MPH Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Well, so long as we're signatories to it, we're kind of tied to adhering to the ECHR. And, despite what the more moronic section of the press say, that's not the case. Mass murder is still a crime, you still face trial and prosecution for inciting it etc. - Human rights simply mean the right to a fair trial and the right to not be tortured. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean you can't be taken in and held awaiting trial - it simply means you need to have a trial and be proven guilty prior to facing punishment. And that there is the problem. My point is simple, if someone is innocent until proven guilty, then they are presumed innocent. Until guilty. can they be held against their will? Surely that IS a form of punishment? , yet if the human rights laws are to be taken literally this IS violating their human rights. OR someone being taken in and held before their trial is an entirely legitimate process, We have every right to deport someone who is wanted on terrorism charges to the states., and they have every right to want to prosecute someone who has comitted crimes in or against that country. Then as a seperate issue altogether, is the need to address the alleged use of torture. Now dont get me wrong... God forbid that anyone would think I support the use of torture as a reason to extract information from someone... I find that utterly deplorable..... BUT for those wanting to meddle in USA's affairs and intervene in its political process and right to prosecute those ( allegedly) comitting crimes against their nation... Are these the same people who complain at the states ( and our) involvement in other nations and their affairs? ( Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran ect).. Im seeing a huge lack of consistency in some peoples opinions and there really does seem to be an anti-American agenda.
The Doctor Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 And that there is the problem. My point is simple, if someone is innocent until proven guilty, then they are presumed innocent. Until guilty. can they be held against their will? Surely that IS a form of punishment? , yet if the human rights laws are to be taken literally this IS violating their human rights. OR someone being taken in and held before their trial is an entirely legitimate process, We have every right to deport someone who is wanted on terrorism charges to the states., and they have every right to want to prosecute someone who has comitted crimes in or against that country. They can be, because they're being held on suspicion of committing a crime - then there's also the ability to hold certain suspects for a short while (I think it's 42 days) before pressing charges. I'm not sure on the legality of keeping them in custody awaiting trial - although I'd assume for some crimes, like Abu Hamza's, they're considered a possible threat to society and so can be kept awaiting trial. Your bit after the OR is the case, extradition is only really prevented if there's reasonable suspicion that they'd face torture. Or they run off and seek asylum somewhere. Then as a seperate issue altogether, is the need to address the alleged use of torture. Now dont get me wrong... God forbid that anyone would think I support the use of torture as a reason to extract information from someone... I find that utterly deplorable..... BUT for those wanting to meddle in USA's affairs and intervene in its political process and right to prosecute those ( allegedly) comitting crimes against their nation... Are these the same people who complain at the states ( and our) involvement in other nations and their affairs? ( Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran ect).. Im seeing a huge lack of consistency in some peoples opinions and there really does seem to be an anti-American agenda. Generally, those people don't want to tinker with the US's political process, they simply want to safeguard people from torture - which given Guantanamo bay's reputation is not an unreasonable fear. The difference with them and Iraq, Iran etc. is that the US' rulers are a lot more reasonable (who'd you want to negotiate with - Amadinajad or Obama?) and the whole torture thing can be dealt with in a boardroom where as with those nations, to stop the atrocities towards their people we'd need to resort to war. Which is what these people have an issue with and complain about.
MPH Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19716941 Yeah found that quite intresting when i read it...
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 And that there is the problem. My point is simple, if someone is innocent until proven guilty, then they are presumed innocent. Until guilty. can they be held against their will? Surely that IS a form of punishment? , yet if the human rights laws are to be taken literally this IS violating their human rights. OR someone being taken in and held before their trial is an entirely legitimate process, We have every right to deport someone who is wanted on terrorism charges to the states., and they have every right to want to prosecute someone who has comitted crimes in or against that country. Then as a seperate issue altogether, is the need to address the alleged use of torture. Now dont get me wrong... God forbid that anyone would think I support the use of torture as a reason to extract information from someone... I find that utterly deplorable..... BUT for those wanting to meddle in USA's affairs and intervene in its political process and right to prosecute those ( allegedly) comitting crimes against their nation... Are these the same people who complain at the states ( and our) involvement in other nations and their affairs? ( Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran ect).. Im seeing a huge lack of consistency in some peoples opinions and there really does seem to be an anti-American agenda. What the jibberish is this? You are innocent until proven guilty, but if there is sufficient evidence against someone to require a trial to prove guilt, then they can be held until a trial can be arranged, they may also be bailed, or put under house arrest. In the case of old hook hands, he was suspected of committing crimes in the US, we have extradition treaty with the US, he appealed that he was in danger of being tortured, it got rejected, he is now on his way to the US. Nobody is complaining about this, or saying it is not a good thing. What is a good thing is that people cannot be extradited into the hands of backwards violent regimes, where they will be tortured and or killed with out a fair trial. This wouldn't even have been an issue if it wasn't for the US's very dodgy practices and questionable human rights over the last few years, then he wouldn't have had leg to stand on. The fact is the US are torturing and detaining without trial suspected terrorists, which is illegal and wrong, and because of this Hamza was actually able to form a case that his human rights would be violated by the US.
