Abu Hamza!
DoG-MeAt
Join Date: 2003-10-09 Member: 21553Members
Join Date: 2003-10-09 Member: 21553Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Called for suicide attacks on UK!</div> <b>What has happened: </b>
Abu Hamza is now known to be one of several "Muslim Terrorist Leaders" due to recent evidence coming to light of a secret meeting with some followers, in which he called for them and others to "suicide bomb the UK". This meeting was taped and has leaked out to the press.
He has also recently been linked to five other terrorist organisations such as "Al-Qaeda". Because of this evidence, he was going to be deported from England as soon as possible, however he has managed to get the deportation hearing delayed until 2005. The information regarding how he has managed this can be read in full in the "Times Online" link, however a quote from it as is follows: "Abu Hamza failed to turn up to the hearing or to file a single line of evidence with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission." "Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the hearing should be delayed. " "He gave Abu Hamza until January 10 2005 to prepare his case, a further nine months' stay in his battle to avoid being sent to the Yemen, where he faces terrorism charges."
He has also cost the UK millions in taxpayer's money because of his actions a while back. He is annually costing another one million Pounds and this deportation case will cost £250,000 in legal aid. I cannot find any detailed articles online about this, however it is mentioned in "The Sun" and "The Times Online" links.
<b>Links (they include some bias views but have the facts):</b>
<a href='http://uk.geocities.com/rami_thekafir/terroruk.htm' target='_blank'>An overview of Terrorism in the UK including some facts about leaders.(GeoCities)</a>
<a href='http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004191669,00.html' target='_blank'>An overview of the recent events involving Abu Hamza and various other people commenting on him.(The Sun)</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2668343.stm' target='_blank'>A profile of Abu Hamza including his past, actions and what he has said.(BBC News)</a>
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1089153,00.html' target='_blank'>A more detailed description of recent events and more info on Abu Hamza.(The Times Online)</a>
<a href='http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13071290,00.html' target='_blank'>Bullet points of recent events and even more on Abu Hamza.(Sky News)</a>
Personally I feel that he should be deported instantly or put into isolated detention until his deportation. It is insane that he can manipulate the law so that he can stay in the UK for another year - either he is a very important person to the UK or there is something seriously wrong with the justice system. I am English and feel concerned about this because suicide bombs happen quite frequently in other countries and can happen anywhere, plus the amount of "foiled" terrorist bomb plots in the UK that have happened recently.
Now my question to you is whether Abu Hamza should be deported and face terrorist charges as soon as possible, to prevent any acts of terrorism or should he be allowed to stay for another year to prepare his case, which may lead to him being able to stay in the UK?
Abu Hamza is now known to be one of several "Muslim Terrorist Leaders" due to recent evidence coming to light of a secret meeting with some followers, in which he called for them and others to "suicide bomb the UK". This meeting was taped and has leaked out to the press.
He has also recently been linked to five other terrorist organisations such as "Al-Qaeda". Because of this evidence, he was going to be deported from England as soon as possible, however he has managed to get the deportation hearing delayed until 2005. The information regarding how he has managed this can be read in full in the "Times Online" link, however a quote from it as is follows: "Abu Hamza failed to turn up to the hearing or to file a single line of evidence with the Special Immigration Appeals Commission." "Mr Justice Ouseley ruled that the hearing should be delayed. " "He gave Abu Hamza until January 10 2005 to prepare his case, a further nine months' stay in his battle to avoid being sent to the Yemen, where he faces terrorism charges."
He has also cost the UK millions in taxpayer's money because of his actions a while back. He is annually costing another one million Pounds and this deportation case will cost £250,000 in legal aid. I cannot find any detailed articles online about this, however it is mentioned in "The Sun" and "The Times Online" links.
<b>Links (they include some bias views but have the facts):</b>
<a href='http://uk.geocities.com/rami_thekafir/terroruk.htm' target='_blank'>An overview of Terrorism in the UK including some facts about leaders.(GeoCities)</a>
<a href='http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004191669,00.html' target='_blank'>An overview of the recent events involving Abu Hamza and various other people commenting on him.(The Sun)</a>
<a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2668343.stm' target='_blank'>A profile of Abu Hamza including his past, actions and what he has said.(BBC News)</a>
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1-1089153,00.html' target='_blank'>A more detailed description of recent events and more info on Abu Hamza.(The Times Online)</a>
<a href='http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,15410-13071290,00.html' target='_blank'>Bullet points of recent events and even more on Abu Hamza.(Sky News)</a>
Personally I feel that he should be deported instantly or put into isolated detention until his deportation. It is insane that he can manipulate the law so that he can stay in the UK for another year - either he is a very important person to the UK or there is something seriously wrong with the justice system. I am English and feel concerned about this because suicide bombs happen quite frequently in other countries and can happen anywhere, plus the amount of "foiled" terrorist bomb plots in the UK that have happened recently.
Now my question to you is whether Abu Hamza should be deported and face terrorist charges as soon as possible, to prevent any acts of terrorism or should he be allowed to stay for another year to prepare his case, which may lead to him being able to stay in the UK?
Comments
unfortunately, it sounds like the UK is as effective as the Netherlands in dealing with these kind of people...
They have -training- camps here for crying out loud!
but yes, the logical solution would be immediate deportation or extradition. If the government has proof (which it seems like it does) that the guy is an immediate threat, they should be able to do such.
religion sucks!!, go ahead flame me for saying that i dont care
"If they're not Muslim themselves, they must be spies. They have no right to be there."
Possibly he should consider himself lucky we don't share his views, hmm? Myself, anyone who is shown so blatantly to be unsafe should be either arrested or deported. Probably the former, as this person will then continue to cause problems from a new country.
- Shockwave
religion sucks!!, go ahead flame me for saying that i dont care <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Its not the religion... Think of it this way, Christianity promotes peace/etc/etc but we still had the Crusades and The spanish Inquisition... If that makes sense.
However, after about 3 seconds, it became perverted when people used religion for their own ends, such as recruitment, population control, cash flow, etc.
If the legal process is ignored, then how can western democracies claim to be upholding justice? What kind of a message does it send to the rest of the world: "Justice for some"? (Camp X-Ray I'm looking at YOU) It's not just our reputations as nations at stake here; it's the foundation of our civil liberties and governments.
This Abu Hanza may very well be guilty of terrorist acts or connections and may be a threat to public safety in England. This does not however change the fact that a court ruled that he could stay in the country until next year. The government can naturally appeal the case, but the fact of the matter is that the legal system considered Mr Hanza's case and decided to wait until 2005 to pass judgement. And we have to respect that ruling.
Frankly I'm shocked that people in this thread seem to be insinuating that legal processes should be simply "shunted aside" in the case of terrorists. As said above, that is a dangerous precident. Today it's terrorists being deported without trial; tommorow it's "dissidents", the day after, anyone the government doesn't like. If the goal of terrorists like Osama Bin Laden is to destroy western democracy, then I can think of few better ways to accomplish that than warping our justice systems in the name of "fighting terrorism".
What you may find more shocking is that David Blunkett* seems to think <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1202167,00.html' target='_blank'>the same way</a>. Between amending the law to lock up "suspected" terrorists and trying to implement compulsory ID cards, Blunkett has to be the most right-wing Home Secretary that's ever sat in a Labour** cabinet.
The last time Habeas Corpus was suspended in this country there was outrage. Now, there is only mumbling about how it's necessary for national security. I find it very creepy.
*<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Blunkett's the UK's Home Secretary.</span>
**<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>Labour's supposedly the left-leaning party, as opposed to the more right-wing Conservatives.</span>
Religion is used to twist the minds of the weak. I find it funny how people preach what not to do while doing it themselves. Muslims are taught that killing is never right like many religions while they themselves do it to acheive their goal. Most people dont know that the ten commandments say thou shall not murder instead of kill. If society condems a man to death it is debatable wether is is against religous teachings or not when the word is changed. However, murdering inoccent people in a suicide bombing to hurt your enemy which may or may not be justified is against all religious teachings.
Like stated religion teachs you how you should live your life, but many people twist the meaning to fit their own purpose. The best thing to do is read the bible or whatever and let yourself determine the meaning, but even the bible has been re-written several times and in each version changes have been made. Like exactly what the ten commandments say. Laungages do not translate perfect and this is an example of that.