[travoot]

If we can extradite heroes like Assange then yes, we can extradite one loony extremist.

[nosaer]

(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.

Not if those documents are essential to any court case. In any case, I wasn't talking about the sailor documents (there is no case for prosecution there as I've already mentioned). I was talking about the rest of the evidence which was collected in this country in relation to a crime that a British citizen allegedly committed in this country. Now explain to me why on earth some of this should be sent straight over to the US without us having a look at it first.

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.

I've already mentioned this: if the site really was something he could be indicted over, it would have been done so already. As yet, the CPA find there isn't enough evidence to convict him. And even if he was guilty of this crime, we are perfectly able to try and convict criminals in our own courts.

As for the documents, there isn't a case for prosecution.

I don't know why you think they have a special right to extradite any British citizen without any evidence to be tried under their laws for a crime supposed to have been committed in our country? Under your logic, should the Russians also have the right to try our citizens? This site included Chechen fighters against Russia, so do you suggest it would be correct that we hand over they guy to the Russians too?

[George231086]

(Original post by Phantom_X)
BUT that does not mean Ahmad posessed this information, nor does it produce evidence that he planned to do anything with any information.

This is a matter for the court to decide. Extradition doesn't mean an automatic conviction. Once there he will be given the chance to defend himself and all evidence will be presented.

[Lil Piranha]

(Original post by canthardlywait)
Ahh your priority is one less man being in our 'system', even if he is potentially innocent. Because you would rather save some money and go on guesswork, than allow a proper investigation.
What a tremendously rational conclusion.

Actually it's not my priority. I honestly don't care which country he's tried in as long as someone does it. Babar Ahmed has been detained for about 8 years now I believe - the extradition to the US is movement at last, because so far there's been bugger all. It's a long-awaited and much-needed step forward in getting him justice, whether he's guilty or not. Given there's been nothing done in the UK, it's just possible extraditing him will get things moving the way they should have done here 8 years ago. It's true trying him in the US (or anywhere else for that matter) costs the UK less and is therefore an advantage, but it's not my priority. Unfortunate that you should infer that from a very brief post.

But don't let that stop you from jumping to "rational conclusions".

[Darth Stewie]

(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.

Edit: Also regarding the sailors document: "In 2006, the then attorney general said Babar Ahmad could not be prosecuted over the document, which had been seized in London."

I'm no fan of the US especially in regards to the treatment of people like Bradley Manning but the European human rights commission has verified extensively that the prison the Americans will send the extradited men to does not breach article three of our human rights convention, it's why this whole process has taken so long.

We signed the extradition treaty, the US have not done anything wrong under that treaty. If you want that scrapped fair enough but under our current treaty with the US they are fully entitled to try these men on their soil.

The US have the sailer who sent the locations of a US naval fleet and the possible vulnerability of said fleet to Babar it is pretty much a certainty that they know everything the sailor does by now and more than enough to get a conviction for Babar. We will find out exactly what they have on him when the trial happens in the US but it's almost a certainty the US have more than enough evidence to convict him.

We have considered extraditing people to Russia, however we were not satisfied they would receive a fair trial and their incarceration would meet the standards of our human rights so we didn't. After a long process both our government and the ECHR have decided that this isn't the case in the US and these men being tried there will in no way breach their human rights.

The Extradition treaty with the US is not one sided, although it is true they have taken more than they have given so to speak that's because they have put in more requests. If the situation was reversed and a man who conspired to kill our soldiers was arrested in the US and we requested extradition they would probably grant it within a month.

American interests are not being put first, the US clearly feels like this mans crimes are against them and they kind of have a point. They are our allies, if these allegations are proven true then this man is of no benefit to our society, if anything we are coming out on top by the Americans being willing to foot the cost of his incarceration.

[nosaer]

(Original post by gm15)
The Uk authorities would have been applying uk law not US. His site is in the US so its subject to their laws.

He had one server located in the US. He started and maintained the site here in the UK. The defendant was and is in the UK. All the evidence was collected entirely here in the UK. Its really difficult to try and claim this was a 'crime' committed under US jurisdiction.

The info he had on their ships was leaked by their sailor directly or indirectly to ahmad - the crime started there.

There? Not the US. The evidence was seized in this country. Its a UK matter. And under our laws, there isn't a case to answer for this.

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.

That isn't for us to decide. That is for a court to decide. A court in this country where the defendant is and has been, and where the evidence has been seized.

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.

I don't think it was.

If the US have to request all the evidence and the defendant as well to their shores, you do really wonder if they really should have jurisdiction over this.

