And theyre off. Hamza going on holiday

[Gentile]

Generally I do not agree with extradition but in this case there are genuine allegations that he was involved 'killings'. Moreover, his UK citizenship should have been removed years ago and he should have been sent back to Egypt along with his wives.

There are no such allegations about Babar Ahmad (who is the only person I was referring to above). It'd also be impossible to remove Babar Ahmad's citizenship, since he was born here. Are you instead referring to Abu Hamza? Because I agree there's a case for extraditing him.

[Paddy]

There are no such allegations about Babar Ahmad (who is the only person I was referring to above). It'd also be impossible to remove Babar Ahmad's citizenship, since he was born here. Are you instead referring to Abu Hamza? Because I agree there's a case for extraditing him.

Yes, only Abu Luft Hamza?

[centurian]

And for what? Running a website in the UK? (wherever the server is alleged to have been located without his knowledge.)

Isn't he also accused of having sensitive information in his possession pertaining to one of the US naval fleets and where and how they would be most vulnerable to attack - all heavily encrypted.

If proven, that's a lot more than just running a website.

Richard O'Dwyer - now he's got something to whine about. Had a website which he knocked up at university (website was not based in US), which had links to other websites which had pirate material on them. Now being extradicted on criminal charges.

[Gentile]

Isn't he also accused of having sensitive information in his possession pertaining to one of the US naval fleets and where and how they would be most vulnerable to attack - all heavily encrypted.

If proven, that's a lot more than just running a website.

Richard O'Dwyer - now he's got something to whine about. Had a website which he knocked up at university (website was not based in US), which had links to other websites which had pirate material on them. Now being extradicted on criminal charges.

If true, I'd have liked to have seen any evidence on that tested in a UK court. It seems crazy to me, since the UK authorities have actually got more relevant powers to compel accused people to decrypt files than the Americans do. (It's a separately-indictable offence to refuse to decrypt files here, but I don't think it is in the US.)

You're right about Richard O'Dwyer. Christopher Tappin is in the same boat. I doubt either of their cases would have stood up had they been properly tested in a UK Court.

[EternalOptimist]

If true, I'd have liked to have seen any evidence on that tested in a UK court. It seems crazy to me, since the UK authorities have actually got more relevant powers to compel accused people to decrypt files than the Americans do. (It's a separately-indictable offence to refuse to decrypt files here, but I don't think it is in the US.)

You're right about Richard O'Dwyer. Christopher Tappin is in the same boat. I doubt either of their cases would have stood up had they been properly tested in a UK Court.

Well we have different systems, different crimes, different rules

[Incognito]

It's amazing to me that a UK citizen can have their rights so badly abused, and most of us do nothing about it. And for what? Running a website in the UK? (wherever the server is alleged to have been located without his knowledge.)

Get your facts right:

"....providing material support of terrorism, conspiring to kill U.S. nationals, and money laundering. It is alleged that Ahmad and Ahsan, through an entity known as "Azzam Publications", were members of a group that provided material support to the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through various means, including the administration and operation of various web sites promoting violent jihad. The Azzam Publications websites, including, e.g., Azzam.com and Qoqaz.net, were hosted for a period of time through the services of a web-hosting company located in Connecticut. The indictment alleges that the defendants, using both cyberspace and real-world efforts, assisted the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen through money laundering, as well as by providing funds, military equipment, communication equipment, lodging, training, expert advice and assistance, facilities, personnel, transportation and other supplies, with the knowledge and intent that such conduct would support the military activities of these and associated groups. The indictment also alleges that, during a search of Ahmad's residence in the United Kingdom in December 2003, Ahmad was found in the possession of an electronic document containing what were previously classified plans regarding the makeup, advance movements and mission of a United States Naval battle group as it was transiting from California to its deployment in the Middle East. The document discussed the battle group's perceived vulnerability to terrorist attack."

He's already spent longer in custody than those US soldiers that were actually convicted of torturing Iraqi civilians to death in Abu Ghraib.

He's spent all that time in custody because he chose to fight extradition.

He should have been released with an apology, not sent to face the kangaroo courts that constitute the US Federal Justice system.

Kangaroo courts? These 'kangaroo courts' are the raison d'être of Guantanamo. Clown.

[Incognito]

If true, I'd have liked to have seen any evidence on that tested in a UK court. It seems crazy to me, since the UK authorities have actually got more relevant powers to compel accused people to decrypt files than the Americans do. (It's a separately-indictable offence to refuse to decrypt files here, but I don't think it is in the US.)

Firstly it's an offence triable either way so you're wrong on that part and secondly if you actually read the relevant statute you'll notice the key phrase:

If any person with the appropriate permission under Schedule 2 believes, on reasonable grounds—

That means you need to be able to stand up in front of a Judge and have a pretty good story as to why you want the password to that laptop. The fact you're in possession of that laptop means it's been seized under some powers anyway, much that you might like to think it, the Police can't just turn up and take your laptop away for no reason.

As for the USA, the reason the authorities can't order disclosure is because those 'kangaroo courts' of yours will actually respect a defendant's rights under the fifth amendment, however I believe that if the authorities already have evidence that you are in possession of 'something' then a Court will disregard the fifth amendment (as there is no self incrimination) and will order the defendant to provide the above.

You're right about Richard O'Dwyer. Christopher Tappin is in the same boat. I doubt either of their cases would have stood up had they been properly tested in a UK Court.

Clown.

[Troll]