Hookie nicked at last!
May 27, 2004 12:02 AM   Subscribe

Hookie hooked... Arrested at 3am, Abu has a kennel waiting at Guatanamo Bay...
posted by terrymiles (32 comments total)
Hookie hooked?
posted by Eyegore at 1:01 AM on May 27, 2004

He has a hook. People with hooks are eeeeeeeeeee-vil. Captain Hook, this guy, my Dad.
posted by vbfg at 1:09 AM on May 27, 2004

I don't like the man, and I'm pretty sure he has links with terrorist organisations, but since when did we start extraditing people to the USA just because they *might* be a terrorist. This is pretty shameful.
posted by seanyboy at 1:10 AM on May 27, 2004

since when did we start extraditing people to the USA just because they *might* be a terrorist
Depends on what evidence the US has on which to extradite him, doesn't it? The UK courts have been quite happy overturning extradition decisions in the past, and this isn't going to end without a long court battle. What it does mean is that he'll almost certainly be in prison for quite a time on remand. I note from the article that he's appearing before magistrates at Belmarsh, site of a prison with a large maximum security unit where he'll no doubt be put up.
posted by humuhumu at 1:27 AM on May 27, 2004

Don't want to be too cynical but I wonder does this have anything to do with a political response to the repeated calls in the tabloids for him to be arrested for *something*, regardless of what it is.

The tabloids have also been calling for his citizenship to be revoked for some time. Does anyone have any info as to (a) whether this is legally possible and (b) what justification is needed to do so.

Frankly if the Sun can't turn up anything incriminating about him (and if they could we would have heard about it by now) I have my doubts that the CIA/FBI (whoever) can.
posted by biffa at 2:09 AM on May 27, 2004

He's a nasty piece of work, all right. A friend of mine used to worship at Finsbury Park mosque, but left in disgust at the man's teachings. But, call me silly and sentimental, I think in a free society any loony has the right to his/ her rantings. He should only be extradited if it can be proved that he's done something .. and I would be very sorry if the UK sent him to be incarcerated in Guantanemo bay, or if he were sent somewhere that he could face the death penalty.

The guy is a British citizen, but even if that were the case, it's uncivilised to pack someone off to a place where they're in a legal black hole or can be murdered by the state. And that's what this is about, right? The battle between civilisation and absolute theocracy?
posted by Pericles at 2:12 AM on May 27, 2004

I don't think there's been any word of him going to Guantanamo. Guantanamo is reserved for what they call 'enemy combatants' (not prisoners of war, according to the Pentagon) - it's specifically off US soil so that the legal requirements of US justice don't apply there. It was designed specifically for people picked up during or after physical battles. Hamza's been arrested on a US warrant, which means he's going to be going through the US judicial system (if he gets extradited).
posted by humuhumu at 2:23 AM on May 27, 2004

yeah, I realise that now as I've trawled through more news... the FPP put it in my head. But, could he face the death penalty in the U.S.? If so, as a UK citizen, he should not be extradited.
posted by Pericles at 3:11 AM on May 27, 2004

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a connection with Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber. But till we get official accounts (by no means a surefire thing, anyhow...) we'll have to speculate.

We could surely have arrested him on incitement or similar charges before now (tho I've never seen his sermons transcribed, so this is just speculation), but he served US well... as a honey pot. There may be a reason that that is no longer the best strategy.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:23 AM on May 27, 2004

he served US well... as a honey pot

You mean, let's keep him out there so we can monitor who listens? Sounds a bit off to me, considering the enormously negative press he's garnered... I'd have thought that the immediate political and electoral interests of the government would have taken precedence here, and had him arrested as soon as they could if possible. End the Daily Mail / Express / Sun / [insert tabloid name] horror stories about him....
posted by humuhumu at 3:37 AM on May 27, 2004

Have to say, I do like these UK-only, get-your-comments-in-before-the-East-Coast-wakes-up Metafilter discussions.
posted by humuhumu at 3:42 AM on May 27, 2004

Extraditing anyone to guantanamo would be barbaric and counterproductive, no matter what the charges are. But as humuhumu points out, there is no word of him heading to gitmo.
posted by magullo at 3:44 AM on May 27, 2004


[OK, we Yanks on the East Coast are awake now]
posted by darren at 7:32 AM on May 27, 2004

The UK authorities have been trying to get Abu Hamza out of the way for some time, ever since the Yemen incident, but they had no evidence they could use for prosecution. Now that the US is willing to take a little extra heat, we serve as a convenient way of removing him from the country without having to resort to UK officials deporting him. "It's not our fault - the bloody Yanks want him. We're just being...neighborly."
I'm betting his extradition gets expedited - UK officials tend to resist extradition if they want to keep someone, but I doubt that's the case here.
posted by FormlessOne at 7:35 AM on May 27, 2004

It won't be down to UK officials in the last instance, it will be down to the courts. And they've shown a marked unwillingness to go along with Blair and Blunkett's anti-terror fun ride - witness the release to house arrest of the suspect held in Belmarsh a few weeks ago, among other instances.
posted by humuhumu at 7:53 AM on May 27, 2004

But how long will it take to go through that rigmarole, humuhumu?
posted by biffa at 7:57 AM on May 27, 2004

Ashcroft gave a press conference earlier where he stated that Hamza faces the death penalty if found guilty. Therefore we shouldn't be extraditing him.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights bars Britain and the other signatories from extraditing prisoners if they could face capital punishment. There is no death penalty in any of the 15 member nations of the European Union.

