Editor's Blog2 mins ago
Abu Hmaza Life In Jail In America Why Did It Take Britain So Long To Sort It Out
28 Answers
Why did it take Britain so long to sort out the farce with Abu Hamza when America has dealt with it so efficiently?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by gordiescotland1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Svejk
It would be useful if you would fact check before you post, as it is getting very tedious to correct virtually everything you write.
There were assurances about death penalty, and a treaty with the US in 2004 stipulate it.
// The extradition request for Abu Hamza has been made under a new treaty between Britain and the US, signed in Washington 11 months ago, and implemented under UK law at the start of 2004.
Article 7 of the treaty covers the death penalty and states that "the executive authority may refuse extradition unless the requesting state provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out." //
It would be useful if you would fact check before you post, as it is getting very tedious to correct virtually everything you write.
There were assurances about death penalty, and a treaty with the US in 2004 stipulate it.
// The extradition request for Abu Hamza has been made under a new treaty between Britain and the US, signed in Washington 11 months ago, and implemented under UK law at the start of 2004.
Article 7 of the treaty covers the death penalty and states that "the executive authority may refuse extradition unless the requesting state provides an assurance that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if imposed, will not be carried out." //
So why, then, with that blanket assurance and power of veto, was extradition not carried out soon after Jacquie Smith signed the extradition order in February 2008? She must have been happy that the death penalty was not a possibility when she made the order. What happened between then and 2012?
Here's a clue:
February 2008 – Home Secretary Jacqui Smith signs extradition order.
July 2010 – European Court of Human Rights rules that extradition can go ahead following them being satisfied that he will be treated properly (presumably meaning he will not be executed).
(Question: What happened in the intervening 29 months? USA causing delay again?)
September 2012 - After considering more evidence about conditions at the Colorado "supermax" jail, the European Court rules that Abu Hamza and four other suspects can face trial in the United States. The men appeal to the Grand Chamber, but on 24 September 2012 the court's highest judges give their final approval for the extradition.
(Question: was this another 26 months delay on the part of the US?)
5th October 2012 - Abu Hamza fails in his last-ditch bid to halt his extradition to the US. Judges at the High Court say there can be no more appeals and said the extradition 'may proceed immediately'.
To suggest that the delay in extradition was caused by the USA refusing to give the necessary assurances is totally without foundation. In 2008 the UK Home Secretary signed the order. Of course this should have been sufficient as the UK has no need to have its “Human Rights” procedures scrutinised by any supra national court. However, even in 2010 the ECHR (scarcely known for its “rubber stamp” treatment of such matters) gave its blessing for the extradition to go ahead. Following the final appeal in September 2012 Lord Chief Justice expresses his 'fury' at the time the extradition had taken.
The delay since February 2008 (and arguably considerably earlier than that) was due to the UK allowing copious avenues of appeal not only within this country but also abroad and being reticent to act even when all reasonable avenues of appeal had been exhausted . Many of these appeals were spurious and without basis and were simply designed to keep Abu Hamza from jail for a little longer (knowing that the outcome was likely to be a whole life sentence). The US did not delay matters at all once their initial assurances were provided (which must have been before 2008 or the Home Secretary would not have signed the order).
Here's a clue:
February 2008 – Home Secretary Jacqui Smith signs extradition order.
July 2010 – European Court of Human Rights rules that extradition can go ahead following them being satisfied that he will be treated properly (presumably meaning he will not be executed).
(Question: What happened in the intervening 29 months? USA causing delay again?)
September 2012 - After considering more evidence about conditions at the Colorado "supermax" jail, the European Court rules that Abu Hamza and four other suspects can face trial in the United States. The men appeal to the Grand Chamber, but on 24 September 2012 the court's highest judges give their final approval for the extradition.
(Question: was this another 26 months delay on the part of the US?)
5th October 2012 - Abu Hamza fails in his last-ditch bid to halt his extradition to the US. Judges at the High Court say there can be no more appeals and said the extradition 'may proceed immediately'.
To suggest that the delay in extradition was caused by the USA refusing to give the necessary assurances is totally without foundation. In 2008 the UK Home Secretary signed the order. Of course this should have been sufficient as the UK has no need to have its “Human Rights” procedures scrutinised by any supra national court. However, even in 2010 the ECHR (scarcely known for its “rubber stamp” treatment of such matters) gave its blessing for the extradition to go ahead. Following the final appeal in September 2012 Lord Chief Justice expresses his 'fury' at the time the extradition had taken.
The delay since February 2008 (and arguably considerably earlier than that) was due to the UK allowing copious avenues of appeal not only within this country but also abroad and being reticent to act even when all reasonable avenues of appeal had been exhausted . Many of these appeals were spurious and without basis and were simply designed to keep Abu Hamza from jail for a little longer (knowing that the outcome was likely to be a whole life sentence). The US did not delay matters at all once their initial assurances were provided (which must have been before 2008 or the Home Secretary would not have signed the order).
"A few days ago you were berating the Paris Shooters as Scum and excrement for shooting someone they didn't like, now you're advocating the same treatment for someone you don't like!
Double standards? "
hardly...TWR is advocating getting rid of filth that were (as now proven) a danger to all and sundry...whereas the people they murdered were just picked at random , not because they were a danger to the terrorist scum
Double standards? "
hardly...TWR is advocating getting rid of filth that were (as now proven) a danger to all and sundry...whereas the people they murdered were just picked at random , not because they were a danger to the terrorist scum
I cannot understand some people & their views, there are people that hate the UK, there are people that are intent to kill us " Men / Women / Children, & their are people who seem to think they need to have a fair trial, If I had a dog that bites, that dog will bite only once, Scum like the Paris Murder's shoot & kill, & Justice done their work, Scum like these Basds deserve all they get & I have no sympathy what so ever for them, so for the Goody Goody let them go to trial, ask the children / wife's of the good people of Paris did their Husbands / Boyfriends have that chance? I live in a real world a world that is terrorised by fanatics, my real world's motto, get shut of evil & let the world try and live in piece, now goody goddy's, condem me for my views, your welcome.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.