US press response to Abu Hamza extradition decision

11 April 2012 by

Waking up in New York this morning, I find the newspapers are much exercised by the recent decision of the Strasbourg Court to allow the extradition of certain terror suspects to the US, as discussed in Isabel McArdle’s post. The colourful New York Post declares unambiguously that “Thugs face Extradition” (April 11),  following its banner headline of yesterday “UK can extradite hook-handed clerk, 4 other terrorists to US”. And just in case any passing reader failed to get the point, the strapline says

Britain can extradite a one-eyed, hook-handed radical Muslim cleric and four other suspects to the United States to face terrorism charges, Europe’s human rights court ruled today.

Giving rather more detail by way of background, today’s edition of The New York Times explains that Britain

has struggled to balance civil liberties and domestic security in the face of entrenched Islamic extremism and repeated terrorist attacks, and has sought to deport some of the dozens of subjects it has detained in scores of possible plots over a decade

According to the NY Times, the director of the national prison project for the American Civil Liberties Union found the ruling “disappointing”, and showed that the Strasbourg Court seemed willing to accept “dubious” assurances from the United States.

The Wall Street Journal observes that the judgment may smooth the way for future extraditions by making it harder for lawyers defending terrorist suspects to successfully argue against extradition to the U.S. on claims that they would be mistreated. The paper quotes Benjamin Wittes, a national-security law expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington, who said the ruling gives a boost to counterterrorism cooperation between the U.S. and countries covered by the European court:

The court has in the past “issued some aggressive opinions that really constrain counterterrorism actions by countries that are signatories,” he said, adding that the ruling “does seem to put a real limit” on how far the court will go to limit such cooperation.

Under the headline “European Court Approves Moving Terror Suspect to the United States” Time magazine’s blog “Global Spin” remarks that the ruling is a “vote of confidence” that U.S. prisons conform to European standards—even when terror suspects are involved and compared it with the very different approach to the proposed extradition to Jordan of Abu Qatada –

For critics of the European court, the divergent judgments in the Hamza and Qatada cases point to the same problem: that a court based outside of Britain has jurisdiction over the country’s decisions. Speaking to the Daily Telegraph, former American ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton said London should renounce jurisdiction of the court. “It’s a question of what do British people want to do?” he said. “Do you want to be an independent nation, or do you want to be a county in Europe?

In short, it seems that there is a general welcome across the board for the apparent change of attitude in Strasbourg to the question of extradition to the US.  But no-one is actually crowing, not at least until the final legal steps for completing the extraditions are completed.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Read more:


  1. “Britain can extradite a one-eyed, hook-handed radical …”

    Could somebody explain the relevance of these points? This journalist has as much charm as Hamza.

  2. cidermaker says:

    The issue of inhumane treatment of the alleged terrroists in the US was and is a spurious argument used simply as a delaying tactic by their legal teams. Firstly they will be tried within the Federal Judicial System, which is soundly based on the Common Law, Secondly they will, if found guilty, be detained in in
    a Federal prison. The treatment of prisoners in such prisons, including the so-called ‘super-max’ at Florence, has to meet Federal standards. We are not talking about ‘hell-holes’ or concentration camps, the prisons are part of the regular prison system in the US, The extradition of these alleged terrorists is most welcome and will, hopefully mark a stepping stone in cooperation beetween the UK and the US.

  3. r1xlx says:

    Doesn’t the UN Declaration say ‘ states have a duty to protect and improve health of their citizens etc’? How can allowing terrorists to flourish here and cause NHS and social security and legal aid funds be wasted on them be seen as the state protecting etc?

Welcome to the UKHRB

This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.




This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: