Abu Hamza extradition backed by European Court
- Thread starter Draeger
- Start date
I certainly did not say that.
UK can't get rid of them until the decision is finalised. They can appeal apparently, so its not over.
Interesting that the court finds the idea of super long prison terms and solitary confinement acceptable.
I agree with the decision by the way, just seems a little out of character for that court...
Interesting that the court finds the idea of super long prison terms and solitary confinement acceptable.
I agree with the decision by the way, just seems a little out of character for that court...
i think they have compromised themselves for political reasons owing to the fact some euro jails are barbaric.
Fairy snuff
Sorry for aggressivnessitivity. (I'm just hoping to see the back of him ASAP - I don't care what happens to him, so long as I'm not paying for it. They should revoke his passport and send him to whoever wants him imho).
Fairy snuff
(I'm just hoping to see the back of him ASAP - I don't care what happens to him, so long as I'm not paying for it. They should revoke his passport and send him to whoever wants him imho).
Well, I kind of agree with that, up to a point. I don't know that I'd be happy sending him to a dodgy regime and his death, or to prison where he'd die within a year of dysentery. I'm not even that keen on America's prisons either. I do think how we treat the absolute worst of people is a reflection of how good a society we are... I think it's worthwhile to have all of the scumbags having the same rights as everybody else... because the state should never be able to throw anyone's rights out of the window...
My concern here though is none of the above, it's why it's taken so bleeding long for all these appeals and nonsense to go through, and we're not even finished yet.
Off to America he goes with my blessing, but I'm not yet willing to put a stamp of approval on Gitmo.
My Daily Mail comment was towards the relish people had towards his misfortune.
*I* think, that if you become a British citizen (because you want to live by the values this nation has) then fine, you should be able to become one if you actually want to live here as a British person (and can support yourself and family and there's room for you or whatnot) and not try to change it into wherever you'd rather live e.g. some Islamic nation, with Sharia law or whatever.
If, on the other hand you wish to destroy this nation and/or its people then you can GTFO, should gain no protection from the rest of the world and be sent on your merry little way, either back to the craphole you came from or international waters in the middle of nowhere and thrown overboard.
I have no idea why he's been held without trial for so long. I can only presume that the courts/legal bods like judges are too scared to try him/find him guilty of anything because they'll be killed by his supporters as soon as they've banged their gavel.
The whole situation is a complete mess and I just want rid of the poisonous little turd, and anyone like him. He should have had his citizenship revoked whenever it was they found all those passports at his house.
I agree with everything you've said, however the problem is we need to have laws that aren't open to opinion. We all agree he's a grade A ****, however that can't be a crime in itself.
We can't make it a crime to be anti-state, because then we'd have the government putting people in jail for disagreeing. People need to commit a crime to be guilty of something, and I think the fundamental difference between my opinion and other people is that I'd rather that an Abu Hamza walked free, than someone else went to jail for legally protesting against something valid.
In Abu Hamza's case though I don't understand why there is a difficulty, he's clearly broken the law. It's not as if he just disagrees with the way the country has been run, he's taken steps to facilitate and encourage terrorism.
This is exactly the Daily Mail attitude that I don't agree with. He may not deserve them in my opinion, or anyone else's in this thread, or indeed the country, but basic human rights should not be subject to removal under any circumstances.
me 3
Balls. He gave up his human rights when he became a terrorist!
Thats another discussion entirely isn't it though. Human rights are whatever we decide them to be so to use them as some sort of ultimate get out of jail free card is madness.
To me, human rights have always been an agreement. If you go and deprive others of their most basic rights such as the right to live then I cannot see how on earth you deserve them yourself.
The issue with disregarding human rights is that you can have miscarriages of justice but I firmly believe that there are plenty of cases where there is no doubt at all of a persons guilt and they should be punished accordingly.
I hate the idea that a societies treatment of their worst criminals reflects the goodness of a country. The people that need protecting are those that live within the law. If you look at human rights in this country they protect the criminal far more than the law abiding. Why have I never felt like my human rights are being infringed; because I live within the law and am able to provide for myself as a result of the compliance of the vast majority of the people that live in the UK.
Some things are unforgivable in my eyes and killing others or inciting others to do the same lies in that category. I cannot understand how people can defend a prisoners treatment if they have killed innocent people when there is no doubt of guilt.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,474
What are you talking about?
He had his appeal in front of the most senior human rights court in Europe.
They didn't find in his favour, so job done.
His rights haven't been interfered with.
Sooner he is gone sooner it saves on taxes.
I think it is disgraceful. Extraditing people just because they are criminals and terrorists.....
They should be given large taxpayer funded housing, have their living expenses funded and be allowed, nay, encouraged to spread their dissention and hatred....
Freedom of speech and the right to be offensive and all that jazz.....
They should be given large taxpayer funded housing, have their living expenses funded and be allowed, nay, encouraged to spread their dissention and hatred....
Freedom of speech and the right to be offensive and all that jazz.....
I sense some kind of an appeal via the human rights courts coming up which will of course be fully funded by the British tax payer. It would be far cheaper in the long run to get some MI6 agents to simply put a bullet in his head.
but its ok for our basic human rights to be put at risk by his hate preachings and promotion of death to western infidel speeches ? If he stays and through his actions radicalises a group of people who then go on to carry out acts of terror resulting in the deaths of innocents would you still be saying but its ok because we safe guarded his human rights even though the rights of those now dead people have been violated in the most obscene way ?