Oh goody, so having PGP on my computer gives me another plus on the 'lets give him an orange jump suit' scale.

If I thought the US was out to extradite me, because of some emails I sent from work, I'd be obsessed with security to.

Babar Ahmad has some hope of avoiding legal extradition, however, the US stated in the Court of Appeal in December that they consider kidnapping people from UK soil who are suspected of a crime in against the USA to be perfectly legal under US law: because the US Supreme Court has sanctioned it.

The lawyer for the American Government in the case mentioned in the below link, claims that it was acceptable under American law to kidnap people if they were wanted for offences in America. “The United States does have a view about procuring people to its own shores which is not shared,” he said.

See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2982640.ece for more information.

FBI Agent: Do you want to buy some guns? They would be useful for terrorist actions.

Mr Arab-Sounding-Name: No thank you, I am not interested.

<< move on five years >>

Prosecutor: Mr Arab-Sounding-Name must be a terrorist because he participated in a discussion on preparing for a terrorist action.

The Thought Police have been and gone. You're now guilty if you have a foreign name and use the word "terrorist".

Is there no end to this madness?

No.

Rhetoric is not enough to justify the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and the millions spent by DHS. You need to find a terrorist. If you can't find one, make one.

"[A] number of the defendant's statements - such as ... his obsession with security - can be reasonably viewed to demonstrate his consciousness of guilt."

So, then, shouldn't every member of the Department of Homeland Security be up on charges of terrorism? Oh, and Misters Bush and Cheney, as well? After all, they are clearly obsessed with security.

What do you mean, "That's different?" *HOW* is it different?

Answer: the ellipsis, through which you conveniently left out "his carefully coded references to violent jihad, and". Note the "AND" which means that the first part and the second part must both be true for the conclusion to be true (as opposed to "OR", which means one of the two must be true.)

Having said that, I do believe that the original quote depends quite heavily on evidence which is very questionable, and includes a very loose definition of "reasonably". I just don't think that misquoting an argument helps the discussion in any way.

What were his parents thinking of?

I though the was out of business, or is it by now a "witchfinder sergeant"

Echoes of McArthy (or Orwell) if ever I heard them

something kind of like terrorism, if you have a very broad definition of terrorism and want to be seen as having done something about a largely overstated risk of it but this is still no proof of terrorism, not even a plan of terrorism, this can't even be a serious thought crime they need to give this up and shred the documents. Aside from the names and their love of military subject matter wheres the terrorism.

How can Britain extradite anyone to a country that murdered a Canadian Ambassador for telling the truth about Viet Nam?

OK the bloke behind it and the smear on Harold Wilson is long gone but the patriots involved in the crime are still in power.

What on earth is behind our secret police? The SS?

As "Abu" means 'father of', don't those who go buy 'Abu X' choose the name themselves? If he named his son 'Jihaad' I would indeed ask what he was thinking, but 'Abu' can be used in a metaphorical sense.

And needless to say, 'jihad' means 'struggle'. It can refer to holy war but more commonly refers to spiritual battles with oneself or peaceful Islamic evangelism, except to Daily Heil readers.

His name is "Abu-jihaad".

If you drop the "Abu-" and one of the "a"'s, then his name is "Jihad".

What more proof could an ***unbiased*** court possibly require that he is obviously a "VERY NAUGHTY TERRORIST!!!!!" and must be immediately incarcerated without any further form of trial for the next 10 years??

America is a country whose citizens are far far more likely to be murdered by their own countrymen than foreigners.

But rather than address their internal issues of violence and murder and the racism that causes much of it, rather than save American lives from American murders, they waste their resources going after foreigners for thought crimes.

Not "definitive proof". But certainly a hint. ;-)

yrs

Duke Nukem

Hangs around this case. Cui bono from islamophobia? Is it the real hard and unpalatable truth that We The People everywhere are really no more islamophobic than we are antisemitic?

"his carefully coded references to violent jihad"

Could also be read as, he was talking about something innocent but we need to hype it up.

the swallows fly south for the winter, code? or am I a bird spotter?

This stinks, but if he isn't extradited they will come and take him anyway, poor sod.

Depends if it was an African or European swallow he referred to...

the one with the nice shrubbery, thanks....

It is funny that this sort of thing happens and there appears to be no one responsible for it.

Who is reponsible for creating this climate of paranoia and fear and who directs the arrests, and snooping?

Anything goes so long as the US State and its allies can continue to reduce liberty and freedom at home (habeous corpus), and bring foreign 'nations' under its 'democratic' boot. Today its an 'arab', tomorow it will be anyone the State decides is an enemy, even a white American. Too much State power which is extended into all areas of the life of individuals always leads to State terror and tyranny. The French Revolution is the archetype...it produced the Terror, and its Counter Terror genocide killing hundreds of thousands, including women, children and babies, all brought about through Assembly politics and the "Committee of Public Safety"