18 months...

[Gato_Solo]

for terrorist ties.

Interesting that the ACLU is involved with this, considering where the crime occured.

A court in the United Arab Emirates has convicted a US citizen of Lebanese origin on terrorism-related charges and sentenced him to 18 months in prison.

 

[2minkey]

in lebanon, surname means a lot.

hamdan is a name that would most often be either druze or shi'a.

that means probably not particulary into whatever sunnite extremist osama bin buttshot is into.

 

[Gato_Solo]

in lebanon, surname means a lot.

hamdan is a name that would most often be either druze or shi'a.

that means probably not particulary into whatever sunnite extremist osama bin buttshot is into.

Not the point I was making, but valid. What I was saying is that he was arrested, tried, and convicted outside the US. How is it that the business of the ACLU? Perhaps they should try for a branch in the UAE called the UAECLU...

Also...if they are so sure of their importance, why aren't they arguing cases for all US citizens jailed overseas? Perhaps they don't like how he was convicted, but nobody liked the way those two reporters got convicted in NK...

 

[2minkey]

well i wouldn't want to get in the way of your point!

oh you mean this...

"The case has drawn criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union who referred the case to the US government saying there was insufficient evidence for a trial in US courts."

hmm... there's also the parts about him being a US citizen and allegedly performing his misdeeds while in the US. another hmm... seems that an overzealous prosecutor in the US could attempt extradition and prosecution in the US. maybe that's why the ACLU has an opinion. think we can let 'em get away with that much given the obvious relevance.

 

[Gato_Solo]

well i wouldn't want to get in the way of your point!

oh you mean this...

"The case has drawn criticism from the American Civil Liberties Union who referred the case to the US government saying there was insufficient evidence for a trial in US courts."

Exactly.

hmm... there's also the parts about him being a US citizen and allegedly performing his misdeeds while in the US. another hmm... seems that an overzealous prosecutor in the US could attempt extradition and prosecution in the US. maybe that's why the ACLU has an opinion. think we can let 'em get away with that much given the obvious relevance.

Then how did the UAE get their hands on him? Was he kidnapped from the US? Extradited? As for him being a US citizen, there are plenty of US citizens in jails overseas. Why are they having a hissy-fit over this one?

 

[2minkey]

the article does not provide that much info.

obviously there's enough there for ACLU to have an opinion.

there's probably not enough there for them to start filing shit with various courts.

only one having a "hissy fit" is you.

 

[Gato_Solo]

the article does not provide that much info.

Use your powers of deduction. If any of what I said occured, it would at least be in a newspaper somewhere for you to find...

obviously there's enough there for ACLU to have an opinion.

Different country, different methods. Like I said. The trial, conviction, and sentencing activity occured outside the US.

there's probably not enough there for them to start filing shit with various courts.

If they can find this...where the guy is almost done serving his time, then they can, most likely, find others.

only one having a "hissy fit" is you.

Not really. Just saying that the ACLU is a bunch of crazies...

 

[2minkey]

my old boss was head of the county ACLU and his wife was head of the state ACLU branch. they were not "crazies." they are wrong about a lot of things, but not crazy. in fact they are hyper-rational. okay that could be crazy.

use my powers of deduction? you mean make up some shit that i think might be the case?

oh i should go do my own research to bone up on some random RW pissing about, well, not much of anything, really?

if you're so concerned, and want to spend some time on this, why don't you research similar issues of jurisdiction, and report back to us? i'm not willing to put that effort into it, and i'm reasonably confident that someone in the US would have a legal leg to stand on if they wanted to pursue this guy. um, yeah, again, ACLU prolly knows this too given that a big chunk of 'em are lawyerin' types and that's why they have an opinion.

 

[Gato_Solo]

my old boss was head of the county ACLU and his wife was head of the state ACLU branch. they were not "crazies." they are wrong about a lot of things, but not crazy. in fact they are hyper-rational. okay that could be crazy.

use my powers of deduction? you mean make up some shit that i think might be the case?

Okay. Tell you what. Let me know if you find something...anything...that shows that this guy was taken from the US against his will, or through extradition proceedings.

oh i should go do my own research to bone up on some random RW pissing about, well, not much of anything, really?

You're the one who asked. If I had found something I would have posted it, and been on the side of the ACLU.

if you're so concerned, and want to spend some time on this, why don't you research similar issues of jurisdiction, and report back to us? i'm not willing to put that effort into it, and i'm reasonably confident that someone in the US would have a legal leg to stand on if they wanted to pursue this guy. um, yeah, again, ACLU prolly knows this too given that a big chunk of 'em are lawyerin' types and that's why they have an opinion.

Once again...if you can find any evidence of him being removed from the US by force, or judicial authority, feel free to do so.

 

[2minkey]

his removal from the US - whatever that may have been - has no impact on a US prosecutor's ability to pursue for crimes committed in the US (as his are alleged to have been) unless there's some double jeopardy rule that extends across international whatevers, which i doubt exists.

what are you even trying to make an issue of here?

 

[Gato_Solo]

his removal from the US - whatever that may have been - has no impact on a US prosecutor's ability to pursue for crimes committed in the US (as his are alleged to have been) unless there's some double jeopardy rule that extends across international whatevers, which i doubt exists.

what are you even trying to make an issue of here?

I'm not. I'm just responding to what you are asking, mostly.

BTW...once again, he was arrested, tried, and convicted in the UAE, not the US. Meaning that, for all intents and purposes, US laws do not apply.

 

[2minkey]

has the stat already run on crimes he committed while in the US?

you're trying to tell me that a fellow cannot be prosecuted in the US for crimes committed in the US? because somewhere else charged him with something?

so if some pakistani court charged osama bin laden with some horrific crime, and convicted him, that would prevent US prosecutors from pursuing charges?

do you have some obscure understanding of jursidictional issues that no one else is getting?

 

[Gato_Solo]

has the stat already run on crimes he committed while in the US?

What crimes in the US? The UAE arrested him, not the US.

you're trying to tell me that a fellow cannot be prosecuted in the US for crimes committed in the US? because somewhere else charged him with something?

Nope. The US is not charging him because, according to our courts, there is insufficient evidence. Apparently the UAE decided that there was.

so if some pakistani court charged osama bin laden with some horrific crime, and convicted him, that would prevent US prosecutors from pursuing charges?

do you have some obscure understanding of jursidictional issues that no one else is getting?

No...but what you seem to be arguing is that if the US cannot find grounds to arrest him, then neither can anyone else.

 

[2minkey]

"UAE public prosecutors said that, while living in the US, he donated $2,000 to an unnamed Islamic charity. This is alleged to have financed the firing of two rockets on Israel."

it's the ACLU that says there's insufficient evidence to charge in the US, not some deputy attorney general er somebody like that. if the latter party has enough evidence of the alleged crimes in the US to bring charges they may do just that.

and that, once again, is why this made the ACLU's radar enough for them to issue an opinion.

finito.