The reason why the appeal for the deportation of Abu Hamza failed was not because he would get a "hard time" nor even because he could face the death penalty. The UK will deport to some countries with the death penalty if they receive "diplomatic assurances" that the person will not receive the death penalty even though these diplomatic assurances are unenforceable. The reason it failed was because the evidence against Abu Hamza had been obtained under torture. Torture is a criminal offence in the UK and in international law.

If a foreign country accused me of some crime and they presented evidence that had been obtained through torture then I would hope that the law would protect me from extradition. That is where the problem lies, some people think that it is a choice between protecting people's rights to a fair and just hearing and getting rid of the "bad guys". Well, it is not a choice. By eroding our freedoms, we do not stop (in this case) terrorism from occurring.

I believe Abu Hamza is still classed as a UK citizen but that his marriage to a british woman was bigamous so his citizenship is being disputed. As frustrating as it might be to have someone like him here, hopefully he will be deported to Egypt at the end of his sentence because he has lost his UK citizenship - that is if he has not been extradited to the USA before that.

Meg wrote:
The reason why the appeal for the deportation of Abu Hamza failed was not because he would get a "hard time" nor even because he could face the death penalty. The UK will deport to some countries with the death penalty if they receive "diplomatic assurances" that the person will not receive the death penalty even though these diplomatic assurances are unenforceable. The reason it failed was because the evidence against Abu Hamza had been obtained under torture. Torture is a criminal offence in the UK and in international law.

If a foreign country accused me of some crime and they presented evidence that had been obtained through torture then I would hope that the law would protect me from extradition. That is where the problem lies, some people think that it is a choice between protecting people's rights to a fair and just hearing and getting rid of the "bad guys". Well, it is not a choice. By eroding our freedoms, we do not stop (in this case) terrorism from occurring.

I believe Abu Hamza is still classed as a UK citizen but that his marriage to a british woman was bigamous so his citizenship is being disputed. As frustrating as it might be to have someone like him here, hopefully he will be deported to Egypt at the end of his sentence because he has lost his UK citizenship - that is if he has not been extradited to the USA before that.

It was alleged that the evidence was obtained under torture but how do we know? It's only heresay.

What kind of "British" woman would have married this beast?

Levenax wrote:
What kind of "British" woman would have married this beast?

He married her in the early 80s before he was notorious. She had been married before this and there is doubt about whether she had divorced her first husband. If it was a bigamous marriage then Abu Hamza does not have UK citizenship through his marriage to her.

Levenax wrote:


It was alleged that the evidence was obtained under torture but how do we know? It's only heresay.?

It is not hearsay when the USA is quite open on how it obtains such information. It is well documented. On the 2nd of December 2002, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld signed a memorandum authorizing the authorities at Guantánamo to use interrogation techniques that included stress positions, isolation, sensory deprivation, hooding, removal of clothing, and exploiting the individual phobias of detainees, such as fear of dogs.
On the 4th of February 2008, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, General Michael Hayden, confirmed that among the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA as part of its secret detention program had been waterboarding, a form of torture that simulates drowning (see Scotsgait forum item "The Torture Team" for more information on this). On the 8th of March 2008, President Bush vetoed legislation aimed at preventing the agency from using this and other enhanced techniques again. In a national radio address, he said that "we need to ensure our intelligence officials have all the tools they need to stop the terrorists". (Though funnily enough, even with all these techniques which are supposed to stop the terrorists, we are constantly being told that things are getting worse.)
The USA might call it enhanced techniques but even in the UK which likes to call itself the USA's best buddy, we call it torture.

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
I don't think you can legislate to cover for the "human rights" of people like that and I believe individual countries cannot allow the EU to start dictating in such a general way regarding such people.

I'd like to know how the EU is dictating how we act in relation to our prisoners......

When I want to check something from Scottish Law I simply go to Scottish Parliament website and eventually I will find what I want. It may take time and effort to understand it but the answers are there. Westminster is not so easy to navigate but eventually you can find what you want. The little spare time I had this weekend I spent trying to find the answers to some of the questions in this discussion on the EU website. It is not very easy to find anything and if it looks as though it may contain the answer it is in french not English very frustrating.