Abu Hamza Found Guilty

... and you may have to say it several times more, Brian, before it will sink in...

Thanks, chaps - think I get the idea now.
 
Originally posted by wardie@Feb 7 2006, 11:11 PM
What are the yanks going to charge him with ? Same sort of charges ?
Click to expand...

No, he is accused of being involved in an attack in Yemen in 1998 that resulted in four hostages' deaths. It is alleged also that he provided support and resources for terrorists, particularly al-Qaeda, and attempted to set up a terror training camp in Oregon. US attorney-general John Ashcroft said the cleric could face the death penalty or life imprisonment if found guilty.

However under current laws, Britain must ask the US to pledge they will not apply the death penalty before any extradition is approved. At the time of the request, David Blunkett, then Home Secretary, said: 'We have an agreement with the Americans, which means that on his extradition if they found him guilty, they are entitled to kill in the sentence but they will not carry out an execution.' But a barrister specialising in extradition cases, Paul Garlick, says that guarantee would have no legal standing once Abu Hamza was in the US. 'When someone is returned to the US after extradition, facing the possibility of a death sentence, there's no enforceable way in this country that we can prevent the Americans from executing a defendant,' he said. However former assistant US attorney-general Victoria Tonsing insisted there was no possibility of the cleric facing death. 'If we broke the promise, or if you ever broke a promise like that, there would never be another extradition.'

Uncertainty over the death penalty led to the delays in a decision on his extradition, which may still not be certain.
 
No, that's what won't happen. The legal eagles will be working on yes or no to extradition already - if the answer is no he'll be deported when his sentence is served.
 
Of course there are many who believe (and this includes parts of the US senate and some US intelligence service people) that Abu Hamza was protected for quite a while as he was an asset of both MI6 and MI5.
 
Originally posted by Melendez@Feb 7 2006, 05:54 PM
I'm sure they have a legal basis but the actual charges sound a bit makey-uppey.
Click to expand...


I have a similar feeling to Mel and Des.

Would Sinn Fein and IRA leaders have fallen foul of this law in the 70s and 80s if it existed at the time and was applied with the same rigour? I think the answer is probably yes, but I don't imagine many would have found it wise in the long run if such a prosecution went ahead.

I'm especially uneasy about the conviction for possession of material likely to be of use to a terrorist, perhaps because for obvious reasons we haven't been given many details. Apparently the offending item, the Encyclopedia of the Afghani Jihad, recommends Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower as terrorist targets.

Sadly, a rail timetable plus the London A-Z have probably been far more useful to those carrying out terrorist attacks than a publication containing superficial tips such as these.
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Feb 8 2006, 12:51 AM
Of course there are many who believe (and this includes parts of the US senate and some US intelligence service people) that Abu Hamza was protected for quite a while as he was an asset of both MI6 and MI5.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they said on BBC news last night that it came out in court that he was being used by MI5 and MI6 for a while.
 
A bit of lateral thinking could lead to the question:

How did the those planes get to the Twin Towers without anyone knowing that they were on their way?

A very stupid question now.

Is it possible that the US Government thought that the attack would serve a higher purpose,so they let it happem.?
 
If Abu Hamza was an intelligence asset it would explain why he was allowed to function and then arrested when the Americans asked for his deportation. One possible scenario:

"OK Abu, we're going to have to nick you for your own good. We'll work out some charges and you'll be guilty of them but by the time you've spent on remand is taken into account you'll only do a couple of years. Because there's no way in which the Yanks will guarantee not to top you we won't let 'em have you, rather you can go to Yemen on a deportation order. We know you like it there. We always look after our own, so would we let you fry?"

You see, I've read every word that John Le Carré has written...
 
How did the those planes get to the Twin Towers without anyone knowing that they were on their way?
Click to expand...

The sheer audacity of the plan was its greatest strength. Leaving aside the possibilities of what the various intelligence agencies knew or didn't know, it was unreasonable for anyone to expect that, once the planes deviated from their flightplan, they were going to be used as giant missiles. It went against absolutely everything previously understood about hijackings. Which, of course, conveniently provides plenty of plausible deniabililty...
 
The secret services are capable of anything and are a law unto themselves.

These are the tossers who plotted against Harold Wilson, a democratically elected prime minister of their own country.

In Northern Ireland they did untold damage. They turned it into an arena for cowboys v indians with the IRA and by doing so they legitimised the IRA's claim that were at war with the British state. By insisting on a security solution they froze out the moderates on both sides. That is without mentioning a list as long as anyone's arm of the criminal activity they engaged in, and encouraged others to engage in.

Nothing would surprise me about MI5 and MI6 and there is a serious argument to be made that Britain would be better off without them.
 
The secret services are capable of anything and are a law unto themselves.
Click to expand...

And not just in Britain; I'm reminded of the story told in The Power of Nightmares about how the CIA became convinced that the Soviet Union were the driving force behind an international terror network. The problem was, they were basing this on false "black propaganda" that they themselves had invented to smear the Soviets.

You couldn't make this stuff up...
 
In this modern world, there are many situations - often dealing with regimes very different from our own - where our country's best interests can only be represented in an arena away from press-monitored/PR-laced/public opinion dominated world of elected democratic politics.

I would have thought that the suggestion that we could operate without the need for our special security services is somewhat naive.
 
In this modern world, there are many situations - often dealing with regimes very different from our own - where our country's best interests can only be represented in an arena away from press-monitored/PR-laced/public opinion dominated world of elected democratic politics.
Click to expand...

I don't think secret services are a particularly modern idea and certainly predate the modern era of parliamentary democracy.

They are an instrument for carrying out transactions away from the gaze of the public and adversaries. The trouble is that they develop their own modus operandi, their own priorities and value systems that can finish by having nothing to do with the best interests of the country, still less the world, at large.
 
I didn't mean to imply that secret services were a modern phenomenon, and accept what you say may be true about their own modus operandi.

However, how often is it the case that the problems arise when democratically elected politicians start to manipulate the work and intelligence of these services to meet their own needs? Need I mention Alistair Campbell's "work" on the emphasis of the secret dossier.

The way I see it is that the secret services are a constant, that to at least some extent operate outside of political interference. This makes them, as a body, ultimately more reliable than a political entity elected to power on the back of a populist campaign, usually with the sole aim (maybe not at the beginning, but almost certainly by the end of their reign) of creating a legacy for themselves. I would suggest that realistically it is our security services that have the greater chance of having the country's best interests at heart.

Of course I am not suggesting that we should do away with parliament or anything so rash, what we need is what we have, a balance between elected government and a civil service with the accepted authorisation to carry out black operations only at times when they are deemed necessary. To have a country without either instituiton would surely be a less safe place.
 
I'd question the "more reliable" and, for very differing reasons cite in evidence the names, Philby, Burgess, MacLean, Blunt, Cairncross, Peter Wright et al
 
I would suggest that realistically it is our security services that have the greater chance of having the country's best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

Betsmate, if that were true, what would be the purpose of elected government?
 
Originally posted by BrianH@Feb 8 2006, 01:54 PM
I'd question the "more reliable" and, for very differing reasons cite in evidence the names, Philby, Burgess, MacLean, Blunt, Cairncross, Peter Wright et al
Click to expand...
Well capable of their own gaffs Brian - the very nature of the 'game' they play lends itself to this.

However the basic premise of the security services being a constant compared with the relative short-term nature in which elected representatives can create their own legacy - a point more valid in the United States than here I accept - is a crucial one.

To take the states as an example - and I appreciate that I am generalising wildly here - the CIA/FBI over a long period of time look after the security of the country both at home and abroad. Their methods may noy always be pretty, but that essentially is what they are there for. George Bush and his associates on the other hand, whilst the elected representatives of the country, have just 4 or 8 years in which to "do their bit". Perhaps in their case finishing the job his father started?

Without getting dragged into the whole George Bush War on Terrorism debate and its questioanble merits, I hope the example demonstrates why the security services are more likely to successfully further the country's interests in this arena than an elected representative alone.
 
Back
Top