Abu Hamza arrives in the United States

[Mahone]

American residents, welcome this man to your country:

BBC News - Abu Hamza extradition: US court hears terror suspects

Mr Hamza has been wanted by the US since 2004 for a number of terrorism related reasons (running a jihadist website etc.), and he has been in a British prison for just as long while it took eight years for all his appeals against extradition to go through the British and European courts. They all failed of course, and he was finally frog marched onto a military plane on Friday and we are finally rid of him :)

Goodness knows what will happen if he ever gets released though - it's not like the UK or any other country will take him back.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Mahone

[Jamie123]

I don't know an awful lot about this case (except for the constant news reports about the extradition process itself) but I'm not sure why its so important that he stands trial in the US. Surely terrorism is as much a crime in Europe as it is in America.

[NeuroTypical]

One of the original soundbytes from al-Qaeda's recruiting efforts, was to call the US a paper tiger - fierce and strong looking, but all just for show. One of the baddies will now face US justice. I guess he'll find out first hand if the soundbyte is true or not, won't he.

[Vort]

Let's give him a warm, American welcome!

It's said that, upon arriving in the next life, Osama bin Laden was told to wait for a special visitor, "one of seventy". Eagerly anticipating his reward, he was surprised to see George Washington step into the room, who promptly beat the tar out of bin Laden. Broken and bleeding, bin Laden was left on his own for a short time, when Thomas Jefferson entered the room and beat the tar out of him. About the time James Madison was beating on him, bin Laden called out, "What is happening? Where are my seventy virgins?" Madison answered, "You seem to have misunderstood, Osama. You get seventy Virginians."

[Mahone]

I don't know an awful lot about this case (except for the constant news reports about the extradition process itself) but I'm not sure why its so important that he stands trial in the US. Surely terrorism is as much a crime in Europe as it is in America.

Well, there are various reasons. I don't really know much about the case but to my knowledge, he has been in prison in the UK since 2004 not just to appeal his extradition to America, but also because he was convicted in our courts of essentially the same charges. Now that he has served his sentence, the US is trying him all over again in their courts. Plus the website he ran was hosted in Connecticut, so that's a technicality which the US used to get him extradited.

I'm still not sure what will happen when he is released (he can't be executed as part of the extradition agreement, as the European Union considers this to be inhumane treatment and won't allow extraditions to countries that threaten this). I'm pretty sure the UK will not take him back, and it's likely his native Egypt won't either. This is part of the reason that I'm glad he has been exported, he is no longer our problem and no longer costing our taxpayers any money lol.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Mahone

[slamjet]

First you give us Posh Spice and we took it. Now this... You Brits must be getting us back for something.

[Jamie123]

....because he was convicted in our courts of essentially the same charges. Now that he has served his sentence, the US is trying him all over again in their courts.

Won't there be a problem with double jeopardy? That law has been watered down somewhat in the UK, but in the US it's still protected by the First Amendment.

Plus the website he ran was hosted in Connecticut, so that's a technicality which the US used to get him extradited.

I can't see him getting life just for posting a website, so I guess there will be a problem of what to do with him when his sentence runs out.

I'm pretty sure the UK will not take him back, and it's likely his native Egypt won't either.

If he is still an Egyptian citizen, can they refuse to take him? If not then yes....I guess Uncle Sam is stuck with him!

[Mahone]

Won't there be a problem with double jeopardy? That law has been watered down somewhat in the UK, but in the US it's still protected by the First Amendment.

I suspect that the charges are different - merely technicalities. In reality, it's for the same thing.

I can't see him getting life just for posting a website, so I guess there will be a problem of what to do with him when his sentence runs out.

From Wikipedia:

On 27 May 2004, Hamza was detained on remand by British authorities and appeared before magistrates at the start of a process to try to extradite him to the United States. Yemen also requested his extradition. The United States wanted Hamza to stand trial for 11 counts relating to the taking of 16 hostages in Yemen in 1998, advocating violent jihad in Afghanistan in 2001, supporting James Ujaama in an attempt to establish a terrorist training camp in late 1999 and early 2000 near Bly, Oregon and of providing aid to al-Qaeda.[33][34] Ujaama is a U.S. citizen who had met Abu Hamza in England in 1999 and was indicted in the U.S. for providing aid to al-Qaeda, attempting to establish a terrorist training camp, and for running a Web site advocating global violent jihad.[35] Abu Hamza was in Britain throughout the relevant period.

