Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico (Europe))   Belgium to U.S.: "Um, you know that convicted terrorist we extradited to you? Well, would you mind sending him back to us, please? Oh, and while you're at it, give him this €100,000 we've been ordered to pay him, would you?"   (politico.eu) divider line
    More: Unlikely, Al-Qaeda, Appeal, terrorist Nizar Trabelsi, Osama bin Laden, Belgian government, September 11 attacks, United States, Belgian state  
•       •       •

3209 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Sep 2022 at 7:46 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



58 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-09-27 7:48:45 PM  
"Ahhhh Belgium, Germany's door-mat to France..."

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-27 7:49:18 PM  
That'll buy him at least a few hours worth of phone calls and a few dozen packages or ramen noodles in his US prison cell.
 
2022-09-27 7:49:40 PM  
"Trabelsi's lawyer Christophe Marchand said he was satisfied with Tuesday's court ruling, saying that "we are convinced that if Belgium sends a note to the U.S., it will be impossible to keep him in an American prison.""

LOL, wait you serious bro?
 
2022-09-27 7:50:04 PM  
ha ha ha ha ha!!
they sent a note the the US asking for the return of a terrorist? 

And they expect the US to do so?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I'll stop laughing when I think of this when the US hands him over
 
2022-09-27 7:53:09 PM  
"we are convinced that if Belgium sends a note to the U.S., it will be impossible to keep him in an American prison."

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-09-27 7:57:12 PM  

PaceyWhitter: "Trabelsi's lawyer Christophe Marchand said he was satisfied with Tuesday's court ruling, saying that "we are convinced that if Belgium sends a note to the U.S., it will be impossible to keep him in an American prison.""

LOL, wait you serious bro?


Just because they may not keep him in an American prison doesn't mean that they'll send him back.

Based on precedence, they are far more likely to shuffle him around to Guantanamo bay and them simply forget all about him instead.
 
2022-09-27 7:58:18 PM  

muphasta: ha ha ha ha ha!!
they sent a note the the US asking for the return of a terrorist? 

And they expect the US to do so?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

I'll stop laughing when I think of this when the US hands him over


I don't know. It's possible.

There have been actual murderers who have received fewer years than what this guy merely planned.

Sometimes you just have to let things go.
 
2022-09-27 7:59:10 PM  
So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.
 
2022-09-27 7:59:46 PM  
It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up - I'm surprised Trump hasn't yet purchased a castle in Belgium...
 
2022-09-27 8:00:24 PM  
Wait, so I'm not clear from reading the article: is Belgium saying his guilt (in Belgium) is not in question and rather just that because he completed his Belgian jailtime he should not have been extradited to face mystery punishment in the world's greatest freedom* factory?


"According to a report by a special envoy to the United Nations cited by local media, he is being kept in isolation, with no daylight in his cell and with artificial lights on 24 hours a day. "

Geez -- if that's true, that's pretty nasty.  I wonder if that means all the time for all 10 years here and ongoing, or just that there have been intermittent periods of that (e.g. for "enhanced interrogation").


*restrictions apply
 
2022-09-27 8:00:58 PM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.


I suspect it's because we have a hard-on for torture.
 
2022-09-27 8:08:32 PM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?


I assume because he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served those 10 years.

Extraditing him to USA seems odd. As if it was a convenient was of just getting rid of him.
 
2022-09-27 8:08:39 PM  

FormlessOne: I suspect it's because we have a hard-on for torture.


Yeah. I don't decide these things, of course, but if I did, I'd have been rethinking the whole extradition treaty thing with the US quite some time ago.
 
2022-09-27 8:08:48 PM  

PaceyWhitter: "Trabelsi's lawyer Christophe Marchand said he was satisfied with Tuesday's court ruling, saying that "we are convinced that if Belgium sends a note to the U.S., it will be impossible to keep him in an American prison.""

LOL, wait you serious bro?


They kind of have to talk like that with Human Rights cases, all of them do it.  Any victory at all, even a fairly irrelevant one is phrased as a mighty blow, mostly because you so rarely win any of them at all.  A symbolic victory is practically happy dance time - a real "We made them release prisoners that didn't need to be in there" is almost never unless it happens to coincide with other large groups seeing it as a good thing for them too and piling on
 
2022-09-27 8:11:35 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

I assume because he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served those 10 years.

Extraditing him to USA seems odd. As if it was a convenient was of just getting rid of him.


Counterpoint: paying him a bunch of money and turning him loose is going to do what, precisely, to deter him from going back to terrorism?
 
2022-09-27 8:12:37 PM  

Excelsior: shuffle him around to Guantanamo bay


The article doesn't even have details of why the USA is holding him. No mention of any charges.
 
2022-09-27 8:12:38 PM  

New Rising Sun: Wait, so I'm not clear from reading the article: is Belgium saying his guilt (in Belgium) is not in question and rather just that because he completed his Belgian jailtime he should not have been extradited to face mystery punishment in the world's greatest freedom* factory?


"According to a report by a special envoy to the United Nations cited by local media, he is being kept in isolation, with no daylight in his cell and with artificial lights on 24 hours a day. "

Geez -- if that's true, that's pretty nasty.  I wonder if that means all the time for all 10 years here and ongoing, or just that there have been intermittent periods of that (e.g. for "enhanced interrogation").


*restrictions apply


Look, it could be worse, he was meant to be the suicide bomber on the US embassy before he was arrested.
 
2022-09-27 8:12:59 PM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.


The problem is that subjecting someone to the US "Justice System" is a human rights violation. And even terrorists have human rights in any half-decent country.

The US often has to make guarantees that they won't pursue certain penalties (namely execution), will not hold prisoners in certain facilities etc in order to extradite people.

For example the US had to guarantee Assange wouldn't be held at ADX Florence or be subjected to their solitary confinement processes for the UK to consider extradition.
 
2022-09-27 8:13:35 PM  

Kit Fister: the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?


It isn't clear that he's been charged with anything in the USA. If he's not charged, there is no reason to extradite him.
 
2022-09-27 8:19:27 PM  

mrmopar5287: Kit Fister: the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

It isn't clear that he's been charged with anything in the USA. If he's not charged, there is no reason to extradite him.


No he's wanted for crimes still. Belgium only convicted him for weapons offences, and being a member of a terrorist organisation. There is evidence that he was conspiring with Richard Reid, and probably other attacks, but of course it takes time to build these cases and he's not really suitable for bail.

So they have to hold him in prison. Now this information is rarely easy to obtain, and sometimes you find out about their involvement many years afterwards. It will surprise no one that terrorist organisations tend to shun transparency and openness, so evidence gathering takes time.

The Belgians just got him on the weapons charge which was the easy part.
 
2022-09-27 8:24:20 PM  

nigeman: No he's wanted for crimes still. Belgium only convicted him for weapons offences, and being a member of a terrorist organisation. There is evidence that he was conspiring with Richard Reid, and probably other attacks, but of course it takes time to build these cases and he's not really suitable for bail.


Googling his name and I see the FBI announced he was charged in 2006. Indicted on charges then and per Wikipedia he was sent from Belgium to the USA in 2013 and is apparently languishing in the jail in DC ever since.

Indicted in 2006, extradited in 2013, and they still can't get the guy to trial? He's looking like a speedy trial judgement would dismiss his case with prejudice.
 
2022-09-27 8:26:47 PM  

FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up - I'm surprised Trump hasn't yet purchased a castle in Belgium...


We have extradition treaties with all of them.
 
2022-09-27 8:27:22 PM  

nigeman: mrmopar5287: Kit Fister: the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

It isn't clear that he's been charged with anything in the USA. If he's not charged, there is no reason to extradite him.

No he's wanted for crimes still. Belgium only convicted him for weapons offences, and being a member of a terrorist organisation. There is evidence that he was conspiring with Richard Reid, and probably other attacks, but of course it takes time to build these cases and he's not really suitable for bail.

So they have to hold him in prison. Now this information is rarely easy to obtain, and sometimes you find out about their involvement many years afterwards. It will surprise no one that terrorist organisations tend to shun transparency and openness, so evidence gathering takes time.

The Belgians just got him on the weapons charge which was the easy part.


Trabelsi has been in prisons since 2001. He has been in US custody since 2013.