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 What the jibberish is this? You are innocent until proven guilty, but if there is sufficient evidence against someone to require a trial to prove guilt, then they can be held until a trial can be arranged, they may also be bailed, or put under house arrest. In the case of old hook hands, he was suspected of committing crimes in the US, we have extradition treaty with the US, he appealed that he was in danger of being tortured, it got rejected, he is now on his way to the US. This wouldn't even have been an issue if it wasn't for the US's very dodgy practices and questionable human rights over the last few years, then he wouldn't have had leg to stand on. The fact is the US are torturing and detaining without trial suspected terrorists, which is illegal and wrong, and because of this Hamza was actually able to form a case that his human rights would be violated by the US. Can't agree with that, we can't get somebody to Sweden at the minute.
The Doctor Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Anyway, that last post was a bit too serious, so: It's Abu Hamster!
Nick Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Anyway, that last post was a bit too serious, so: It's Abu Hamster! He's had his other arm chopped in a Supermax prison though - a 2nd hook - the 'iron'-y.
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Can't agree with that, we can't get somebody to Sweden at the minute. He is not in our custody, it is out of our hands, if he was he would be extradited to Sweden that is why he is hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy. But this is exactly why these laws exist, to protect someone like Assange, who would not stand any chance of a fair trial in the US, if the US wanted to extradite him. (I know Sweden do, and not the US and that is a whole other thread) Assange has committed no crime in the US, but (if you believe the rumours) the US are prepared to create a new law for the express reason to punish Assange for embarrassing them, they are also (again rumours) prepared to torture him to find the source of the leaks. If that was proven to be the case then I would want the ECHR to step in a protect him from being subjected to an unfair trial and torture, now we don't know if any of that is true, and the US don't want to extradite Assange, and the ECHR is not stopping us from extraditing him to Sweden, so it really is an irrelevant comparison.
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 He is not in our custody, it is out of our hands, if he was he would be extradited to Sweden that is why he is hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy. But this is exactly why these laws exist, to protect someone like Assange, who would not stand any chance of a fair trial in the US, if the US wanted to extradite him. (I know Sweden do, and not the US and that is a whole other thread) Assange has committed no crime in the US, but (if you believe the rumours) the US are prepared to create a new law for the express reason to punish Assange for embarrassing them, they are also (again rumours) prepared to torture him to find the source of the leaks. If that was proven to be the case then I would want the ECHR to step in a protect him from being subjected to an unfair trial and torture, now we don't know if any of that is true, and the US don't want to extradite Assange, and the ECHR is not stopping us from extraditing him to Sweden, so it really is an irrelevant comparison. is for another thread, I agree with what you say btw, just really not sure on how any sort of extradition treaty can work when you base it on rumours of what someone else might do.
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 is for another thread, I agree with what you say btw, just really not sure on how any sort of extradition treaty can work when you base it on rumours of what someone else might do. Well in Hamza's case there was grounds for fear of torture, but the court ruled they were unfounded, so we can wave good bye to the wannabe pirate, in Assange's case there have been no official proceedings brought, because there has be no official extradition request from the US, if it did happen then it would be subject to the same scrutiny over any human rights violations as Hamza.
Guest MattP Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Well in Hamza's case there was grounds for fear of torture, but the court ruled they were unfounded, so we can wave good bye to the wannabe pirate, in Assange's case there have been no official proceedings brought, because there has be no official extradition request from the US, if it did happen then it would be subject to the same scrutiny over any human rights violations as Hamza. Which should be between Sweden and the USA.
Smudge Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 What the jibberish is this? You are innocent until proven guilty, but if there is sufficient evidence against someone to require a trial to prove guilt, then they can be held until a trial can be arranged, they may also be bailed, or put under house arrest. In the case of old hook hands, he was suspected of committing crimes in the US, we have extradition treaty with the US, he appealed that he was in danger of being tortured, it got rejected, he is now on his way to the US. Nobody is complaining about this, or saying it is not a good thing. What is a good thing is that people cannot be extradited into the hands of backwards violent regimes, where they will be tortured and or killed with out a fair trial. This wouldn't even have been an issue if it wasn't for the US's very dodgy practices and questionable human rights over the last few years, then he wouldn't have had leg to stand on. The fact is the US are torturing and detaining without trial suspected terrorists, which is illegal and wrong, and because of this Hamza was actually able to form a case that his human rights would be violated by the US. The dodgy practices you refer to, took place outside the United States. Abu Gharib for one and GITMO the other, all carried under military law for combatants. I am not aware of such practices in the last 7 years but having said that, I can't assume it's not being done. Suffice it to say that if he ECHR had any such doubts, I assume, they would have stopped the extraditions. I'd be fairly sure that if they are handed over to a place in the Contiguous United States they will be treated reasonably well unless they themselves kick off, in which case, they'll receive the same treatment that Barbar got when he was arrested in the UK. Didn't he suffer 70+ separate injuries from the arresting officers?
Captain... Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 The dodgy practices you refer to, took place outside the United States. Abu Gharib for one and GITMO the other, all carried under military law for combatants. I am not aware of such practices in the last 7 years but having said that, I can't assume it's not being done. Suffice it to say that if he ECHR had any such doubts, I assume, they would have stopped the extraditions. I'd be fairly sure that if they are handed over to a place in the Contiguous United States they will be treated reasonably well unless they themselves kick off, in which case, they'll receive the same treatment that Barbar got when he was arrested in the UK. Didn't he suffer 70+ separate injuries from the arresting officers? GITMO is still open, and people are still being held there by the US, I don't know when the last person was sent there, but regardless of its geographical location it is run and sponsored and maintained by the US, and it is just cause for an ECHR enquiry into the treatment of a prisoner. They are happy that Hamza's rights aren't going to be violated, but without GITMO then there would never have been cause for the ECHR to question.
Smudge Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 GITMO is still open, and people are still being held there by the US, I don't know when the last person was sent there, but regardless of its geographical location it is run and sponsored and maintained by the US, and it is just cause for an ECHR enquiry into the treatment of a prisoner. They are happy that Hamza's rights aren't going to be violated, but without GITMO then there would never have been cause for the ECHR to question. I understand that but it is controlled by the miltary. So depending on where they will be extradited to, in my opinion, will determine the treatment. At GITMO there is still no right to habeus corpus. So I'd have thought that the ECHR would have checked that out before they gave the green light. Therefore if they are detained in a non military prison, I'd say they'd have the rights of any other criminal suspect.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 25 September 2012 Author Posted 25 September 2012 Id like to see him bummed by a pig
Bob Weasel Fox Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 How does Abu Hamza wipe his arse? Carefully. Id like to see him bummed by a pig Id like to see him bummed by a pig lol
MPH Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 then he wouldn't have had leg to stand on. He is not in our custody, it is out of our hands, if he was he would be extradited to Sweden that is why he is hiding in the Ecuadorian Embassy. . Stop making fun of him! this is a serious case!
Jaspa Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 I myself, wouldn't want to see a middle aged Arabic man raped by a pig ( or police officer )
Guest Bilo Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Id like to see him bummed by a pig If they don't reshoot Black Mirror with Abu Hamza, they're missing a trick. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjfw5mr6fQ8
The Doctor Posted 25 September 2012 Posted 25 September 2012 Id like to see him bummed by a pig Entirely appropriate for them - maybe you should feed the pig to him afterwards?
Daggers Posted 26 September 2012 Posted 26 September 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404 Won't say anything else, I'll only get my wrist slapped by the forum cops. Tch. There was me thinking we'd declared war against someone else.
oxford blue Posted 26 September 2012 Posted 26 September 2012 Not such good news - this will drag on as another appeal is made: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19730438
Reynard Bleu Posted 27 September 2012 Posted 27 September 2012 We couldnt get Chris Tappin on a plane quick enough when the US wanted him. This twat is ripping the piss out the UK, just get rid, what's the worst that can happen?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.