If he is still an Egyptian citizen, can they refuse to take him? If not then yes....I guess Uncle Sam is stuck with him!

Yes, it's known as denaturalization. I believe Australia tried to do it with Julian Assange, not sure if they ever did. It's ultimately subject to local laws. I know the US are also having difficultly getting rid of the members of Guantanamo Bay - I think they had to pay off a number of countries to take them.

Even so, whether they are allowed to refuse to take him or not is irrelevant. They can still do so if they choose, and what option does the US have then? Shove him into a drone, fly it over Egypt and drop him? Lol.

[Dravin]

Won't there be a problem with double jeopardy?

Double jeopardy doesn't pertain to dual sovereigns. Now considering a US State qualifies as a different sovereign from the Federal Government I can only image that the UK does. I will confess I'm not a lawyer though, just a Wikipedia Warrior.

Link: Double Jeopardy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That law has been watered down somewhat in the UK, but in the US it's still protected by the First Amendment.

If 'that law' is referring to double jeopardy then the amendment you want is the 5th.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Dravin

[Jamie123]

Yes, it's known as denaturalization. I believe Australia tried to do it with Julian Assange, not sure if they ever did. It's ultimately subject to local laws. I know the US are also having difficultly getting rid of the members of Guantanamo Bay - I think they had to pay off a number of countries to take them.

Even so, whether they are allowed to refuse to take him or not is irrelevant. They can still do so if they choose, and what option does the US have then? Shove him into a drone, fly it over Egypt and drop him? Lol.

Hmmm....so if there's someone in this country we really want to get rid of, all we have to do is persuade him to take a vacation overseas, and then denaturalize him while he's away. Problem solved!

[Jamie123]

Double jeopardy doesn't pertain to dual sovereigns. Now considering a US State qualifies as a different sovereign from the Federal Government I can only image that the UK does. I will confess I'm not a lawyer though, just a Wikipedia Warrior.

Looking at the Wikipedia link, it looks as though even under different sovereigns the charges cannot be identical - only related. The police who assulted Rodney King were not charged with assulting him as they had been in California, but with civil rights violations.

On a lighter note Ashley Judd was (if I remember rightly) convicted of murdering Bruce Greenwood in Washington State - where he actually faked the whole thing - and then used double jeopardy to protect her when she really went after him in New Orleans. Presumably Louisiana is a different sovereign from Washington? But then again, Hollywood isn't always accurate in these matters.

If 'that law' is referring to double jeopardy then the amendment you want is the 5th.

Thanks - that's what I meant. Edited October 9, 2012 by Jamie123

[EarlJibbs]

I am sure our American inmates can make him feel right at home.

[Mahone]

Hmmm....so if there's someone in this country we really want to get rid of, all we have to do is persuade him to take a vacation overseas, and then denaturalize him while he's away. Problem solved!

There is a strong difference between a country forcing/strongly encouraging someone to their lands, and a person voluntarily going there. I don't really think your analogy is similar in any way to Abu Hamza.

This is the law in the UK regarding the removal of citizenship:

In the United Kingdom

Section 4 of the British Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002[25] gave power to the Home Secretary to ‘deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has done anything seriously prejudicial to the vital interests’ of the United Kingdom etc., except in the case where such might render the person stateless.[26]

As he is also a citizen of Egypt, he would not be stateless at the time of removal of British citizenship. This means we can strip him of his British Citizenship. It doesn't mean Egypt won't also do the same thing afterwards. What happens to him after that is not our problem.

Edited October 9, 2012 by Mahone

[Jamie123]

There is a strong difference between a country forcing/strongly encouraging someone to their lands, and a person voluntarily going there. I don't really think your analogy is similar in any way to Abu Hamza.

This is the law in the UK regarding the removal of citizenship:

As he is also a citizen of Egypt, he would not be stateless at the time of removal of British citizenship. This means we can strip him of his British Citizenship. It doesn't mean Egypt won't also do the same thing afterwards. What happens to him after that is not our problem.

Is he still an Egyptian citizen though? All I've been able to find is that he is "Egyptian born", which is not the same thing. I have a friend who was born in Zimbabwe but who lost his Zimbabwean citizenship after becoming British.