If you can't build a case in 20 years, and have held a person, without trial for eight it is time to give up.
 
2022-09-27 8:29:08 PM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.


Well, the European Court of Human Rights told them not to extradite him and they did it anyway, probably because he didn't commit any crimes against the United States, he only planned to, which happened entirely on Belgian territory, so the US should have no jurisdiction or right to claim extradition.

As to whether he will be turned back over to them, I'd guess that depends on the text of the extradition treaty with them.
 
2022-09-27 8:34:23 PM  

LrdPhoenix: Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.

Well, the European Court of Human Rights told them not to extradite him and they did it anyway, probably because he didn't commit any crimes against the United States, he only planned to, which happened entirely on Belgian territory, so the US should have no jurisdiction or right to claim extradition.

As to whether he will be turned back over to them, I'd guess that depends on the text of the extradition treaty with them.


Would agree that it depends on the treaty, but I have never seen one with a takebacksies provision.
 
2022-09-27 8:46:09 PM  

Kit Fister: Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

I assume because he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served those 10 years.

Extraditing him to USA seems odd. As if it was a convenient was of just getting rid of him.

Counterpoint: paying him a bunch of money and turning him loose is going to do what, precisely, to deter him from going back to terrorism?


That's not a counterpoint.

To make a counterpoint, you'd have to argue against that it was odd to extradite someone who served the sentence given.
 
2022-09-27 8:50:15 PM  

Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

I assume because he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served those 10 years.

Extraditing him to USA seems odd. As if it was a convenient was of just getting rid of him.

Counterpoint: paying him a bunch of money and turning him loose is going to do what, precisely, to deter him from going back to terrorism?

That's not a counterpoint.

To make a counterpoint, you'd have to argue against that it was odd to extradite someone who served the sentence given.


It's not odd to do that, that happens all the time when a person is serving a sentence in one place and is then sent to another country demanding extradition.
 
2022-09-27 8:51:46 PM  

dionysusaur: FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up - I'm surprised Trump hasn't yet purchased a castle in Belgium...

We have extradition treaties with all of them.


Yep. The joke's still funny, though.
 
2022-09-27 8:52:57 PM  

Excelsior: That'll buy him at least a few hours worth of phone calls and a few dozen packages or ramen noodles in his US prison cell.


"Trabelsi has now spent almost a decade in custody in the U.S. According to a report by a special envoy to the United Nations cited by local media, he is being kept in isolation, with no daylight in his cell and with artificial lights on 24 hours a day. The report also says he does not receive appropriate care and medication."

Phone? You kidding?
 
2022-09-27 9:00:51 PM  

dionysusaur: FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up - I'm surprised Trump hasn't yet purchased a castle in Belgium...

We have extradition treaties with all of them.


Notice how Roman Polanski has had the run of Europe for decades.
 
2022-09-27 9:03:27 PM  

mrmopar5287: nigeman: No he's wanted for crimes still. Belgium only convicted him for weapons offences, and being a member of a terrorist organisation. There is evidence that he was conspiring with Richard Reid, and probably other attacks, but of course it takes time to build these cases and he's not really suitable for bail.

Googling his name and I see the FBI announced he was charged in 2006. Indicted on charges then and per Wikipedia he was sent from Belgium to the USA in 2013 and is apparently languishing in the jail in DC ever since.

Indicted in 2006, extradited in 2013, and they still can't get the guy to trial? He's looking like a speedy trial judgement would dismiss his case with prejudice.


Based on what?

You're also assuming that his lawyers are not the ones delaying a trial knowing full well that if convicted of trying to blow up a plane he'll never be released
 
2022-09-27 9:04:51 PM  

madgonad: dionysusaur: FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up - I'm surprised Trump hasn't yet purchased a castle in Belgium...

We have extradition treaties with all of them.

Notice how Roman Polanski has had the run of Europe for decades.


he's popular, rich, and white.
 
2022-09-27 9:07:12 PM  

madgonad: Notice how Roman Polanski has had the run of Europe for decades.


He's limited to France (which has notoriously difficult extradition with the USA) and Poland (where courts have ruled he already served his sentence of "time served" in the original plea agreement). Not exactly all of Europe, but his case is very unique.
 