Once again we shame ourselves for the greater good of George.
Unless Ashcroft has erred, which would tickle me no end.
posted by Fat Buddha at 8:29 AM on May 27, 2004

But how long will it take to go through that rigmarole, humuhumu?

Hell of a long time, usually. He's been fighting a warrant from the Yemen for a good time now without any conclusion. Given the charges against him, he'll be held in Belmarsh until any decision is made. So no preaching for a while...
posted by humuhumu at 8:46 AM on May 27, 2004

from cnn.com:

posted by H. Roark at 9:24 AM on May 27, 2004

From BBC news

Home Secretary David Blunkett said: "We have an agreement with the Americans which I renewed a year ago with John Ashcroft which means that on his extradition they are entitled to find him guilty, they are entitled to kill in the sentence but they will not carry out an execution."
posted by biffa at 9:55 AM on May 27, 2004

biffa: thus, proving conclusively, that Blunkett can't actually speak the Queen's English. "They are entitld to kill in the sentence" indeed. I assume he means they are entitled to pass a death sentence, but not to actually carry it out.

With the blatant disregard for international law and treaties the current administration have, it wouldn't surprise me if that "you can't actually kill him bit" gets ignored or sidestepped.
posted by kaemaril at 1:06 PM on May 27, 2004

I'd like to lodge a small protest to what I perceive as a wee bit o' racisim in the way this post was carried off. Allow me to explain.

"Abu" is a very common name prefix in Arab countries. It literally translates to "father of," but doesn't necessarily imply any familial relationship (just as Donaldson doesn't literally mean someone's father is named "Donald"). It does, however, pretty clearly identify someone as an Arab (not necessarily a Muslim, though).

Anyway, in practice, the "Abu" is pretty over-lookable, no more significant in most names than the "Mac" in "MacDonald" or "MacDougal" or whatever.

My point is that attempting to coin a nickname for any specific Arab person by calling him "Abu" is pretty stupid, because it's not the part of his name that identifies him personally.

It also makes you sound racist, as would referring to any Polish person as merely "Ski" or any Irish person as "Mac." In my opinion, it's barely a half-step up from referring to any Mexican as "Jose."

Applying the similie of a dog on his way to kennel is just the icing on the bigot cake, here. Nice one, terrymiles.
posted by scarabic at 3:54 PM on May 27, 2004

...not to speak of "Hookie-Hooked."

What, "Cloudeye Grounded" didn't occur to you?
posted by scarabic at 4:25 PM on May 27, 2004

Lets just say that terry has some strident opinions on the subject of Islamic terrorism as I recall.

- On the subject of abu hamza apparently scotland yard had to bring forward the operation to arrest him as a snivelling sycophant within downing street decided to leak this story to the sun. Enabling the self-serving Blair to appear to be "tough" on terror whilst ingratiating himself with murdoch, nauseating.
posted by johnnyboy at 2:31 AM on May 28, 2004

OK..so now it's racism to call Abu by his name Abu. Hmmm
posted by terrymiles at 3:52 PM on May 29, 2004

"Lets just say that terry has some strident opinions on the subject of Islamic terrorism as I recall". True, I don't like 'em. I can't deny that, but neither do I like the US keeping anyone in kennels or the Israeli government slipping into Nazi-like behaviour.
posted by terrymiles at 4:01 PM on May 29, 2004

Unless the American government promise to not kill him then he cannot be extradited under British Law, if they were to renege on this promise and carry out the execution then the extradition treaty between the US and the UK would effectively be over.

So either Mr Blunkett decides to ignore/change the current law or the US cannot execute him. Pretty much a lose lose situation politically.

But hey, it plays well in the tabloids and there's a election war on you know.
posted by fullerine at 5:24 PM on May 29, 2004

I didn't say it was racist, I said it made you sound racist and stupid (both of which I now realize you are), but I will allow you that the main thing your post has against it is ignorance, not necessarily hate. But don't let ignorance stand in your way. Continue to cheer at the arrest of anyone wearing a turban if this makes you feel safer. If that's the world you live in, you may be very safe indeed, as your world is quite possibly too small for the terrorists to find.
posted by scarabic at 11:43 PM on May 29, 2004

I can't decide which is my favorite maimed islamist. Right now it's sort of a three-way tie between the blind sheik, mullah omar, and this guy.
posted by shoos at 11:53 PM on May 29, 2004

scarabic: i don't know about terrymiles' previous posts regarding islamic terrorism, but as far as i can see you'd most definitely have to live in or near 94705 to infer racism from the fpp.
posted by shoos at 12:02 AM on May 30, 2004

Thanks for that scarabic. I'll watch out for you at the asylum.
posted by terrymiles at 9:09 AM on May 30, 2004

"The body of a dead hostage was reportedly dragged through the streets, according to witnesses". No I really don't like them scarabic. Do you?
posted by terrymiles at 9:13 AM on May 30, 2004

« Older OMG! Not to be like Mr. Bush!   |   And you thought your mother was naughty Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments