[Organ]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
a floppy disk containing a password-protected document containing a detailed description of the US Fifth Fleet, its ships, the date and time of its expected passage through the Straits of Hormuz, and that it was vulnerable to attack by "RPG" (rocket-propelled grenade).

Haha, good luck sinking the most powerful fleet in the world by standing on the side of the sea with an RPG, this isn't ****ing GTA!!

[Iqbal007]

(Original post by gm15)
Well his website kind of advocates terrorism... meaning he advocates terrorism. Makes him a terrorist by your own definition.
He had a disk with details of the US fifth fleet and when it would be in the strait of hormuz and its weakness. The info came from a US sailor who was arrested for passing on the info so if him passing on the info was a crime then receiving it must be too.
The guy i saw online said ahmad's site seems to have a "direct line" to major terrorists.

As for extradition:
The site is stored in the US so he is bound to their laws and so illegal content on a US site means a trial there.
If the facebook guy came here and remotely made it illegal under US law then he'd be charged there as that,s where the data is.
The crime of passing on the 5th fleet info started there. I don't know how ahmad got it but it was an on going crime started in the US with the US being a potential target.
That's just from a quick search

Depends on how someone sees it..........people have the right to support whoever they may want...........but to say they support terrorism is a complicated issue. Because from the news, im hearing about videos being put up showing fighting in Chechen ,etc.
I can't be sure about this 'disk' because if it was the case then why wasn't he prosecuted here because it would be enough evidence.
Did this guy provide evidence for this? You cant just believe what you see without reading.........I could also create a website for one purpose yet people can hijack it.

Well how from a normal consumers point of view, you buy the site and have a server for it by directly buying it from another firm which then decide where to place it. Also the other issue is what is illegal content some cases it obvious, others it is ambiguous like here.
And action of something illegally being done is physically in another country.

[RabbitCFH]

Because Britain likes to suck U.S. dick.

[nosaer]

(Original post by gm15)
Well his website kind of advocates terrorism... meaning he advocates terrorism. Makes him a terrorist by your own definition.
He had a disk with details of the US fifth fleet and when it would be in the strait of hormuz and its weakness. The info came from a US sailor who was arrested for passing on the info so if him passing on the info was a crime then receiving it must be too.
The guy i saw online said ahmad's site seems to have a "direct line" to major terrorists.

As for extradition:
The site is stored in the US so he is bound to their laws and so illegal content on a US site means a trial there.
If the facebook guy came here and remotely made it illegal under US law then he'd be charged there as that,s where the data is.
The crime of passing on the 5th fleet info started there. I don't know how ahmad got it but it was an on going crime started in the US with the US being a potential target.
That's just from a quick search

If his website was illegal or he was a terrorist, the UK authorities would have found him guilty. They released him without charge. As far as UK law goes, he is innocent.

He says himself:

"I absolutely refute reject any allegation that I supported terrorism in any way in any place whether in Afghanistan, or Chechnya, or any other part of the world. I believe terrorism to be wrong and I believe the targeting and killing of innocent people to be wrong."

He should be put on trial. But he should be put on trial in the UK under our own laws.

[gm15]

(Original post by nosaer)
Well that's the problem there. America can claim to have some evidence, yet don't need to show any of it for him to be extradited. That is totally wrong and unjust.

Im sure a lot of countries want to prosecute British nationals under laws they have using evidence only they have - it doesn't mean we piss all over our sovereignty and disown one of our own.

And then you only need to look at America's track record of human rights abuses and unfair detention in these types of cases to know it would be wholly wrong to extradite him. Would we ever consider extraditing someone the Russians or Iranians wanted to try in their courts? Hell no.

As far as I'm concerned, if the CPS say there isn't enough evidence to charge him with under UK law, that's good enough for me. If America want to supply some evidence, fair enough. Otherwise, I think the sovereignty and pride of our own legal system should come first here and do away with this farce of an extradition treaty. American interests should not be put above our own.

The court said the conditions in the prison he'd go to are better than most in europe - he's not going to gitmo.

I agree we should get to see at least enough evidence to see if there is enough evidence for a trial to be needed.

That said the site was on the internet so anyone could see the content and there was enough evidence against the sailor and ahmad had the info - you don't that sort of info just because you are some sort of ship spotter.

