• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please contact us.




After 8 years Abu Hamza and 4 others to be extradited to the US

Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
BBC reporting his plane has arrived in the U.S....due before a NY court later this morning..
 


Mountaintop

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
1,263
Sky news reporting that a suspected arab terrorist on a flight that just arrived in NY...was carrying a pointed hook....that may have been part of a hijacking plot...
..
..
I kid.
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
You cannot be extradited to a country where you have committed no crimes, do you understand this?
There is no hope for some. First, if you are a conspirator, you can be tried in any jurisdiction wherein any act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred.

Next, one of his co-conspirators, Oussama Kassir, was already extradited, tried, and convicted.

Lastly, before you continue with the theater of the absurd, please, Google yourself silly in an effort to find the indictment filed against Hamza. The various and sundry counts are:

1-Conspiracy to take hostages (the Yemen attack), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1203, which can be found here:

18 USC § 1203 - Hostage taking | LII / Legal Information Institute

Note (b)(1)(A) and (C):

(b) (1) It is not an offense under this section if the conduct required for the offense occurred outside the United States unless—
(A) the offender or the person seized or detained is a national of the United States;
(B) the offender is found in the United States; or
(C) the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States.


So, you take hostages anywhere in the world as part of a plan to coerce the US government and we have jurisdiction over that offense. And you don't take any US citizens hostage either, since we have jurisdiction over that offense as well. As some always seems to forget, you included, at rock bottom, the US of A exists to protect my very life. And so you take me hostage outside the US and you are liable to being indicted by the grand jury sitting in the jurisdiction of the appropriate United States District Court. Call it my country preserving my life. Kudos to my country for that.

2-Similar charge, hostage taking, but other facts.

3-Conspiracy to provide and conceal material support and resources to terrorists (the whole jihadist training camp in Oregon thing). The applicable statute can be found here:

18 USC § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists | LII / Legal Information Institute

4-Conspiracy again, same type, other but similar facts

5-Ditto

6-Ditto

7-Conspiracy to provide and conceal material support and resources, this time in relation to Afghanistan. The indictment reads:

In or about June 2000, Co-Conspirator 2 traveled from London, England, to New York...

Concerns monies raised here by Co-Conspirator 2, transmitted and deposited in the bank account for that mosque there in the UK, and then the money travels to fund jihadists in Afghanistan.

8-Same with other facts (resources directed towards attempt to kill, kidnap, main or injure person or property in a foreign jurisdiction)

9-Same with other facts (aid to Osama & Co.)(actually, the charge is different from 7 and 8, which concern "terrorists", while count 9 concerns material support for a "terrorist organization" and so Osama & Co. is al-Qaeda)

10-Same with other facts.

11-Conspiracy to supply goods and services to the Taliban. The relevant statute is:

50 U.S.C. § 1705 : US Code - Section 1705: Penalties

Concerns an Executive Order issued by Clinton and continued by Bush that prohibits United States persons from aiding the Taliban, and so, with his co-conspirators, Abu Hamza is alleged to have solicited material support here and furnished the same to the Taliban.

And that's his indictment. And we have jurisdiction over all of those offenses, since going back to what I first said, you are a conspirator, then you are liable to indictment and trial in the US for any act in furtherance of the conspiracy that occurs here in the US.

10-
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
There is no hope for some. First, if you are a conspirator, you can be tried in any jurisdiction wherein any act in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred.

Next, one of his co-conspirators, Oussama Kassir, was already extradited, tried, and convicted.

Lastly, before you continue with the theater of the absurd, please, Google yourself silly in an effort to find the indictment filed against Hamza. The various and sundry counts are:

1-Conspiracy to take hostages (the Yemen attack), in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1203, which can be found here:

18 USC § 1203 - Hostage taking | LII / Legal Information Institute

Note (b)(1)(A) and (C):

(b) (1) It is not an offense under this section if the conduct required for the offense occurred outside the United States unless—
(A) the offender or the person seized or detained is a national of the United States;
(B) the offender is found in the United States; or
(C) the governmental organization sought to be compelled is the Government of the United States.


So, you take hostages anywhere in the world as part of a plan to coerce the US government and we have jurisdiction over that offense. And you don't take any US citizens hostage either, since we have jurisdiction over that offense as well. As some always seems to forget, you included, at rock bottom, the US of A exists to protect my very life. And so you take me hostage outside the US and you are liable to being indicted by the grand jury sitting in the jurisdiction of the appropriate United States District Court. Call it my country preserving my life. Kudos to my country for that.

