Penistone999 Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 They should have put a bullet through his head a long long time ago. . He will have to make do with a nice lethal injection from the Yanks ,as i dont think they use the firing squad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 Its not over yet,he can appeal again to the chambers so it could go on for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted April 10, 2012 Share Posted April 10, 2012 There's a nice little cage in Gitmo waiting for him. He'll be allowed the food in accordance with his faith and to read and study the Qu'ran. He'll have plenty of time to bulk himself up on weights and tattoo himself from head to foot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 Its not over yet,he can appeal again to the chambers so it could go on for some time. Yes we are not off the hook yet See what I did there, he has a hook, and he can still appeal? We are not off the hook yet? Good eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric_Collins Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 He's getting off lightly. If I was to have my way he'd be locked up 23hr per day listening to Jedward and fed a diet of McDonnalds. His hook would be removed and a stump puppet of a boxing bin laden ( a made in china one off eBay ) would be applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianthedog Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 1. No one has excused him. 2. There is always a reason. If there wasn't, it would be more reason to worry. You can take what whatever it is within your power to take, my interest in legal matters is no more than interest, I never advocated any more or less. You on the other hand have advocated yours is more than minimal..therefore educate us rather than point score? I agree on your EU law correction. I am concerned with inequalities of UK and US bias in favour of the US. As you pointed out to MJ Scuba, if the ECHR needs to be rejected then by definition if the Human rights act is written into British law then that should also be equally rejected unless of course it doesn't exactly mirror image the ECHR. Surely the point of arbitration is to question law and its ramifications. Not all laws are just. I didn't say anyone had excused him in this thread - I was calling the poster an apologist. Now, to answer my question... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 There's a nice little cage in Gitmo waiting for him. More likely that he won't. Guardian.co.uk In the Hamza case, the US has had to given written assurances that it will not impose the death penalty or place the suspects before Guantánamo Bay-style military tribunals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 The way I see it is the ECHR (convention) is sound, British written and good law. The way the ECHR (court) has interpreted it is self agrandising and has consistently sought to push the boundaries of competence from national courts to themselves. So keep the convention, remove the European Court as arbiter for UK cases and make our Supreme court the ultimate arbiter. We do not need Russian, Serbian or Turkish judges to tell us how to interpret a law we created, as is the case now. I can't say I'm fully familiar with all the technicalities of the ECHR, but my understanding is that a cental European court is part and parcel of it. If we ever want to stop being subordinate to the central court and reinstate the supremacy of our own courts in these matters, the ECHR would require some remodelling with agreement from 27 member states (how likely?), or we could reject it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I didn't say anyone had excused him in this thread - I was calling the poster an apologist. Now, to answer my question... Oh stop mincing with words, it's a hell of a fine line between excusing and apologising, especially when you use the term "In my mind an apologist would be someone who can always find reason"... therefore excusing?? Your accusation post seems to have been removed, but based on the original reply "yes and no" can you tell us all why the poster is an apologist? Do you interpret "no" as an apology? You also seemed to ignore the other "yes" part of the answer..why? Because you assumed the "yes" part just happened to compliment your own frothy simple way of thinking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodStar Posted April 11, 2012 Share Posted April 11, 2012 I wonder whether so much of the hatred shown towards this gentleman is just a result of the media's portrayal of him- always looking like a pantomime villain with his hook in the picture. Poor guy hasnt actually killed anybody (well he might have done as a soldier in the Bosnian war but thats allowed) but he's treated with more contempt than a paedophile child killer. Cut him some slack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.