[mariachi]

(Original post by nosaer)

He says himself:

"I absolutely refute reject any allegation that I supported terrorism in any way in any place whether in Afghanistan, or Chechnya, or any other part of the world. I believe terrorism to be wrong and I believe the targeting and killing of innocent people to be wrong."

this means next to nothing

as usual : who is innocent ? who isn't ?

why did he collect information on the movements of the US fleet ?

in his view, most surely an attack on the US fleet is not terrorism at all, but a highly commendable act of war

the main point is this : the UK has an extradition treaty with the US. This treaty is in force, and has to be executed

if some UK citizens disagree with it, they can try, by political means, to have it modified or terminated (most extradition treaties allow for this, but with something like 6-months' advance notice)

[ALII]

(Original post by Bonged.)
To who? Him or the public? Throw him in the ****ing sea for all I care. Tired of people worrying about the "rights" that scum have.

There's no evidence against him.

[Palatial Veranda]

Babar Ahmed aside, if one can be lawfully extradited without a prima facie case being put forward to the courts then I certainly don't feel in a position to make a steadfast and unwavering judgement on the crimes they are accused of. I think the problem lies within the legislation itself.

The Extradition Act of 2003 which passed through Parliament supposedly redresses the imbalance against the US of the previous Act of 1870. In an age of supposed global development and advancement I think that the flagrantly ill-considered aspects of the legislation should have made way for sustainable and modernised concepts, not just appeasement mechanisms redressing the injustices of previous century-old legislation.

[ak137]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
a floppy disk containing a password-protected document containing a detailed description of the US Fifth Fleet, its ships, the date and time of its expected passage through the Straits of Hormuz, and that it was vulnerable to attack by "RPG" (rocket-propelled grenade).

Not surprised the US want to try him, it was their men he was "allegedly" conspiring to kill. We don't have the evidence, the US do and if they want to foot the bill for his trial and most likely his incarceration let them.

But don't worry he will be here for at least another 3 months wasting everyones time and money.

Let them extradite a British citizen? When was the last time a US citizen was extradited to the UK? How many people have been extradited to the US compared to the UK? We must not let the US dictate our policies.

[nosaer]

(Original post by gm15)
The court said the conditions in the prison he'd go to are better than most in europe - he's not going to gitmo.

I agree we should get to see at least enough evidence to see if there is enough evidence for a trial to be needed.

That said the site was on the internet so anyone could see the content and there was enough evidence against the sailor and ahmad had the info - you don't that sort of info just because you are some sort of ship spotter.

He may not go to gitmo, but he may very well be subject to the disastrous legal blackhole other people have faced in terms of years without trial, solitary confinement, no recourse to legal help, not being shown the evidence against him....i.e. basic things we consider key to a honest and just legal system.

As for the sailor thing, the documents were seized in London so the UK could see if there was any case to answer there, but "In 2006, the then attorney general said Babar Ahmad could not be prosecuted over the document, which had been seized in London.". So I dont see why he should be extradited over this either.

The evidence was our evidence. It was seized in the UK and we should demand it back to look over it. For some odd reason it was sent directly over to the US.

[George231086]

(Original post by nosaer)
For some odd reason it was sent directly over to the US.

Probably because it contained information about US warships.

[nosaer]

(Original post by mariachi)
this means next to nothing

as usual : who is innocent ? who isn't ?

why did he collect information on the movements of the US fleet ?

in his view, most surely an attack on the US fleet is not terrorism at all, but a highly commendable act of war

the main point is this : the UK has an extradition treaty with the US. This treaty is in force, and has to be executed

if some UK citizens disagree with it, they can try, by political means, to have it modified or terminated (most extradition treaties allow for this, but with something like 6-months' advance notice)

It means he isn't a self-proclaimed terrorist.

That's the point: he should be tried in this country were he alledgedly collect the info, not in the US. Then we can see if he is guilty or not. At the moment, there is insufficient evidence to find him guilty of any crime under UK law.

Im not saying he is 100% innocent or that he should be let off scott free. Im saying he should be tried in this country under our laws.

[nosaer]

(Original post by George231086)
Probably because it contained information about US warships.

So? Its vital evidence and should remain in our possession where it was seized.

And there was more evidence that the UK hasn't seen because its been sent over, other than these documents about the warships. In regards to the documents as Ive posted before, he can't be prosecuted over them is the opinion of the UK attorney general.