[George231086]

(Original post by nosaer)
Not if those documents are essential to any court case. In any case, I wasn't talking about the sailor documents (there is no case for prosecution there as I've already mentioned). I was talking about the rest of the evidence which was collected in this country in relation to a crime that a British citizen allegedly committed in this country. Now explain to me why on earth some of this should be sent straight over to the US without us having a look at it first.



I've already mentioned this: if the site really was something he could be indicted over, it would have been done so already. As yet, the CPA find there isn't enough evidence to convict him. And even if he was guilty of this crime, we are perfectly able to try and convict criminals in our own courts.

As for the documents, there isn't a case for prosecution.

I don't know why you think they have a special right to extradite any British citizen without any evidence to be tried under their laws for a crime supposed to have been committed in our country? Under your logic, should the Russians also have the right to try our citizens? This site included Chechen fighters against Russia, so do you suggest it would be correct that we hand over they guy to the Russians too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam

After his death, Azzam’s militant ideology and related paramilitary manuals were promoted through print and Internet media by Azzam Publications, which described itself as "an independent media organisation providing authentic news and information about Jihad and the Foreign Mujahideen everywhere."

The crime relates specifically to the US, as he had in his possession US sensitive documents. When in the US he will have his chance to explain why this was case.

[Darth Stewie]

(Original post by Organ)
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!!

True dat, but still an RPG attack could injure or kill some soldiers, this man is meant to be a British citizen and if the allegations are true he is actively helping to fund our enemy and even helping them to launch strikes against us.

(Original post by ak137)
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.

Don't know the dates but the UK have extradited about double the amount of people to the US than vise versa. Mainly because we haven't put in nearly as many requests. If this guy was a US citizen who helped to plot an attack against British soldiers and we requested his extradition he would be sent here faster than a rat with a rocket up his ass.

The US aren't dictating our policies our politicians are, if people want the extradition laws changed then write to your MP, as i gather a number of people are already calling for it to be reverted to the pre 2003 agreement which they are more than entitled to do.

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by George231086)
This is a matter for the court to decide. Extradition doesn't mean an automatic conviction. Once there he will be given the chance to defend himself and all evidence will be presented.

its so cute how you think people actually stand a chance in the US when convicted of terrorism- especially Islamic terrorism.

I suppose its one way of just pretending problems just aren't there.

[nosaer]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
I'm no fan of the US especially in regards to the treatment of people like Bradley Manning but the European human rights commission has verified extensively that the prison the Americans will send the extradited men to does not breach article three of our human rights convention, it's why this whole process has taken so long.

We signed the extradition treaty, the US have not done anything wrong under that treaty. If you want that scrapped fair enough but under our current treaty with the US they are fully entitled to try these men on their soil.

I know, its the treaty that everyone is claiming is completely ridiculous and unfair. Its a one way system where by they can request our citizens with no evidence but we cant reciprocate. Tell me how that isn't putting America before us?

The US have the sailer who sent the locations of a US naval fleet and the possible vulnerability of said fleet to Babar it is pretty much a certainty that they know everything the sailor does by now and more than enough to get a conviction for Babar. We will find out exactly what they have on him when the trial happens in the US but it's almost a certainty the US have more than enough evidence to convict him.

We have considered extraditing people to Russia, however we were not satisfied they would receive a fair trial and their incarceration would meet the standards of our human rights so we didn't. After a long process both our government and the ECHR have decided that this isn't the case in the US and these men being tried there will in no way breach their human rights.

The Extradition treaty with the US is not one sided, although it is true they have taken more than they have given so to speak that's because they have put in more requests. If the situation was reversed and a man who conspired to kill our soldiers was arrested in the US and we requested extradition they would probably grant it within a month.

American interests are not being put first, the US clearly feels like this mans crimes are against them and they kind of have a point. They are our allies, if these allegations are proven true then this man is of no benefit to our society, if anything we are coming out on top by the Americans being willing to foot the cost of his incarceration.

It is the extradition treaty that everyone is claiming is the thing wrong here, not whether or not this case falls under it or not. Its an inherently unfair and messed up treaty and simply because it has been enacted, does not mean it can't or shouldn't change or that it is right and just.

And it is one-sided. The reason America haven't received a request in kind from us is because we cant do that:

From wiki:

Controversy surrounds the US-UK extradition treaty of 2003 which was implemented in this act. It has been claimed to be one-sided[2] because it allows the US to extradite UK citizens and others for offences committed against US law, even though the alleged offence may have been committed in the UK by a person living and working in the UK (see for example the NatWest Three), and there being no reciprocal right; and issues about the level of proof required being less to extradite from the UK to the US rather than vice-versa[3].

So in this system, the Americans can extradite any British citizen they want without showing evidence. We cannot do the same because the US values its sovereignty and will not allow its citizens to be treated this way.

Do you still think its fair? Do you still agree with it?

[nosaer]

(Original post by George231086)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Yusuf_Azzam

After his death, Azzam’s militant ideology and related paramilitary manuals were promoted through print and Internet media by Azzam Publications, which described itself as "an independent media organisation providing authentic news and information about Jihad and the Foreign Mujahideen everywhere."

The crime relates specifically to the US, as he had in his possession US sensitive documents. When in the US he will have his chance to explain why this was case.

There's more of a case to be made that the website is a crime against us than the states. Remember, only one of the servers was located in the US. That's it. The guy(s) who ran the website, the computers used, the evidence seized, the investigation carried out were all in this country. The site documented Chechen fighters' activities and the that of the Taliban. The Taliban are fighting our soldiers too. So again, we have more of a case to be heard, so why can't we try him here?

[LethalXGhost]

Muslims are only complaining because he's a Muslim. Such Partisanship is bound to lead to Bias.

Look, the guy apparently ran an extremist website which had servers based in US. Supposedly, it was a place where prominent jihadis and mujahideen exchanged information , from what I have gathered.

He's only being extradited, not charged. He won't the first UK person who has faced extradition.
Maybe it's not fair, by hey, that's life.

At least Babar Ahmad will have the chance to defend himself. From what he has been saying, I bet he has been waiting for it eagerly.

[George231086]

(Original post by Phantom_X)
its so cute how you think people actually stand a chance in the US when convicted of terrorism- especially Islamic terrorism.

I suppose its one way of just pretending problems just aren't there.

The guy had sensitive information about US warships and ran a website which promoted terrorism. Personally i'm not upset that he'll have to defend this in court. As the sensitive information was related to US warships i'm happy for him to be tried there.

[nosaer]

(Original post by LethalXGhost)
Muslims are only complaining because he's a Muslim. Such Partisanship is bound to lead to Bias.

Look, the guy apparently ran an extremist website which had servers based in US. Supposedly, it was a place where prominent jihadis and mujahideen exchanged information , from what I have gathered.

He's only being extradited, not charged. He won't the first UK person who has faced extradition.
Maybe it's not fair, by hey, that's life.

At least Babar Ahmad will have the chance to defend himself. From what he has been saying, I bet he has been waiting for it eagerly.

Why can't he be tried here?

[George231086]

(Original post by nosaer)
There's more of a case to be made that the website is a crime against us than the states. Remember, only one of the servers was located in the US. That's it. The guy(s) who ran the website, the computers used, the evidence seized, the investigation carried out were all in this country. The site documented Chechen fighters' activities and the that of the Taliban. The Taliban are fighting our soldiers too. So again, we have more of a case to be heard, so why can't we try him here?

The issue that he possessed sensitive US documents can't be ignored. It's right he answer to this in the US.

[Gokul1]

If he really did encourage people to commit acts of terror and murder then hell, who cares where he is tried. The European courts obviously felt that he won't be tortured etc over there so why would it matter where he is tried and jailed? If you commit a crime you got to pay right...?

[Politricks]

(Original post by Lil Piranha)
Because the US want to try him, presumably.

At least he won't be in our system anymore; we won't have to pay to keep him protected and secure, won't have to put up with him ranting in the streets and with any luck they'll bump him off, the US justice system being what it is...

But do they?

There are suspected terrorists who are being detained in the US, but they're aren't being given a trial.

[Gokul1]

Oh and the only reason he has been detained 8 years was because he kept appealing against rulings to extradite him. If the man really was actively involved in the promotion of terror whats to stop him committing an act of terror if he is bailed?

[Phantom_X]

(Original post by George231086)
The guy had sensitive information about US warships and ran a website which promoted terrorism. Personally i'm not upset that he'll have to defend this in court. As the sensitive information was related to US warships i'm happy for him to be tried there.

1. Ive already said that there isn't actually ample evidence that he posessed the information, just that the information had been logged onto a server connected to a website concentrated in the UK- that is the crux. Is it right to prosecute someone in a court for information they dont actually have?

2. Many websites promote terrorism- stormfront for example, could be said to promote terrorism. Or websites that hold copies of the anarchists cookbook. Why arent they being prosecuted?

[nosaer]

(Original post by George231086)
The issue that he possessed sensitive US documents can't be ignored. It's right he answer to this in the US.

It isn't a crime under our laws, as has already been mentioned. Therefore it should not be reason enough for extradition. Unless of course you believe all of America's laws are correct and right and that UK citizens can be extradited for crimes only under US law but not UK law?