2-Similar charge, hostage taking, but other facts.

3-Conspiracy to provide and conceal material support and resources to terrorists (the whole jihadist training camp in Oregon thing). The applicable statute can be found here:

18 USC § 2339A - Providing material support to terrorists | LII / Legal Information Institute

4-Conspiracy again, same type, other but similar facts

5-Ditto

6-Ditto

7-Conspiracy to provide and conceal material support and resources, this time in relation to Afghanistan. The indictment reads:

In or about June 2000, Co-Conspirator 2 traveled from London, England, to New York...

Concerns monies raised here by Co-Conspirator 2, transmitted and deposited in the bank account for that mosque there in the UK, and then the money travels to fund jihadists in Afghanistan.

8-Same with other facts (resources directed towards attempt to kill, kidnap, main or injure person or property in a foreign jurisdiction)

9-Same with other facts (aid to Osama & Co.)(actually, the charge is different from 7 and 8, which concern "terrorists", while count 9 concerns material support for a "terrorist organization" and so Osama & Co. is al-Qaeda)

10-Same with other facts.

11-Conspiracy to supply goods and services to the Taliban. The relevant statute is:

50 U.S.C. § 1705 : US Code - Section 1705: Penalties

Concerns an Executive Order issued by Clinton and continued by Bush that prohibits United States persons from aiding the Taliban, and so, with his co-conspirators, Abu Hamza is alleged to have solicited material support here and furnished the same to the Taliban.

And that's his indictment. And we have jurisdiction over all of those offenses, since going back to what I first said, you are a conspirator, then you are liable to indictment and trial in the US for any act in furtherance of the conspiracy that occurs here in the US.

10-
Ho hum, you do understand that US law is not world Law? That what it perceives as crimes does not automatically satisfy an extradition?

Please tell me you understand the basic principles of extradition.

For example, If I shot you in Dublin, I would be tried in Dublin, geddit?

The Irish could issue a law stating anyone anywhere who has an abortion is guilty of a crime and thus issue extradition warrants off the back of it. Good luck being entertained.
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
BBC reporting his plane has arrived in the U.S....due before a NY court later this morning..

Well at least he is going to be brought before a court.
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
Ho hum, you do understand that US law is not world Law? That what it perceives as crimes does not automatically satisfy an extradition?

Please tell me you understand the basic principles of extradition.

For example, If I shot you in Dublin, I would be tried in Dublin, geddit?

The Irish could issue a law stating anyone anywhere who has an abortion is guilty of a crime and thus issue extradition warrants off the back of it. Good luck being entertained.
Dumbass, I am an attorney. You are not. So I am the expert, and you are not. And dumbass, you can be tried in any locale that has jurisdiction, and that can be multiple locales, i.e., a criminal conspiracy that occurs in several US states, or several countries, in which circumstance, you can be tried in any and every US state in which the conspiracy occurred, and so too, you can be tried in any of the countries wherein the conspiracy occurred. And so to take your example, if you took me hostage in Dublin, both the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America would have jurisdiction over the offense. And you could be tried in both places, since there is the separate sovereign rule and so there would no "double jeopardy" concern under the US Constitution.
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
Dumbass, I am an attorney. You are not. So I am the expert, and you are not. And dumbass, you can be tried in any locale that has jurisdiction, and that can be multiple locales, i.e., a criminal conspiracy that occurs in several US states, or several countries, in which circumstance, you can be tried in any and every US state in which the conspiracy occurred, and so too, you can be tried in any of the countries wherein the conspiracy occurred. And so to take your example, if you took me hostage in Dublin, both the Republic of Ireland and the United States of America would have jurisdiction over the offense. And you could be tried in both places, since there is the separate sovereign rule and so there would no "double jeopardy" concern under the US Constitution.

Welcome back crapster, so, you are an attorney in this reincarnation.

And dumbass, my example was that I shot you, not held you hostage.

I think you know why you deliberately altered it :)
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
And, dumbass, you might try reading United States v. McAllister:

We need not provide an in-depth analysis of each international law principle of jurisdiction. It is sufficient to state that the objective territorial principle justifies extraterritorial application of these statutes. The objective territorial principle applies where the defendant's actions either produced some effect in the United States, or where he was part of a conspiracy in which any conspirator's overt acts were committed within the United States' territory. Baker, 609 F.2d at 138 (citing United States v. Postal, 589 F.2d 862, 869 (5th Cir.1979)). In the present case, MacAllister was a part of a conspiracy that intended to participate in and take advantage of the drug trade between the United States and Canada. Co-conspirators committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy within the territorial boundaries of the United States. This conduct has a detrimental effect on our nation. We conclude that extraterritorial application is permitted under the objective territorial principle of international law.