[George231086]

(Original post by nosaer)
So? Its vital evidence and should remain in our possession where it was seized.

And there was more evidence that the UK hasn't seen because its been sent over, other than these documents about the warships. In regards to the documents as Ive posted before, he can't be prosecuted over them is the opinion of the UK attorney general.

If another country held in their possession sensitive british documents, then if they were our allies it's not unreasonable to expect they would give them back.

If you run a website which promotes terrorism and hold in your position sensitive documents about the US navy then it's hardly surprising that the US would want to prosecute you, and to be fair I think they have a right to. The only reason he wants to be tried here is because he thinks the UK will impose a less severe sentence. The same goes for abu hamza.

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by Akinfenwa)
Spare me, all extremist Muslims are exactly the same.

Down with the west, Alah Hu Akbar, free Palestine blah de blah.

This country will be a better place without him, extreamist Muslims need to learn to stop biting the hand that feeds them. Dont like the west, leave.

Perhaps what the west should understand is that Muslims are also citizens of this country, and therefore have a right to participate in politics, regardless of their views. If that means protesting against the corruption of the British government in terms of rendition, or colluding with the US in preventing prisoners from fair trials, or even aspects of foriegn policy, WHY should they be restricted from doing so?

In fact, why is there a general narrative that Muslims should either accept what their state is doing, regardless of its moral dimension, or leave?

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by George231086)
If another country held in their possession sensitive british documents, then if they were our allies it's not unreasonable to expect they would give them back.

If you run a website which promotes terrorism and hold in your position sensitive documents about the US navy then it's hardly surprising that the US would want to prosecute you, and to be fair I think they have a right to. The only reason he wants to be tried here is because he thinks the UK will impose a less severe sentence. The same goes for abu hamza.

except its not really as simple as that- Babar is accused of running a website from Imperial College, in the United Kingdom. That website existed through a network of interlinked servers, and multiple users transferring data through those servers. Sensitive information was detected on the American server, BUT that does not mean Ahmad posessed this information, nor does it produce evidence that he planned to do anything with any information.

There was a similar case involving filesharing, and the claimant being prosecuted in a US court for this act- simply because part of the sharing occurred and was intercepted in the US. In the Ahmad case, it is simply the presence of an american server connected to the website, that apparently indicates his guilt. Hence, he is viewed as a 'most wanted terrorist' for an obscure element of technological networking. I don't really think that was a strategic aim.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Bonged.)
To who? Him or the public? Throw him in the ****ing sea for all I care. Tired of people worrying about the "rights" that scum have.

You declare this man, whom you've never met as 'scum', but on what basis?

[Bonged.]

(Original post by High VOLTAGE)
You declare this man, whom you've never met as 'scum', but on what basis?

He's an islamist.

[gm15]

(Original post by nosaer)
If his website was illegal or he was a terrorist, the UK authorities would have found him guilty. They released him without charge. As far as UK law goes, he is innocent.

He says himself:

"I absolutely refute reject any allegation that I supported terrorism in any way in any place whether in Afghanistan, or Chechnya, or any other part of the world. I believe terrorism to be wrong and I believe the targeting and killing of innocent people to be wrong."

He should be put on trial. But he should be put on trial in the UK under our own laws.

The Uk authorities would have been applying uk law not US. His site is in the US so its subject to their laws. The info he had on their ships was leaked by their sailor directly or indirectly to ahmad - the crime started there.
I'm not a lawyer but a court that wouldn't even allow the extradition of a crook to italy because he had a family here judged that ahmad's extradition was justified, he'd get a fair trial and the prison and potential sentence was fair.
Obvously there are questions that need answering but he had secret details about a US naval fleet and its schedule that could be used to attack it when it passed through a narrow channel right past a main enemy state.
Can't see why else he'd want that info and even if he had an innocent reason for wanting it attaining the info is illegal.

I don't like the extradition treaty but i think the disk alone is enough for him to face trial and the info was stolen in the US. If he can argue controlling his site from the uk means he should be tried here then info being sent to him from the US means that crime is covered in the US court.
Internet crime blurs the line of jurisdiction.

[High VOLTAGE]

(Original post by Bonged.)
He's an islamist.

Define the word and state what proof you have.