paedo's and a whole raft of other non desirables, such as individuals who put at risk killing their 6 children for the sake of a larger house/increased benefits (was that really the plan of a sane man).
I am at a loss to see how to improve it without a draconian approach, but hey if there was a referendum for excluding the "mental" issue for terrorists I think it would get sufficient support.
(Edited for spelling)
Edited by e600 on Wednesday 17th April 14:43
Anders Breivik is another chap who actually had to try quite hard to prove he wasn't insane. By the most rudimenty of catch 22 situations it was probably the biggest evidence of a dimished capacity.
Possibly the public misconception stems from the idea that insane and stupid are co-incident, when the reverse is often true.
Possibly the public misconception stems from the idea that insane and stupid are co-incident, when the reverse is often true.
And now (back on thread, im afraid...) his defence is claiming he worked for MI5 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27321235
Genius move IMO. If the UK government say he didn't, the defence will come back with "Yeah, but, no, but, you would say that."
Genius move IMO. If the UK government say he didn't, the defence will come back with "Yeah, but, no, but, you would say that."
Every so often I re-read Joseph Conrad's "The Secret Agent". It's as brilliant and topical now as it was when first published many decades ago. Highly recommended to anyone who hasn't read it, not least for the portrayal of the agent provocateur who poses as an anarchist but is really an Imperial Russian (or possibly Imperial German) spy in late C19 London, and the assorted ragbag of terrorists and revolutionary ranters that surround him. There's also a fine world weary Victorian anti-terrorist copper called Inspector Heat, and many other great characters.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th May 15:40
CoolHands said:
I think people like this should be deported / extadited / whatever, on the basis that so what if we get a few wrong, as long as most are right? There's enough s
t to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.
get rid of him and move on
You might feel differently if you were the one they got wrong.t to worry about in this world without spending 8 years deciding if someone is really schizo or not.get rid of him and move on
Guilty......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27478998
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been found guilty of supporting terrorism by an American court.
He was accused of conspiring to aid organisations like al-Qaeda.
Prosecutors at the court in New York said Abu Hamza - who was tried as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa - assisted the kidnappers of 16 tourists in Yemen in 1998 and attempted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon.
The 56-year-old had denied the charges.
However Manhattan Attorney Preet Bharara said: "The defendant stands convicted, not for what he said, but for what he did."
The Islamist preacher came to prominence in the UK for his fiery sermons outside Finsbury Park mosque; in one he praised the 11 September hijackers.
He was extradited to the US in 2012 after having been jailed for seven years for inciting murder and race hate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27478998
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been found guilty of supporting terrorism by an American court.
He was accused of conspiring to aid organisations like al-Qaeda.
Prosecutors at the court in New York said Abu Hamza - who was tried as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa - assisted the kidnappers of 16 tourists in Yemen in 1998 and attempted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon.
The 56-year-old had denied the charges.
However Manhattan Attorney Preet Bharara said: "The defendant stands convicted, not for what he said, but for what he did."
The Islamist preacher came to prominence in the UK for his fiery sermons outside Finsbury Park mosque; in one he praised the 11 September hijackers.
He was extradited to the US in 2012 after having been jailed for seven years for inciting murder and race hate.
munroman said:
Guilty......
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27478998
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been found guilty of supporting terrorism by an American court.
He was accused of conspiring to aid organisations like al-Qaeda.
Prosecutors at the court in New York said Abu Hamza - who was tried as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa - assisted the kidnappers of 16 tourists in Yemen in 1998 and attempted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon.
The 56-year-old had denied the charges.
However Manhattan Attorney Preet Bharara said: "The defendant stands convicted, not for what he said, but for what he did."
The Islamist preacher came to prominence in the UK for his fiery sermons outside Finsbury Park mosque; in one he praised the 11 September hijackers.
He was extradited to the US in 2012 after having been jailed for seven years for inciting murder and race hate.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Oh now that has cheered me up.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-27478998
Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza has been found guilty of supporting terrorism by an American court.
He was accused of conspiring to aid organisations like al-Qaeda.
Prosecutors at the court in New York said Abu Hamza - who was tried as Mustafa Kamel Mustafa - assisted the kidnappers of 16 tourists in Yemen in 1998 and attempted to build a terrorist training camp in Oregon.
The 56-year-old had denied the charges.
However Manhattan Attorney Preet Bharara said: "The defendant stands convicted, not for what he said, but for what he did."
The Islamist preacher came to prominence in the UK for his fiery sermons outside Finsbury Park mosque; in one he praised the 11 September hijackers.
He was extradited to the US in 2012 after having been jailed for seven years for inciting murder and race hate.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff