US extradition: Just or unjust? Photo credit: James Cridland, http://flic.kr/p/8AqBAj
Radical cleric Abu Hamza is set to be extradited to the US to face terrorism charges, following a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) ruling. Hamza, known as the “hook-handed cleric”, is currently serving a seven-year sentence in the UK for inciting racial hatred and soliciting murder. The father-of-eight became synonymous with extremism in Britain after his time in control of the Finsbury Park mosque; he faces a range of charges in the US relating to inciting violent jihad, and has been battling extradition since 2004.
Hamza’s lawyers argued that transferring the cleric to the US would be a breach of his human rights, as he faces the possibility of incarceration without parole in a ‘supermax’ high-security prison if convicted. But ECHR judges rejected the extradition appeal, paving the way for Hamza and four other terror suspects to stand trial in America.
“I am very pleased with the news. It is quite right that we have proper legal processes, although sometimes one can get frustrated with how long they take,” said UK Prime Minister David Cameron after the ECHR verdict, reported The Independent.
ECHR questions. Ed West welcomed the ECHR decision in The Telegraph but bemoaned the fact that it has cost the UK so much to get to this point: “Over £4 million of taxpayers’ money has been spent keeping the men in British jails, paying for legal costs and keeping their families on benefits.” West also questioned the wisdom of Britain submitting to the jurisdiction of the ECHR: “Although the European Union and ECHR have always remained separate, the EU treats the Convention on Human Rights as its legal system and the EU’s European Court of Justice refers to the ECHR. The court is, in effect, another backdoor route to pooling sovereignty.”
Babar Ahmad, who lost his extradition appeal along with Abu Hamza, gave an interview to the BBC in which he insisted on his innocence and asked why he was not allowed to be tried in the UK: “I would urge the director of public prosecutions to please put me on trial in this country and to find out what has gone wrong in my case.”
Time for reform. “This country’s ability to rid ourselves of dangerous terror suspects remains alarmingly poor,” said Ed West in The Evening Standard, arguing that British ministers should take a harder stance when dealing with removing extremists. “The ‘rights”’of terror suspects should not be absolute and must be balanced with the public’s. New legislation should ensure our courts do this. When obstruction comes from Europe’s judges alone, the Government should be ready to defy them. Britain must stop being a sanctuary for terrorists,” West thundered.
ECHR proved right. “Despite what some critics seem to think, the Strasbourg judges do live in the real world,” wrote Joshua Rozenberg in The Guardian. “Provided those accused of terrorist crimes are properly tried in ordinary courts, properly convicted and then properly incarcerated in what any country would acknowledge to be decent conditions, the European judges are hardly going to object.” Rozenberg argued that it was perfectly reasonable for the ECHR to seek assurances on conditions in US supermax prisons before delivering their verdict.
Unfair decision. The mother of Richard O’Dwyer, a British citizen facing extradition to the US on copyright infringement charges, criticised the ECHR ruling on Hamza, reported the Huffington Post UK. “If people are not fugitives then why should they be taken to America? No matter what the offense is they should be prosecuted in this country. It’s not for anybody to say because they are terrorists they deserve different treatment,” Julia O’Dwyer told the HuffPo.