And for more:

Under customary international law, there are five generally recognized principles upon which a country can permissibly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2003). The jurisdictional bases include the following.

The objective territorial principle—where the offense occurs in one country but has effects in another, for example, killing someone by shooting across an international border.

The nationality principle—the offender is a citizen of the prosecuting state.

The protective principle—the offense offends, the vital interests of the prosecuting state, such as counterfeiting that nation's currency.

The passive personality principle—the victim is a citizen of the prosecuting state.

The universality principle—the offense, such as piracy, is universally condemned by the international community, sometimes in a multinational convention or treaty to which the United States is a signatory.


So, that we've established that you know nothing about international law, maybe you might cease and desist (a legal phrase) from theater of the absurd.
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
Welcome back crapster, so, you are an attorney in this reincarnation.

And dumbass, my example was that I shot you, not held you hostage.

I think you know why you deliberately altered it :)
No, I've always been an attorney. And, dumbass, Hamza isn't being tried for murder, but for taking hostages. And if you read my post before, we can use the murder example, you murder US citizen me in Dublin, and so in the basis of the international law principle of passive personality, the prosecuting state, the US, can ask for your extradition for prosecution, because you murdered a US citizen.
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
No, I've always been an attorney. And, dumbass, Hamza isn't being tried for murder, but for taking hostages. And if you read my post before, we can use the murder example, you murder US citizen me in Dublin, and so in the basis of the international law principle of passive personality, the prosecuting state, the US, can ask for your extradition for prosecution, because you murdered a US citizen.
And it would be refused.

Hostage taking is treated differently for obvious reasons.

Hamza is also being tried organising a Training camp in the US isn't he?.

Now calm down sweetheart. Pop a xanex or something, I think you need it :) Especially after Bush wiped his arse with your constitution.
 

mary_queen_of_the_gael

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2012
Messages
3,190
Under customary international law, there are five generally recognized principles upon which a country can permissibly assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. See United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56, 91-92 (2d Cir. 2003). The jurisdictional bases include the following.


The protective principle—the offense offends, the vital interests of the prosecuting state, such as counterfeiting that nation's currency.

.
Don't think Sean Garland would approve of that one
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
yip. more wikipedia from crapster. I still see the principle of consent is utterly lost on you.

I'm surprised you haven't tried to place a bet on it with a holding company here.

I love winding you up, its so easy its laughable just lob in a couple of sentences and off you go like a demented lunatic frantically googling and wasting your own time :)
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
10,093
I think he lost both hands in the de-mining project he was involved in , plus an eye. He may be a crackpot but he obviously has done some good in his life, anyone like to volunteer to clear a mine field?
"De-mining"?? He says it was fighting the Soviets. So it was more likely mining or placing IEDs.

A one-time nightclub bouncer in London's Soho district, al-Masri -- also known as Mustafa Kamal Mustafa -- has said he lost both hands and one eye while fighting against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. He often wore a hook in place of one hand.​
Abu Hamza extradition ruling marks end of era for radical cleric - CNN.com
 

Kevin Doyle

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
11,067
No, I imagine that he would not. And funny that you bring him up, since for some of us here, the failure to extradite ole Sean does tend to rub us the wrong way (as it were).
Yip, blows your whole theory out of the water.

On 27 January 2012, Justice Edwards stated that since the offence for which the US wanted to extradite was regarded as having been committed in Ireland the Court was prohibited from extraditing Garland. He was therefore obliged to refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions who would consider whether there was a case for prosecuting Garland in Ireland.

Better luck next time eh Crapster.

God help your clients though......titter.
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
yip. more wikipedia from crapster. I still see the principle of consent is utterly lost on you.

I'm surprised you haven't tried to place a bet on it with a holding company here.

I love winding you up, its so easy its laughable just lob in a couple of sentences and off you go like a demented lunatic frantically googling and wasting your own time :)
What principle of consent? Jurisdiction and extradition are not the same, so do yourself a favor and don't mix them up. Since whether you are extradited or not, does not rule out your prosecution, since you could always be abducted, or you could leave the one jurisdiction and be apprehended and extradited from another jurisdiction. Or you could be dumb enough to travel here, and be apprehended and tried here. That last is how we've managed to bring to trial more than a few drug-related offenders from both Canada and Mexico. The dimwits were stupid enough to enter the US subsequent to their indictment...

Now for how dumb you are, and nice with the winding up, since you aren't winding me up, but only making your withdraw in your usual cowardly fashion, but how dumb you are:

The findings of the AU–EU Expert Group on Universal Jurisdiction, published on 16 April 2009, indicate otherwise. An assessment carried out by the expert group shows that of the multiple cases brought by eight of the twenty-seven EU member states, proceedings have been instituted against nationals not only from Africa but from Afghanistan, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Chile, China, Cuba, El Salvador, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Suriname, the United States and Uzbekistan.
***
2. Bases of prescriptive criminal jurisdiction

Territorial

A state is entitled to prosecute all persons irrespective of nationality who have committed a crime prescribed by its laws within its territory

(Extraterritorial prescriptive bases of jurisdiction)

Active personality (nationality of offender) A state’s entitlement to prosecute its own nationals for crimes committed outside its territory. State practice indicates that for the purpose of jurisdiction, states treat those who have acquired the nationality of the forum
state after the date of the offence but prior to the prosecution as nationals.

Passive personality (nationality of victim) A state’s entitlement to prosecute individuals who have harmed its own nationals even when such harm is committed outside its territory. State practice indicates that for the purpose of jurisdiction, states treat those who have acquired the nationality of the forum state after the date of the offence but prior to the prosecution as falling under the passive personality principle.

Protective A state’s right to protect its national security entitles it to prosecute individuals who commit a harm that threatens the security of the state even when such harm has been committed outside its territory.

Universal A state’s right to prosecute individuals for international crimes committed anywhere in the world even though neither the offender nor the victims are linked by nationality to the prosecuting state.


And that is brought to you courtesy of Chatham House:

http://*******.com/8nmkayh

Lastly, dumbass, a debate in very own Dail that concerns the principle of passive personality:

Seanad Éireann - 18/Jul/2012 European Arrest Warrant (Application to Third Countries and Amendment) and Extradition (Amendment) Bill 2011: Committee and Remaining Stages

And so, your gal said:

As I stated on Second Stage, I do not purport to be an expert in international extradition law which, I am reliably informed, is conceptually the most difficult part of criminal law. I have done a significant amount of research since Second Stage, however, and I understand there are four categories under which extra-territorial jurisdiction dealing with criminal cases generally fall. They are dealt with in some detail in the submission I made to the Minister prior to the debate on Second Stage. For the benefit of my colleagues in the House, I will summarise them as follows: First, the active personality principle whereby prosecution is based on the nationality of the accused; second, the passive personality principle whereby prosecution is based on the nationality of the victim; third, the protective principle whereby prosecution is based on the protection of national interests; and fourth, universal jurisdiction generally where the crime is considered as being one against the international community or international law. Typically, this involves crimes against humanity and piracy on the high seas.


And since you like hypos:

Following the decision in the Bailey case, with a strict interpretation applied to section 44 and the specific statutory provisions that granted the power to prosecute on an extra-territorial basis, the decision to surrender by Ireland will be made solely on the basis of active personality. Therefore when dealing with a requesting state that asserts jurisdiction on the basis of one of the other principles and where Ireland could not prosecute the crime in analogous factual circumstances, surrender would be refused.

The danger therein in terms of Ireland offering a safe haven from justice, is possibly best demonstrated by following a hypothetical case that I put forward today to share with my colleagues. The fugitive is a German national married to a Spanish woman. They live in France and have a ten-year-old daughter who has Spanish citizenship. While on holiday in South Africa, the fugitive sexually abuses his daughter and the offences come to light when the family return to France. The mother takes the child and moves to Spain, while the fugitive then flees to Ireland. Spain purports to exercise extra-territorial jurisdiction in any sexual offences against a minor. This is on the basis of a universal jurisdiction set out in Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. The Spanish authorities obviously have a legitimate interest in prosecuting the offence as it was committed against a Spanish citizen. Moreover, there is no reality to the fugitive being extradited from Spain to South Africa to face trial as the prison conditions in the latter country fall well below the basic norms. A European arrest warrant is issued by the Spanish authorities for the fugitive for the extra-territorial child sex offences that occurred in South Africa. The fugitive is arrested in Ireland and contests his surrender. In light of the decision in Bailey, the courts would have to refuse surrender. The only basis upon which the Irish courts can exercise extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction is section 2(1) of the Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act 1996 which bases jurisdiction on the suspect being either an Irish citizen or ordinarily resident here. As Spain bases its jurisdiction on a form of universal jurisdiction and the fugitive is neither a Spanish citizen nor ordinarily resident in Spain, the highly abstract test of reciprocity contemplated by the Bailey case cannot be satisfied.

I put it to the Minister, therefore, that it is open to the Oireachtas to take a view of the extra-territoriality exception other than one based on reciprocity. I believe that the amendment tabled provides the appropriate legislative intervention to do so. The amendment would give much needed guidance to the Supreme Court. It would make the test simpler — one based on the underlying facts of the offence in question, rather than the jurisdiction upon which the extra-territorial jurisdiction is asserted.


So, I get now, what you mean by consent, to wit, Ireland under the Bailey decision is a safe haven for sexual predators. Of course, that doesn't accord very with notions of "consent", but then sexual assault never was about consent to begin with...

And for more hypos for you, well, your gal, the Right Honorable Jillian van Turnhout once again:

I will outline another hypothetical case. If a group of French oil workers was murdered in an al-Qaeda terrorist attack in a Gulf state, there would be no question of extraditing those suspected of involvement to the Gulf state as it applies the death penalty and its justice and prison system falls far short of the acceptable international norms. Some months later a suspect is identified. He is a national of the Gulf state in question and has fled to Ireland in the meantime. On the basis of the passive personality principle, that is, the French nationality of the victims, France may wish to prosecute the fugitive and, therefore, a European arrest warrant is issued. It is unclear if Ireland would surrender the person in such circumstances. While the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 would appear to allow Ireland to exercise a form of universal jurisdiction in such offences, it could be argued that we should not surrender where we would assert a universal jurisdiction while France would assert jurisdiction on the basis of the passive personality principle.

If we take a similar case that is not terrorist-related, Ireland only exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction for murder in the case of an Irish suspect and not an Irish victim. That being so the fact that France exercises its jurisdiction on the basis of the nationality of the victim would mean that we would need to refuse surrender. This is more or less precisely what happened in the case of Mr. Bailey — albeit a more dramatic example. I feel we are exposing Ireland as a place for fugitives because we do not have clarity on the issue. I obviously admire the work the Minister is doing and I will not press the amendment because he has been honest with me. If I had been told the wording of my amendment had been flawed and I had not done my homework adequately, I would feel that was fair enough. However, I am being told that the clock is ticking down — we are finishing up tomorrow, will not have time to go back to back to the Dáil and will not have time for the Attorney General to consider it. Is that really how we should be legislating? I am extremely disappointed.


And so much for being Irish, as you may not be able to prosecute, and if your law is the same, your Irish victim murdered overseas may obtain no justice. But you understand the principle of "consent", or so you report. And now back to my one point, jurisdiction and extradition are not the same, and so our gal here isn't speaking to the other nation's jurisdiction to try the offense, as that it their own internal matter. Here, Hamza is being extradited because the UK has given its consent, both generally, by way of treaty with the US, and specifically with respect to this particular human. All in accord with both international and UK law.
 

Nemesiscorporation

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2011
Messages
14,222
BBC News - Abu Hamza and Babar Ahmad extradition approved



About time to be honest. Once the death penalty was off the table this should have happened a lot sooner. The only possible delay now would appear to be some private prosecutions pending in the uk, but even then they'd get shipped to e US after.

A lot of relief in the UK to be rid of em, but frustration it took so long.
Took them long enough.
 

EPluribusUnum

Active member
Joined
Aug 28, 2012
Messages
225
Yip, blows your whole theory out of the water.

On 27 January 2012, Justice Edwards stated that since the offence for which the US wanted to extradite was regarded as having been committed in Ireland the Court was prohibited from extraditing Garland. He was therefore obliged to refer the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions who would consider whether there was a case for prosecuting Garland in Ireland.

Better luck next time eh Crapster.

God help your clients though......titter.
Damn, are you dumb. We have jurisdiction over whatever our law says we have jurisdiction. Whether or not some other country extradites someone is a separate matter. We still have jurisdiction over Sean Garland. That's why he won't ever be found in the US or in some other country besides Ireland from whence he can be extradited. And so Sean won't be found in Northern Ireland, as there is a warrant for his arrest. So he stays in the haven for criminals, dear ole Eire. And I didn't say it, your gal did, in your Dail. Ireland, a haven for criminals. Because you "consent" to the same. Kudos to you there lad.
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top