YES
21% (3 votes)
YES
21% (3 votes)
NO
29% (4 votes)
NO
29% (4 votes)
Total votes: 14
User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 633
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 30 Nov 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 7 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 17:00
- 8 Dec 2024 - 11:30 to 16:30
- 15 Dec 2024 - 11:00 to 16:00
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
salaam
[b]Should extradition laws be used? [/b]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4141000.stm
Have the circumstances of national security changed sufficently to warrant extradition?
Ten foreign nationals who the Home Office says pose a threat to national security have been detained in the UK.
Raids in Leicestershire, London, Luton and the West Midlands occurred on Thursday following an agreement between the UK and Jordan that deportees would not be persecuted.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke said that "The circumstances of our national security have changed, it is vital that we act against those who threaten it."
Should extradition laws be used? Will deportation lessen the threat of terrorism? Do you agree with Charles Clarke's statement or will it impact too heavily on human rights.
wasalaam
If hte person is guilty of a crime, charge him. If not, leave him alone.
Extradition should only be used if an asylum application fails, and the individual is unwilling to leave. Or if a criminal escapes into the UK, and the country where the crime ocurred applies for him to be returned to face trial.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
salaam
[b]At-a-glance: New terror plans
On 5 August, Tony Blair proposed a raft of anti-terror measures in the wake of the London bomb attacks. Here are the main points of those plans. [/b]
New grounds for deporting and excluding people from the UK - including fostering hatred or, advocating and justifying violence to further beliefs. The powers will cover statements already on record.
Agreements with other countries, such as Jordan, to ensure people can be deported to their nations of origin without being tortured or ill-treated
Amend human rights laws, if necessary, to prevent legal obstacles to new deportation rules
Home secretary automatically to consider deporting any foreigner involved in listed extremist bookshops, centres, organisations and websites
Make justifying or glorifying terrorism anywhere an offence
Automatically refuse asylum to anyone with anything to do with terrorism anywhere
Consult on setting a maximum time limit for extraditions to other countries - Mr Blair said it was unacceptable that Rashid Ramda, wanted for the Paris Metro bombing 10 years ago, was still in the UK
Examine calls for police to be able to hold terror suspects for longer before pressing charges
Use more control orders against British terror suspects, who cannot be deported
Increase the number of special judges hearing terror cases
Ban the Hizb ut Tahrir and the successor organisation of Al-Muhajiroun - and look at whether the grounds for banning such groups need to be widened
Review the threshold for gaining British citizenship and establish, with the Muslim community, a commission to advise how to better integrate parts of the community "presently inadequately integrated"
Create a list of foreign preachers who will be kept out of the UK and consult on creating new powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism
Use biometric visas for those from designated countries and compiling a database so people whose views or activities pose a threat to UK security can be kept out of the country. They could only appeal against the decision from overseas.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4179128.stm
wasalaam
[b]UK Muslims Decry "Draconian" Terror Guidelines[/b]
Sacranie's MCB dismissed the new guidelines as "too wide and unclear". (Reuters)
LONDON, August 25, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – The sizable Muslim minority in Britain decried the government's new guidelines on deporting and barring Islamists suspected of inciting terrorism as too vague, warning they could further fan Islamophobia in Britain.
"The list of ‘unacceptable behaviors’ announced by the Home Secretary as grounds for exclusion of foreign nationals from the UK is considered to be too wide and unclear," the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said in a statement posted on its Web site.
"We are especially concerned that senior Islamic scholars will be barred from the UK purely on the basis of media witch-hunts orchestrated by pro-Israeli elements," Inayat Bunglawala, MCB media officer, told Agence France Presse (AFP).
Home Secretary Charles Clare unveiled Wednesday guidelines, under which the government can deport and bar foreign Muslim scholars from entering the country.
The list of "unacceptable behaviors" include fomenting, justifying or glorifying "terrorist" violence or seeking to provoke others to commit "terrorist" acts.
They also cover people who foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence, foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to commit serious criminal acts.
The banned views include those conveyed through written or published material, including Web sites, as well as public speaking.
They could also be delivered by someone in a position of responsibility such as a teacher or community leader.
The new guidelines are part of the British anti-terror measures taken in the wake of the July 7 terrorist attacks, which were carried out by four British Muslims and killed 52 people.
Complication
Clarke's list of "unacceptable behaviors" include fomenting, justifying or glorifying "terrorist" violence. (Reuters)
The Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), another leading British Muslim group, questioned the definition of "terror".
"One added complication seems to be the definition of terror which Mr Clarke has consistently avoided," Ahmed Al-Sheikh, MAB president, said in a statement on the group's Web site.
The Muslim body expressed concern that the new guidelines could cause to brand legitimate struggles against oppression and occupation as terrorism.
"This should not be the case, but if it is, then anyone glorifying or justifying the killings on the side of illegal military occupiers should also be guilty of inciting terror.
"There should not be a different moral standard whether the killing is carried out by homemade bombs or by F16s and tanks," said the statement.
The government's new guidelines also drew fire from human rights watchdogs for violating basic human rights, AFP said.
"The vagueness and breadth of the definition of 'unacceptable behavior' and 'terrorism' can lead to further injustice and risk further undermining human rights protection in the UK," said Halya Gowan of Amnesty International.
The UN special rapporteur on torture, Manfred Nowak, also said London's plan to deport Muslim scholars accused of inspiring hatred to countries with poor human rights records would expose them to "a real risk" of the death penalty.
Civil rights group Liberty attacked any move that would lead to suspects being sent to countries with a record of torture.
Criminalized Thought
British Muslims fear the new guidelines would further fan Islamophobia, which has already been running high in society since the July 7 attacks, according to AFP.
"The proposals do nothing but unleash further Islamophobia in British society," warned the Islamic Human Rights Commission.
It added that the new plans were tantamount to a "criminalization of thought".
Nearly half a million Muslims contemplated leaving Britain after the July 7 terrorist attacks, with one in five saying they or a family member have faced abuse or hostility since the attacks, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published on July 26.
The Muslim minority in Britain has vehemently condemned the attacks, which also drew rebuke from scholars, officials and individuals from across the Muslim world as running counter to the teachings of Islam.
Dialogue
The two leading British Muslim groups urged the government to engage in a serious dialogue to probe reasons behind terrorist activities rather than introduce controversial measures.
"To fight terrorism, the government needs to win hearts and minds through serious engagement and dialogue rather than introducing draconian measures which will alienate communities and erode civil liberties," said Al-Sheikh, the MAB leader.
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the secretary general of the MCB, also called for further consultations on the new measures.
"We need more thought and consultation for any precipitate action might only add to the burden of our already overstretched security services."
It doesn't particularly solve the problem to export radicalism from our countries... it isn't really dealing with the problem, only pushing it aside. Besides extraditing radicals "back home" to primarily muslim countries where they can rant against the west from their "first hand experience" only gives them greater legitimacy in the eyes of a very impressionable youth.
We have to stop radicals - not move them from place to place.
[b]
Livingstone to Sue Gov't if Banning Qaradawi[/b]
Livingstone warned against banning Muslims who support the Palestinians' legitimate struggle.
[b]LONDON, August 25, 2005 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Mayor of London Ken Livingstone has threatened to take the British government to court if it banned moderate Muslim scholar Yusuf Al-Qaradawi from entering the country under the new controversial terror guidelines.[/b]
"If nobody else takes the government to the courts if they banned Dr. Al-Qaradawi, I would," Livingstone told BBC radio on Wednesday, August 24, reported Agence France Presse (AFP).
"I don't think he should be banned. He has opposed all acts of terrorism by Al-Qaeda around the world. He urged Arabs to donate blood after September 11," added Livingstone, a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party.
British Home Secretary Charles Clarke unveiled Wednesday the guidelines of "unacceptable behavior" under which the government can deport and ban Muslim scholars accused of fomenting, justifying and glorifying acts of terror and violence.
The banned views include those conveyed through written or published material, including Web sites, as well as public speaking.
The new guidelines are part of the anti-terror measures taken in the wake of the July 7 London attacks, which were carried out by four bombers, including three British-born Muslims.
Qaradawi, head of the Dublin-based International Association of Muslim Scholars (IAMS), swiftly condemn the grisly London attacks as running counter to the tents of Islam.
Palestinian Struggle
Livingstone warned the governments against exploiting the new guidelines against the likes of Qaradawi who support the Palestinians' legitimate resistance against the Israeli occupation of their land.
"…there will be very few Muslim scholars or leaders that will ever be admitted to Britain because the vast majority of Muslims identify with the struggle of the Palestinian people".
The mayor of London went on: "I see real parallels between what happens in Israel-Palestine today with the bombing campaign run by the ANC (African National Congress) against the white apartheid regime 20 years ago in South Africa."
He was referring to former South African president Nelson Mandela who was imprisoned for many years after leading an armed struggle against the apartheid racist regime in his country.
"Would the supporters of Nelson Mandela have been thrown out of this country because they were supporting the bombing campaign against the apartheid racist regime in South Africa?" Livingstone asked.
"If so, the list should not be approved," he said on BBC television.
In March, Livingstone wrote a piece in The Guardian accusing Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon of being "a war criminal who should be in prison, not in office."
Qaradawi, also a trustee of the Oxford University Center for Islamic Studies, repeatedly drew the line between the Israeli occupation and Jews.
"We do not fight Israelis because they are Jews, but because they took our land, killed our children and profaned our holy places," the venerable scholar had said.
Livingstone apologized in July last year to Qaradawi "on behalf of the people of London" for the media fuss that overshadowed his last visit to Britain.
He had further called on British media to apologize to the leading scholar over their hostile campaign that sought to blemish his reputation.
Livingstone had criticized the Washington-based Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which is led by a former Israeli intelligence officer, for fueling the hatred campaign.
Too Vague
Meanwhile, the government's new terror guidelines drew rebuke from leading British dailies.
The Independent said the measures are "misguided" and will not help combat home-grown terrorism.
"Yesterday's list was drawn up after two weeks of consultation. But the 'offences' presented are still dangerously vague. The concept of 'justifying' terrorism is too loose," said the daily.
The Financial Times also dismissed some of the new measures as "vague and more alarming".
It stressed that Clarke's announcement that he is to consult on the creation of new powers to close places of worship used to foment extremism "should also be greeted with disquiet."
"Closing down mosques is likely to alienate the very Muslim communities whose co-operation is desperately needed, while also impinging on religious freedom", said the paper.
I think he should be tried in the UK. He is a uk citizen, and if he committed a crime, it was while he was in the UK.
The evidence against him should atleast be made public...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
he hasnt done jack!!
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
That is why he should be tried in the UK. there would need to be evidence provided.
If he is innocent as we are all lead to eblieve he will be acquitted.
In america, it may take a political turn...
besides I always thought for extradition evidence needs to be provided to support the extradition request... nothing of the sort has been done here.
And should the legal standing of his actions not be judged in the country he committed the act?
I am sure there must be activities deemed criminal in the US that are deemed totally legitimate here, and vice versa.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Two things, First the charge he attempted to set up a terrorist training camp in Arizona is more than enough for an extradition, it's a crime on US soil against the US.
Second, the article is actually incorrect - it doesn't matter if he is charged in Federal or military court, he will be at risk for the Death Penalty. - Also I don't know what his habeas corpus rights are in this matter, he is not a US citizen. I think Britain can request he be tried in Federal Court but I highly doubt your government will do this.
I do not know much about law; but does the fact he has never visited the US make any difference?
I think he should be tried. But in the UK.
I am sure setting up a terrorist network/camp etc will be just as abhorrent. I know we do not have the death penalty, but atleast innocence or guilt will be measured against british law.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
No it doesn't make a difference whether he was not in the US. Crimes against a nation that occur on that nations soil are under the jurisdiction of that legal system.
Ironically both American and international law inherited this from British law.
It would be considered extremely unusual for Britain to [i]not[/i] extradite, and most certainly would not be recieved well by Washington or the United States. It would be considered making an exception to a long standing courtesy/law.
But no crime was committed. At most there was intent to commit a crime.
And the intent did not happen on US soil.
That is my question: since it all happened in the UK, should it not be tried in the uk?
As a very far fetched example, if two 16 years old wed in the UK, that would be totally legal. Now if they went to the us, would they be criminals?
If the met on a US chatroom, but never went to the US, would that still be illegal?
So why is it diferent in this case?
(I am assuming you need to be 18 in the US to get married?)
UIs the only diference that a crime was alledgedly intended to be comit against the US? If so, why not a pre-trial here in the uk. If he found guilty of the criome, send him over... to be retried.
The internet does complicate things... beore you had to be in a country to commit a crime there. now you can be anywhere... so where should you be charged?
I say in country of residence, as that is the physical location of the defendant at the time of the crime...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Extradition between the US and the UK is governed by the Extradition Treaty of 1985
http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/fs/34885.htm
[i]"In addition, an offense is an extraditable offense if the offense is defined as extraditable under U.K. law and as a felony under U.S. law, and if the offense is punishable by imprisonment or other form of detention for more than one year or by the death penalty."[/i]
The issue is decided then. He committed a felony under US law, and an extraditable offense under U.K. law. Basically - we cannot take him, you have to give him to us. Since your legal system determined his offense was an extraditable offence both ends of the treaty "clicked" so to speak thus he is extraditable.
You can't argue on the American end that he committed a non felony in the United States since conspiracy to commit a terrorist act falls squarely into a the felony category.
So basically assuming your Law lords are allowing their decision to stand and not allowing any further appeal to occur Mr Ahmad will stand trial in the United States.
Honestly you can't blame the British courts, I am not completely familiar with your legal system but generally speaking I cannot think of any nations that have statutes outlawing attempted terrorism against another nation. What I am saying is that Mr. Babar's crime was against the people of the United States, not Britain; if he remained in Britain he would have to be charged with a crime against the British crown. More than likely that is the ratio decidendi of his extradition.
But if he was not in the US at the time he committed his crime, why does US law even apply?
(Just lfilesharers in countries like people poland (or another east euro country...) recieving threats under the DMCA; their lawyers replied poland is not part of US... they committed crimes according the US law... but they were not in the US. copyright infringement is also illegal there.)
I see that it is a messupof UK law here.
It should be possible to charge againt something apart from the crown. such as charge against te international community? but that is not something available atm...
safe to say... I would prefer a trial in the uk. But the law does not seem to be on my side. (unless we got lawyers on this forum who know the british legal system...)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
The treaty - the extradition treaty is 2 part, it has to be a felony offense in the United States, and it has to be an extraditable offense in Britain (which is up to your legal system) - all we said was that it was a felony crime in the United States, i'm sure his lawyers will argue that since he wasn't in the US the state has no standing to sue.
We have different treaties with Poland than we do with UK, I am not sure what they are but it's safe to say Poland does not consider that an extraditable offense. Either that or the US didn't request extradition (lawyers can't ask, it has to be the State department)
Not really... from what I understand the UK extradition treaty is actually a much more modern treaty than most other countries, it was revised in 85.
It would depend on that being a law. I would be rather progressive of the UK to make laws protecting people in other countries from their citizens and I highly doubt they do. The crime here was committed against the American people - not the British, the British courts cannot represent the American people, they represent the British crown. I suppose Parliament could pass a law, but it would be ex post facto and would not apply to Babar.
That's really the thing here, I can tell you a lot about international law and american law but british law is foreign to me. On top of that I am just a law student so it's not like my expertise is all that spectacular.
Hayder might possibly know something on the british statutory and commonlaw on the definition of an extraditable offense, but he would have to speak to that.
At the end of the day it looks like your judges already decided on the law in this matter and Babar will be extradited.
I don't really know much about him or the issues so I really can't jump into the whole "save Babar" campaign, and generally speaking as a conservative I am extremely community rights oriented so he's not really sympathetic to me.
We'll see what happens though
Topic started again:
http://www.therevival.co.uk/forums/viewtopic.php?p=31550
discuss there.
locked.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.