2022-09-27 9:43:27 PM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.


I'm willing to send back a few pieces.
 
2022-09-27 9:48:18 PM  
All you folks laughing at the likelihood of him being sent obviously have never been on the receiving end of a harsh, but persuasive, note from Belgian officials. A mere perfunctory notice will leave the Americans quaking and in a position with no alternate choice.
 
2022-09-27 10:21:46 PM  

Kit Fister: Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: Ketchuponsteak: Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

I assume because he was sentenced to 10 years in prison, and served those 10 years.

Extraditing him to USA seems odd. As if it was a convenient was of just getting rid of him.

Counterpoint: paying him a bunch of money and turning him loose is going to do what, precisely, to deter him from going back to terrorism?

That's not a counterpoint.

To make a counterpoint, you'd have to argue against that it was odd to extradite someone who served the sentence given.

It's not odd to do that, that happens all the time when a person is serving a sentence in one place and is then sent to another country demanding extradition.


Not if they're going to have him serve more time for the crime he already served for.

I'm not familiar with the Belgian ruling. Perhaps it was the "don't extradite people to be tortured" stuff.
 
2022-09-27 10:31:19 PM  

nigeman: Based on what?


Hopefully the ineptitude of being unable to bring him to trial for about a decade so far.

I'm remembering an article from a year or two ago where a guy convicted of some federal drug charges had his conviction dismissed based upon speedy trial violations. The gist of the argument was the guy refused to take a plea bargain and to fark with him for that the prosecution submitted him for mental health evaluations which took an inordinate amount of time to the point that they had him evaluated something like three separate times. After the first time or two the prosecution was angry with the results (he's sane and able to participate in his criminal defense) so they threw him back into the long wait for another evaluation, dragging his case out with lots of status hearings and continuances. They held him in pre-trial detention to fark with him like this and some of the delay was a comedy of errors (not really funny to him) where prosecutors thought they were waiting for the defense to file something and his defense thought they were waiting for the prosecutors to file something. Eventually, after years of this, he finally went to trial and was convicted. Then, with his appeal, his conviction was vacated based on speedy trial violations. the appeals court ruled that his excessively long pre-trial detention was such an egregious violation when the prosecution dragged it out for mental health evaluations solely because he refuse to take their plea bargain. That was punishment for no reason and the remedy was to have his case dismissed with prejudice because it took years to get the guy to trial.

This is honestly the first I've ever heard about this guy, but it seems to be really murky and nasty. The USA has had him for almost a decade, he's been indicted for about 14 years, and he's not in Guantanamo like those guys we are royally farking over with indefinite detention. This guy is on US soil, he has an indictment that's 14 years ago, and they still can't get him to trial?
 
2022-09-27 10:38:00 PM  
Are you seriously telling me that in 2013 Belgium didn't know in extensive detail the kind of judicial process (none) and treatment (torture) that he would be subject to?  They extradited him - they knew what was going to happen.
 
2022-09-27 10:42:50 PM  
Dear Belgium,

We recognize that the court has reached a decision. But seeing that it is a stupid ass decision we have elected to ignore it.

Love, The US of farking A
 
2022-09-27 10:45:46 PM  

chuggernaught: Dear Belgium,

We recognize that the court has reached a decision. But seeing that it is a stupid ass decision we have elected to ignore it.

Love, The US of farking A


New phone, who dis?
 
2022-09-27 10:52:45 PM  

mrmopar5287: nigeman: Based on what?

Hopefully the ineptitude of being unable to bring him to trial for about a decade so far.

I'm remembering an article from a year or two ago where a guy convicted of some federal drug charges had his conviction dismissed based upon speedy trial violations. The gist of the argument was the guy refused to take a plea bargain and to fark with him for that the prosecution submitted him for mental health evaluations which took an inordinate amount of time to the point that they had him evaluated something like three separate times. After the first time or two the prosecution was angry with the results (he's sane and able to participate in his criminal defense) so they threw him back into the long wait for another evaluation, dragging his case out with lots of status hearings and continuances. They held him in pre-trial detention to fark with him like this and some of the delay was a comedy of errors (not really funny to him) where prosecutors thought they were waiting for the defense to file something and his defense thought they were waiting for the prosecutors to file something. Eventually, after years of this, he finally went to trial and was convicted. Then, with his appeal, his conviction was vacated based on speedy trial violations. the appeals court ruled that his excessively long pre-trial detention was such an egregious violation when the prosecution dragged it out for mental health evaluations solely because he refuse to take their plea bargain. That was punishment for no reason and the remedy was to have his case dismissed with prejudice because it took years to get the guy to trial.

This is honestly the first I've ever heard about this guy, but it seems to be really murky and nasty. The USA has had him for almost a decade, he's been indicted for about 14 years, and he's not in Guantanamo like those guys we are royally farking over with indefinite detention. This guy is on US soil, he has an indictment that's 14 years ago, and they still can't get him to trial?


Ok so...

Based on this https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/6A5B98F9641C905F85258810004F0561/%24file/20-3028-1940508.pdf

It seems that he has been holding up his own trial by arguing in the courts that it violates double jeopardy laws and the extradition laws.

However the courts have not, after several appeals, agreed with that argument
 
2022-09-27 11:36:13 PM  

cefm: Are you seriously telling me that in 2013 Belgium didn't know in extensive detail the kind of judicial process (none) and treatment (torture) that he would be subject to?  They extradited him - they knew what was going to happen.


Yes, that would be why Belgium has been ordered to provide compensation.
 
2022-09-28 12:10:20 AM  

FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up


Western European prisons are more akin to modern art galleries or libraries than prison facilities, esp. when  compared to US penitentiaries, and Euro judges are softer than most Americans can fathom. It is no wonder terrorists and the euphemistically named "ISIS brides" or "Jihad brides" tend to get so homesick after spending some time in some Kurdish sh*thole camp. Suddenly all of them want to "go home". They even found a legal loophole to realize this : Dutch law stipulates that a suspect has the right to be present during their own court case (which must obviously be held on Dutch territory), so all the "ISIS brides" demand to be put on trial themselves. Our politicians promptly decided to "get the ISIS brides and their children and bring them home". Wonderful idea, no ? Next those ISIS clown cars get a slap on the wrist due to lack of evidence. and 6 or 12 months later, they are free again, where, needless to say they may expect to receive generous unemployment benefits and a rental flat to live in. Welcome home !
 
2022-09-28 12:32:37 AM  

Sluggy: FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up

Western European prisons are more akin to modern art galleries or libraries than prison facilities, esp. when  compared to US penitentiaries, and Euro judges are softer than most Americans can fathom. It is no wonder terrorists and the euphemistically named "ISIS brides" or "Jihad brides" tend to get so homesick after spending some time in some Kurdish sh*thole camp. Suddenly all of them want to "go home". They even found a legal loophole to realize this : Dutch law stipulates that a suspect has the right to be present during their own court case (which must obviously be held on Dutch territory), so all the "ISIS brides" demand to be put on trial themselves. Our politicians promptly decided to "get the ISIS brides and their children and bring them home". Wonderful idea, no ? Next those ISIS clown cars get a slap on the wrist due to lack of evidence. and 6 or 12 months later, they are free again, where, needless to say they may expect to receive generous unemployment benefits and a rental flat to live in. Welcome home !


The big difference is that EU prisons are generally designed for rehabilitation while US prisons are designed for punishment.

/And for grifting every buck you can of course, because who cares if inmates have to subsist on a diet of saw dust and floor sweepings? They had it coming, really.
//This what conservatives really think
 
2022-09-28 1:05:51 AM  

Excelsior: Sluggy: FormlessOne: It's weird how terrorists, thieves, and traitors flee to the loving arms of the EU whenever they fark up

Western European prisons are more akin to modern art galleries or libraries than prison facilities, esp. when  compared to US penitentiaries, and Euro judges are softer than most Americans can fathom. It is no wonder terrorists and the euphemistically named "ISIS brides" or "Jihad brides" tend to get so homesick after spending some time in some Kurdish sh*thole camp. Suddenly all of them want to "go home". They even found a legal loophole to realize this : Dutch law stipulates that a suspect has the right to be present during their own court case (which must obviously be held on Dutch territory), so all the "ISIS brides" demand to be put on trial themselves. Our politicians promptly decided to "get the ISIS brides and their children and bring them home". Wonderful idea, no ? Next those ISIS clown cars get a slap on the wrist due to lack of evidence. and 6 or 12 months later, they are free again, where, needless to say they may expect to receive generous unemployment benefits and a rental flat to live in. Welcome home !

The big difference is that EU prisons are generally designed for rehabilitation while US prisons are designed for punishment.

/And for grifting every buck you can of course, because who cares if inmates have to subsist on a diet of saw dust and floor sweepings? They had it coming, really.
//This what conservatives really think


That is NOT what they think

/floor sweepings are expensive
//and far too good for the likes of these scum
///and find a cheaper source for sawdust dammit we got growth projections to meet
 
2022-09-28 2:03:45 AM  
Excelsior:
The big difference is that EU prisons are generally designed for rehabilitation while US prisons are designed for punishment.

Correct. Actually "to prevent recidive" would perhaps be better than "rehabilitation". The main goal is to prevent a crime from happening again, and jail time is considered "preparation to return back into society"

The negative effects or consequences a sentence may have on the convict's well-being are actually factored in and play a role in determining that sentence. For instance, some burglar or robber just found a new job, a new place to live and tells the judge he's really trying to change his ways, etc. the judge will most likely not hand him jail time. Because that jail time would jeopardize his wellbeing. He loses his job, then he can't pay the rent, so  next he loses his home, etc. and in the end he is worse off. Which is considered unreasonable extra punishment.  A judge might dismiss a case altogether and decide the "suspect has already been punished enough" because he "comes from a culture of shame", or because the press exposure and publicity will haunt the suspect in years to come, and make it difficult to find a job.  That kind of stuff really happens. 
Also, you can't publicize any suspects full names or pictures. It's illegal.
 
2022-09-28 3:52:40 AM  

Sluggy: Excelsior:
The big difference is that EU prisons are generally designed for rehabilitation while US prisons are designed for punishment.

Correct. Actually "to prevent recidive" would perhaps be better than "rehabilitation". The main goal is to prevent a crime from happening again, and jail time is considered "preparation to return back into society"

The negative effects or consequences a sentence may have on the convict's well-being are actually factored in and play a role in determining that sentence. For instance, some burglar or robber just found a new job, a new place to live and tells the judge he's really trying to change his ways, etc. the judge will most likely not hand him jail time. Because that jail time would jeopardize his wellbeing. He loses his job, then he can't pay the rent, so  next he loses his home, etc. and in the end he is worse off. Which is considered unreasonable extra punishment.  A judge might dismiss a case altogether and decide the "suspect has already been punished enough" because he "comes from a culture of shame", or because the press exposure and publicity will haunt the suspect in years to come, and make it difficult to find a job.  That kind of stuff really happens. 
Also, you can't publicize any suspects full names or pictures. It's illegal.


"not publishing criminal's names" translates to "so after they serve their time, they can still find a job and become a productive member of society" instead of "no one will ever hire then again after their name popped up in a Google search, condemning them to a life of crime so they can pay the rent"
 
2022-09-28 4:29:27 AM  
I feel like this might be a Belgian easier to ask forgiveness than permission deal.
 
2022-09-28 5:35:49 AM  

Kit Fister: So, wait, the guy was convicted of terrorism, and had ties to Al Qaeda, and the courts over there are saying that the Belgians, with whom we have extradition treaties, should not have extradited him to the US? And he should be paid?

Why?

The guy's a terrorist. fark him. And if he had a hand in 9/11, fark him harder.


The guy's an attempted terrorist who did his time.  Wanna arrest everyone who ever "met Bin Laden"?  I've got a boatload of high-ranking Saudis you might want to look at...

/and a few Americans as well
 
2022-09-28 6:08:08 AM  

StatelyGreekAutomaton: All you folks laughing at the likelihood of him being sent obviously have never been on the receiving end of a harsh, but persuasive, note from Belgian officials. A mere perfunctory notice will leave the Americans quaking and in a position with no alternate choice.


Yeah but that note will never come because we all know how much the Belgians waffle on things.
 
Displayed 50 of 58 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.