Hamza going nowhere!
- Thread starter a1ex2001
- Start date
Sadly religion means different things to different people and while your understanding of islam is comendable many other followers of islam would disagree with you.
One of the Ten Commandments is 'Do Not Murder' it didn't stop the crusades being carried out in the name of the Christian God.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2008
- Posts
- 4,290
- Location
- North Sea
I thought this was the tale of his 1st encounter with a rounded doorknob when I started reading the OP.....
Why?
He'll be locked up in a harsher more secure American prison not free in a Muslim country...
No they aren't the EU shot down that part of their appeal and said they aren't concerned about the conditions of the prison (as it's a regular high security one) for abu, they are only admitting the appeal on the grounds of the length of the sentences.
Furry muff.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
Well sort of...
Something which must be bourne in mind is that a person is innocent until proven guilty and we would all want to be treated with natural justice if we were accused of doing something. The issue with many laws is that the are general in nature (and by design) in order that they may apply to varying factual scenarios.
The principle is that justice is blind, and must consider each issue on its merits. The decision that has been made was arrived at by a group of Judges who were privy to detailed and focussed argument and factual analysis.
On the basis of that, a decision is reached. Not all may agree with it, but until one has the benefit of considering all the evidence/facts it is very difficult to hold a properly reasonaed opinion on a particular case.
The European Convention on Human Rights (which set up the court) ensures that the citizens of all signatory states are afforded certain universal truths and values. As a signatory of this (as a member of The Council of Europe - NOT the EU) we must ensure this is true when dishing out legal remedies. This means that we are duty bound to ensure that any decision that is taken by British Courts complies with the values set out by the convention.
I suppose that's one reason why the ECHR hasn't been sought in the Mckinnon case as it's questionable if his conditions will be any worse than he would experience here. Though, if his medical conditions are true then I do not suspect that the ECHR will authorize his extradition.
I can type out the things which the ECHR sets out if you wish but you should be able to find it with a quick google but I appreciate law texts aren't awfully fun to read (and that's coming from a law student!)
Read the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, article 20.
Something which must be bourne in mind is that a person is innocent until proven guilty and we would all want to be treated with natural justice if we were accused of doing something. The issue with many laws is that the are general in nature (and by design) in order that they may apply to varying factual scenarios.
The principle is that justice is blind, and must consider each issue on its merits. The decision that has been made was arrived at by a group of Judges who were privy to detailed and focussed argument and factual analysis.
On the basis of that, a decision is reached. Not all may agree with it, but until one has the benefit of considering all the evidence/facts it is very difficult to hold a properly reasonaed opinion on a particular case.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2010
- Posts
- 1,537
- Location
- London
You would feel differently
That's all well and good until somebody realises there's been an error or mistake or simply that lies have been told. The Bloody Sunday report illustrates this point well, where various facts were held as accurate and true until the outcome of a report many years later.
A conviction simply means that on the basis of the facts as presented at the time that a person is considered to have committed a crime. On appeal this may change, or indeed new evidence may come to light. Where it does, the removal of or disregard for the human rights of the individual concered means that a significant injustice may have occured in the intervening period.
It cannot be right that if we are acting with moral propriety that human rights are relinquished purely because at a particular point in time guilt is ascribed to a certain individual based on particular information.
That's all well and good until somebody realises there's been an error or mistake or simply that lies have been told. The Bloody Sunday report illustrates this point well, where various facts were held as accurate and true until the outcome of a report many years later.
A conviction simply means that on the basis of the facts as presented at the time that a person is considered to have committed a crime. On appeal this may change, or indeed new evidence may come to light. Where it does, the removal of or disregard for the human rights of the individual concered means that a significant injustice may have occured in the intervening period.
It cannot be right that if we are acting with moral propriety that human rights are relinquished purely because at a particular point in time guilt is ascribed to a certain individual based on particular information.
