Goodbye Abu

[Skanko79]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

To be extradited to the U.S. within weeks. Great news.

This pathetic human being has lorded it up in this country for too long.

[Johnny0762]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

To be extradited to the U.S. within weeks. Great news.

This pathetic human being has lorded it up in this country for too long.

Great news, totally agree.

However, he should have been extradited first and then let the Court of Human Rights rule on it's legality.

Seems we are more frightened from the CofHR than we are of defying UN rulings to go to war. Daft, eh?

[GhostofBolivar]

However, he should have been extradited first and then let the Court of Human Rights rule on it's legality.


That's a patently ridiculous thing to say.


No. You're not allowed to appeal until after you get executed.


Pay them damages, then you get to go to court.


Build your house, then we'll see if it contravenes regulations.

[--------]

Great news, totally agree.

However, he should have been extradited first and then let the Court of Human Rights rule on it's legality.

Seems we are more frightened from the CofHR than we are of defying UN rulings to go to war. Daft, eh?



Just what part of the expression 'due process of law' don't you understand? :cool2:

And the ILLEGAL decision to go to war has really worked out so well for everybody, hasn't it?

Iraq an oasis of democracy and peace, all those nasty WMDs we found destroyed, and all our soldiers home safe with their families.

And no civilian casualties - sorry, 'collateral damage' - at all.

Heart-warming!

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

To be extradited to the U.S. within weeks. Great news.

This pathetic human being has lorded it up in this country for too long.



if the yanks are looking for a volunteer to inject this vile worthless piece of sh*t with a lethal injection, gies a shout i'm available :aok: although i imagine it would be quite a long queue of volunteers :agree:

[yeezus.]

Babar Ahmad is a British citizen and was subject to torture by "anti-terrorist" police (I'm sure he was awarded compensation). He should not be extradited to the US!

[One Day Soon]

Just what part of the expression 'due process of law' don't you understand? :cool2:

And the ILLEGAL decision to go to war has really worked out so well for everybody, hasn't it?

Iraq an oasis of democracy and peace, all those nasty WMDs we found destroyed, and all our soldiers home safe with their families.

And no civilian casualties - sorry, 'collateral damage' - at all.

Heart-warming!


What, exactly, do you base this illegality claim on?

You seem to assume that military intervention should aways produce 'an oasis of democracy and peace' and that all our soldiers will always come home safe. That is rarely the case in any military intervention.

What were the level of civilian casualties in Kosovo, WWII etc?

Let's not forget the other side of the balance sheet either. Sadaam's despotic and sadistic fascist regime with its institutionalised torture, rape and genocide. Heart-warming!

[Jack]

Babar Ahmad is a British citizen and was subject to torture by "anti-terrorist" police (I'm sure he was awarded compensation). He should not be extradited to the US!

Are you sure he was tortured?

[yeezus.]

Are you sure he was tortured?

Yes. A medical examination found over 70 injuries and the police accepted responsibility - paying him £60,000 in compensation.

[--------]

What, exactly, do you base this illegality claim on?

You seem to assume that military intervention should aways produce 'an oasis of democracy and peace' and that all our soldiers will always come home safe. That is rarely the case in any military intervention.

What were the level of civilian casualties in Kosovo, WWII etc?

Let's not forget the other side of the balance sheet either. Sadaam's despotic and sadistic fascist regime with its institutionalised torture, rape and genocide. Heart-warming!


The total absence of a UN resolution supporting the invasion?

And the fact that in the absence of such a resolution the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is a breach of international law?

As for military intervention always producing oases of democracy and peace, I assume nothing of the kind. That piece of nonsense was one of the lies peddled by Bush, Blair and ther cronies to justify the invasion in the first place.

On the contrary, I would assume, based on my reading of history, that 'armed intervention' - is that Newspeak for 'war of aggression'? - will always be followed by the commission of war crimes by both sides, death and destruction on an accelerating scale of atrocity inflicted by both sides, and after peace breaks out - IF peace breaks out - nauseating hypocrisy on the part of the victors regarding the righteousness of their cause and the depravity of that of their enemies.

The levels of civilian casualties in Kosovo and WW2 were very, very high - exact figures I can't say. No one can - too many dead and missing remain unaccounted for.

And forgive me for raising the matter, but IIRC both Bush and Blair were very clear that 'regime change' - Newspeak for overthrowing a government by armed force and replacing it with one better suited to one's own liking - was NOT the reason the US and UK invaded Iraq.

For 'due process' see Ghost's post - the concept that you don't execute or lock up the accused until his or her guilt has been established BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, IN A COURT OF LAW, WITH THE ACCUSED PRESENT IN COURT AND PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE LEGAL COUNSEL.

[.Sean.]

Good. We should have got shot of that **** a long time ago. It's infuriating he's been allowed to stay in our country preaching his bollocks for so long. The Yanks can torture him all day long for all I care


It's just a shame he'll be let off from a stint in a Supermax due to his 'disabilities'.

[One Day Soon]

The total absence of a UN resolution supporting the invasion?

That's it? The utterly toothless UN which can never agree upon any substantive action due to the competing factional interests of its security council members couldn't agree to sanction an invasion and those are your strongest grounds for illegality? And unprovoked, seriously? Have you conveniently forgotten his invasion of Kuwait, the hostages anchored to sensitive sites and the whole panoply of systematised human rights abuses, never mind the refusal to comply with umpteen UN resolutions on inspections by independent parties in relation to WMDs?

And the fact that in the absence of such a resolution the unprovoked invasion of a sovereign nation is a breach of international law?

Except it isn't. It was not unprovoked and the UN recognises the right of concerted groups of nations to take unprovoked action - eg Jugoslavia and NATO.

As for military intervention always producing oases of democracy and peace, I assume nothing of the kind. That piece of nonsense was one of the lies peddled by Bush, Blair and ther cronies to justify the invasion in the first place.

You just made that up. Completely. On the one hand you imply that they said they were chasing fictitious WMDs and then you claim that they said they were peddling democracy and peace. Which is it?

On the contrary, I would assume, based on my reading of history, that 'armed intervention' - is that Newspeak for 'war of aggression'? - will always be followed by the commission of war crimes by both sides, death and destruction on an accelerating scale of atrocity inflicted by both sides, and after peace breaks out - IF peace breaks out - nauseating hypocrisy on the part of the victors regarding the righteousness of their cause and the depravity of that of their enemies.

In a debate it is customary to deal with the facts. I referred to military intervention, not 'armed intervention'. It isn't Newspeak for anything but if it makes you feel better to paraphrase my words then go ahead. I assume you are a pacifist? Genuine question.

The levels of civilian casualties in Kosovo and WW2 were very, very high - exact figures I can't say. No one can - too many dead and missing remain unaccounted for.

Precisely, all armed conflict (sorry, war) creates civilian casualties. Why single this one out?

And forgive me for raising the matter, but IIRC both Bush and Blair were very clear that 'regime change' - Newspeak for overthrowing a government by armed force and replacing it with one better suited to one's own liking - was NOT the reason the US and UK invaded Iraq.

Bizarre. The reason they didn't give for invading Iraq (though they should have done that too in my opinion) - regime change - you want to beat them up for, as well as the reason they did give - WMDs.

For 'due process' see Ghost's post - the concept that you don't execute or lock up the accused until his or her guilt has been established BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT, IN A COURT OF LAW, WITH THE ACCUSED PRESENT IN COURT AND PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE AND EFFECTIVE LEGAL COUNSEL.

I have no idea why you have posted your last point back to me since I didn't take issue with it. The wannabe terrorist in question is perfectly entitled to due process just like anyone else. I also have no idea why you started shouting at me?

Most interesting of all I think was that you chose to ignore my last point: "Let's not forget the other side of the balance sheet either. Sadaam's despotic and sadistic fascist regime with its institutionalised torture, rape and genocide. Heart-warming!" Why was that? The international community is generally very good at passing by on the other side because it is just sooooo much easier.

[GhostofBolivar]

I have no idea why you have posted your last point back to me since I didn't take issue with it. The wannabe terrorist in question is perfectly entitled to due process just like anyone else. I also have no idea why you started shouting at me?

Most interesting of all I think was that you chose to ignore my last point: "Let's not forget the other side of the balance sheet either. Sadaam's despotic and sadistic fascist regime with its institutionalised torture, rape and genocide. Heart-warming!" Why was that? The international community is generally very good at passing by on the other side because it is just sooooo much easier.

The other side of the balance sheet is more or less exactly as it was.

One undemocratic regime responsible for massive human rights abuses replaced with another.

[--------]

I have no idea why you have posted your last point back to me since I didn't take issue with it. The wannabe terrorist in question is perfectly entitled to due process just like anyone else. I also have no idea why you started shouting at me?

Most interesting of all I think was that you chose to ignore my last point: "Let's not forget the other side of the balance sheet either. Sadaam's despotic and sadistic fascist regime with its institutionalised torture, rape and genocide. Heart-warming!" Why was that? The international community is generally very good at passing by on the other side because it is just sooooo much easier.

I didn't 'shout'. I didn't even 'raise my voice'. I used capitals for emphasis - nothing more.

The First Gulf War started on the 2nd August 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Coalition forces responded with armed force on the 17th January 1991. The campaign ended on 28th February 1991. The Coalition consisted of 34 countries and was backed by a series of UN resolutions. The stated war aim was the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi control. This was achieved.

After the war UN Resolution 661 first passed during the period of Iraqi occupation remained in force. This imposed a complete trade embargo - not just military supplied, but food, clothing, medical supplies and other 'items of humanitarian necessity' could not be brought into Iraq. Coalition military forces were empowered to enforce this embargo. This Resolution, and the widespread destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the war led to massive hardship and suffering for the ordinary people of Iraq; the lowest UN estimate of the number of children who died during the years of this embargo (which lasted up to the invasion of Iraq in the Second Gulf War, by another Coalition and without UN sanction) is somewhere between 500,000 and 1.2 million.

The initial invasion in the Second Gulf war was by UK and US troops; no declaration of war was given and the reason for the invasion was that Iraq possessed 'weapons of mass destruction' - which Tony Blair on one occasion claimed could be used to attack the UK at 45 minutes notice. This claim was laboured over and over again in the western media in the months preceding the invasion; the fact that no one could find these weapons, not even the UN observers working in Iraq at the time, was put down to Saddam's diabolical cunning in hiding them. Anyone who suggested that they might not existr was shouted down.

When, after the invasion, it became clear that no WMDs had been found, nor were WMDs ever going to be found, the US and UK changed the story. "Bringing democracy and peace to Iraq" became the reason we had invaded - in other words, regime change. It was only after the event that the Coalition became obviously and openly concerned with Saddam's human rights abuses - Bush and Blair hadn't bothered their backsides when he used poison gas supplied by the US and UK (among others) to commit genocide on the Kurds. Nor were they at all upset when he was persecuting the Shi'a minority in the south of Iraq. They only became concerned about this sort of thing when they realised that the WMD story wouldn't fly.

You want to 'debate with facts'. OK - please explain to me the difference between 'armed intervention', which you didn't refer to, and 'military intervention', which you did? And how does either of these terms differ in meaning from 'invasion'? If this isn't Newspeak, it's equivocation. Splitting hairs. Military intervention means people with weapons getting involved.

Come to that, just how does what Saddam did with poison gas differ in reality from what the UN sanctions - enforced by, among other, American and British warships and aircraft - did in bringing early death to at least half a million Iraqi children? Or were they just 'terrorists in the making'?

And the Hague Convention 1907, Section 3, article 2 (of which both we and the US are signatories) makes the undeclared invasion of a sovereign state illegal. This is part of the main body of international law without which the concept of 'human rights abuses' would be meaningless. That's the same system of ilnternational law that makes the torture of war prisoners - like what happened at Abu Ghraib and what's still happening in Bagram - a war crime.

[Betty Boop]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19706404

To be extradited to the U.S. within weeks. Great news.

This pathetic human being has lorded it up in this country for too long.

Hold the bus. He has been granted a High Court hearing in open court.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/26/abu-hamza-extradition-halted-judge?intcmp=239

[One Day Soon]

I didn't 'shout'. I didn't even 'raise my voice'. I used capitals for emphasis - nothing more.

The First Gulf War started on the 2nd August 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. The Coalition forces responded with armed force on the 17th January 1991. The campaign ended on 28th February 1991. The Coalition consisted of 34 countries and was backed by a series of UN resolutions. The stated war aim was the liberation of Kuwait from Iraqi control. This was achieved.

After the war UN Resolution 661 first passed during the period of Iraqi occupation remained in force. This imposed a complete trade embargo - not just military supplied, but food, clothing, medical supplies and other 'items of humanitarian necessity' could not be brought into Iraq. Coalition military forces were empowered to enforce this embargo. This Resolution, and the widespread destruction of Iraq's civilian infrastructure during the war led to massive hardship and suffering for the ordinary people of Iraq; the lowest UN estimate of the number of children who died during the years of this embargo (which lasted up to the invasion of Iraq in the Second Gulf War, by another Coalition and without UN sanction) is somewhere between 500,000 and 1.2 million.

The initial invasion in the Second Gulf war was by UK and US troops; no declaration of war was given and the reason for the invasion was that Iraq possessed 'weapons of mass destruction' - which Tony Blair on one occasion claimed could be used to attack the UK at 45 minutes notice. This claim was laboured over and over again in the western media in the months preceding the invasion; the fact that no one could find these weapons, not even the UN observers working in Iraq at the time, was put down to Saddam's diabolical cunning in hiding them. Anyone who suggested that they might not existr was shouted down.

When, after the invasion, it became clear that no WMDs had been found, nor were WMDs ever going to be found, the US and UK changed the story. "Bringing democracy and peace to Iraq" became the reason we had invaded - in other words, regime change. It was only after the event that the Coalition became obviously and openly concerned with Saddam's human rights abuses - Bush and Blair hadn't bothered their backsides when he used poison gas supplied by the US and UK (among others) to commit genocide on the Kurds. Nor were they at all upset when he was persecuting the Shi'a minority in the south of Iraq. They only became concerned about this sort of thing when they realised that the WMD story wouldn't fly.

You want to 'debate with facts'. OK - please explain to me the difference between 'armed intervention', which you didn't refer to, and 'military intervention', which you did? And how does either of these terms differ in meaning from 'invasion'? If this isn't Newspeak, it's equivocation. Splitting hairs. Military intervention means people with weapons getting involved.

Come to that, just how does what Saddam did with poison gas differ in reality from what the UN sanctions - enforced by, among other, American and British warships and aircraft - did in bringing early death to at least half a million Iraqi children? Or were they just 'terrorists in the making'?

And the Hague Convention 1907, Section 3, article 2 (of which both we and the US are signatories) makes the undeclared invasion of a sovereign state illegal. This is part of the main body of international law without which the concept of 'human rights abuses' would be meaningless. That's the same system of ilnternational law that makes the torture of war prisoners - like what happened at Abu Ghraib and what's still happening in Bagram - a war crime.


I will come back to your post above separately. Are you a pacifist?

[--------]

I will come back to your post above separately. Are you a pacifist?


Define 'pacifist'.

[speedy_gonzales]

Hold the bus. He has been granted a High Court hearing in open court.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/26/abu-hamza-extradition-halted-judge?intcmp=239

Mair lives than a cat! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG63OtsKC7k)

[Gatecrasher]

Why they are wasting more money and time on this Bawbag I'll never know. For someone who has constantly taken this country for a ride he sure gets treated well.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I will come back to your post above separately. Are you a pacifist?

Oh-oh. :hide:

[One Day Soon]

Define 'pacifist'.

Seriously? My understanding is that you are a Church of Scotland Minister. If that is correct why would you need me to define pacifist?

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19842941

Abu Hamza to be extradited to US


at last, cheerybies ya horrible vile piece of excrement yi :bye:

[--------]

Seriously? My understanding is that you are a Church of Scotland Minister. If that is correct why would you need me to define pacifist?


Because different people have different ways of understanding the word.

And I'm not quite sure how YOU understand it, so I'm asking you to define your terms.

So that I know exactly what the question is I'm answering.

[--------]

On a tasteless and probably offensive and possibly blasphemous note ...

... Abu Hamza always puts me in mind of the old, old joke about the beggar sitting outside the railway station in Baghdad. He was a truly piteous sight, crying out for alms while holding up his two handless stumps for the passers-by to see.

Two Europeans were coming out of the station, and one said to the other, "I say, should we perhaps give that poor chap some money?"

"Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about him," replied his friend. "He's very comfortably off - loads of goodies hidden away from the old days."

"The old days?" asked the first.

"Yes," said the other. "Don't you know who he is? He's a local celebrity. He's the most famous and successful burglar in Baghdad. Only two convictions."



I'm going - to bed. :devil:

[Betty Boop]

Teresa May blocks the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US, on human rights grounds.

[Hibs Class]

Teresa May blocks the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US, on human rights grounds.

Good. Quite right too.

[Sergio sledge]

Teresa May blocks the extradition of Gary McKinnon to the US, on human rights grounds.

http://ihrc.org.uk/activities/press-releases/10302-press-release-gary-mckinnon-stays-in-the-uk-but-muslim-are-second-class-citizens

"Chair of IHRC, Massoud Shadjareh said, “If you’re Muslim you will get extradited, if you are not, you get to stay. As Muslims we are second class citizens and we will not get the same level of protection from the British state as other citizens. It reeks of duplicity and hypocrisy. The UK operates a simple principle, ‘innocent until proven Muslim’ ”

[cabbageandribs1875]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-30754959

at last


Radical Muslim cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been sentenced to life in prison by a court in New York for supporting terrorism.



During the sentencing, his lawyers asked the judge to take into account his missing hands and eye.


they should just put him down :agree: