There's news today that convicted cleric Abu Hamza (currently serving a sentence in the UK for soliciting murder, incitement of racial hatred and other offences) has lost an appeal against requests for his extradition to the United States (where he is wanted on a number of terrorism-related charges).
This appeal was made on the basis that some of the evidence on the basis of which the US extradition was being sought was obtained through torture. The High Court judges ruled that there was insufficient specific evidence that this was the case. Let me say, first, that all the public history seems to indicate that Abu Hamza is a right sweetie... prepared to use places and services of religious worship as the forum for inciting violence and murder, for instance, and with an apparent mission to radicalise anyone prepared to listen. I think I'm happier with him off the streets, regardless of whether he's off them in the UK or off them in the US...
Nevertheless, two things caught my attention relating to the story.
First, it appears that Abu Hamza might be extradited to the US - but only for as long as it may take to bring him to trial there - then returned to the UK to serve the remainder of his current sentence, and then (if found guilty in the US) sent back there once again to serve whatever sentence may be handed down at his US trial. It will be interesting to see whether his trial takes place under the normal domestic practice of federal law, or whether anyone succumbs to the temptation to deal with Abu Hamza through the more 'pragmatic' processes of Guantanamo.
Second, although they have concluded that the extradition request was not based on information under duress, the UK judges must also be assuming that 'standard operating procedure' will apply to Abu Hamza's pre-trial detention... no water-boarding, duress positions, sexual humiliation etc.. Otherwise, one would have to assume that Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (and therefore the UK Human Rights Act) could be held to apply. This reflects the European Commission on Human Rights' finding that "Article 3 could be engaged by the
extradition process and that the extraditing state could be responsible
for the breach where it is aware of a real risk that the person may be
subject to inhuman or degrading treatment" [Soering v. UK, 1989]
It will be interesting to see how his extradition unfolds in practice.
Oh- and in case, like me, you were wondering about the missing eye and hands: apparently these were lost while doing mine clearance in Afghanistan... which is an interesting twist. The persona we are otherwise being shown via the media doesn't include much to relieve the uniform blackness of character.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}