General Chat

No - what I'm saying is that he shouldn't be extradited to the US when they have not produced any evidence to support the extradition. He shouldn't be shipped out because he's Muslim and therefore guilty by association.

No, but im saying that the principle of innocent until proven otherwise has been overuled by an infamous extradition treaty that is not required to show any evidence.

Why should anyone be required to prove they are innocent? Surely thats the wrong way round? You cant say 'i accuse you now prove it is not so' . That is just so wrong!

So are you saying because he is of a different religion he should not be extradited? if you look at the recent people extradited you will see they are not Moslems., so I dont think that has anything to do with it. he is wanted for some thing he did in another country.

If I was him I'd be fighting extradition to the US. Ah....but then again he's a Muslim.....off with his head!!

If he is inocent then he should have been exported and stood trial to prove he was.

It does not matter if he was born in England ( Britian) he is wanted in another country he should go. we have too many doing this hanging on delaying trials.

Both the cps and the attorney general accept that there is no evidence to support a prosecution in the uk. The usa have not provided any evidence.

He has been in prison for 8 years. Leave aside his race and religion and what are we left with?

We get the system we deserve. Hands up anyone who trusts the americans and their military tribunal system? Or their ordinary justice sustem?

Beware the knock on the door in the middle of the night. It could be you or your family next, in the interests of national security.

The one was Sue ,but that dosn't make him any better than the others a man connected through the others to terrorist activities and plotting killings '
Let the yanks have him,good riddance to rubbish.Fred.

Wasn't he born in England?

Sorry people ,but i have no problem with sending these low lifes out of a country where they have fled after causing mayhem and death in their own countries [and others]
Why in hell should we keep them and waste money in keeping them in luxury [compared to the treatment they would receive in the middle east.]
Have any of you seen the mess and mayhem they enjoy causing over in Afghanistan ,the gulf and Aden? ,i have ,first hand ,it isn't pretty to watch friends being blown up,or innocent men ,women and children being killed for walking down the street.
I would send them back to the country of their birth where they would be shot ,very quickly.all five of them.
Never forget ,Arabs have been fighting each other for over 5,000 years,they are warlike tribesmen who will NEVER stop killing each other ,and anyone else who gets in their way.
They can be the most hospitable people in the world if befreinded ,but can also be an unforgiving bitter enemy in blood feuds which are still very common.
Fred.

From my understanding,

He admits the offences, but wants to be tried here, and has used the human fights act to pursue his aim of getting a lighter sentence in the UK but his crimes were mainly against the US.

on that basis if people could choose where to be tried for their crimes then where would that leave this country, we would be building prison's on every spare bit of land to accommodate these people from all over the world.

This is yet another reason why the European Court of Human Rights should be reformed

as for the extradition treaty then it should be either both ways or not at all

Roy

Edit;

The Extradition Act 2003 (c.41) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It came into force on 1 January 2004 and all import and export extradition requests submitted or received from this date are covered by the Act. It concerns itself with extradition to and from the UK in respect of all territories and in particular implements into UK law the 2003 US-UK Extradition Treaty.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition_Act_2003

Because in US,,we know and them that he will get,,life on each account.........about 150 years,,,,,,,,,here life of about the max ,12--15,less his holding time about 5--6,then remission and early parol,,,,, so,about 3/4,,,then maybe an early release on tag,,,,,,, :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D ......

I find it frightening that the US can extradite a person without evidence that they have committed a crime.

Not sure who 'they' are. He's a British citizen isn't he?

lol

Is that not a contradiction? Suppose for one minute that he is innocent....? ECHR is probably the most misunderstood myth laden law that there has ever been. It's up to the accuser to try the accused, not up to the accused to lie down and roll over just because they have been arrested.

I dont see anything wrong in putting him on trial here if there is evidence, if not, an extradition treaty that doesn't require any evidence is very very wrong IMHO. Especially when it only one way.

Something stinks here, absolutely stinks. Try him on the evidence and be done.

Me too Eldrick, But when they use the human rights act to avoid justice guilty or not guilty, Then i am afraid that it was his call,

He could have sorted this years ago but just because he choose that path does not mean that the rest of use should have our lives put in danger by setting him free until this is sorted out,

Roy

I prefer the innocent until proven guilty method.

If he was tried in the UK then he would? probably get a lighter sentence,

But his main crimes are directed at the US so IMHO he should be tried their and it was his call to fight the extradition

The only reason it has taken this long is down to him using the human rights act to try and avoid justice being done

The problem with all these cases is that whilst these people want the freedom to do as they like without regard to the freedom of others they want to use the human rights act to hide behind,

My be now this judgement has come from the European Court of Human Rights they may think twice about using and abusing the human rights act

Roy

Very complicated and I don't pretend to understand his crimes. However to answer the question - no I don't believe anyone should be held for so long without a trial. Am I right in saying that he doesn't deny the charges - that is argument is that he should be tried in the UK?

It explains a bit more here

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17606337

Allegedly he was in possession of classified American Naval plans

Babar Ahmad was arrested in London on 5 August 2004 on charges that of providing material support to terrorism, providing illegal support to the Taliban, money laundering and conspiring to kill people. An affidavit filed with the US court details that Ahmad used aliases to operate Azzam.com, a website supporting Chechen and Taliban fighters. It further describes that items recovered from a house used by Ahmad included a British Airways Executive Club card in his name and next to it 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).[10] Ahmad was later indicted by a grand jury of US citizens in October 2004.[11] Another man, Syed Talah Ahsan, was indicted in 2006 of involvement with Ahmad and with the battlegroup information in the document,[12] and thereafter a US former navy seaman, Abu Jihad was indicted and convicted of passing this information to them.[13]

Under the Extradition Act 2003, the US does not have to provide any evidence before seeking the extradition of a British citizen


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

Roy