Same solution as allways. The US shouldn't seek the death penalty. Convict him of whatever and dump him in general population of a max security prison where all of the inmates know exactly who he is and what he's done.
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry
If what he said wasn't enough to convict him here, then it wouldn't be enough to seal an extradition.
His extradition is obviously on the evidence that he has been involved in terrorism, something we've known for a long time, or something we should have known. So why not just trial him on whatever the Americans have used to extradite him?
The purpose of extradition is that coutry A has evidence to pursue someone they believe committed a crime against them, but that is residing in country B. Country A would like custody of that person to try them in Country A.
We obviously don't have the evidence that he has committed a crime against the UK.
Since the crime in question is international terrorism, he is automatically in breach of UK anti-terrorism laws. The only reason he was deported to America is because of the sorry state of our legal system.Originally Posted by Trooth
You have to have some evidence of his terrorism. You have to show how he contravened our terrorism laws. You can't just point the finger and yell terrorist. You have to show the flow of money, conspiracy etc.
The US apparently had that evidence. More than likely they don't want ot share the detail with us because it is all clandestine as to how they got it. Also, if the attack was on the US then that is who should try him (ideally). That way the Yanks get to feel that he is answering to their justice. That is somewhat the point of extradition.
Regardless of who this bloke is and what he has done, there are processes to be followed. Look at what has happened when we have been over zealous in prosecuting "terrorists" in the past 30 years. Do we want more Birmingham Sixes and Guidlford Fours?
All legal proceedings need evidence. You can't extradict a man in the absence of evidence, its no different to a UK terrorism trial.You have to have some evidence of his terrorism. You have to show how he contravened our terrorism laws. You can't just point the finger and yell terrorist. You have to show the flow of money, conspiracy etc.
The US apparently had that evidence. More than likely they don't want ot share the detail with us because it is all clandestine as to how they got it. Also, if the attack was on the US then that is who should try him (ideally). That way the Yanks get to feel that he is answering to their justice. That is somewhat the point of extradition.
This man has never left UK in the last couple of years, because he knows on return he may be refused entry. Therefore he is not covered under US law, only by the laws of the nation he lives in.
Birmingham six was totally different, this guy openly admires terrorists and on many occasions has publically threatened suicide missions if his conditions were not met. That alone, is in violation of UK law. Extraditing him to the US was just a way of getting him off our hands, nothing else.
The UK has removed his British citizenship in a bid to expel him. However the charges he currently faces are largely to do with some organsaition or other in Bly, Oregon, US.
Dident he start an "American Jihad" base there in the late 90's?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: