extraided asperger sufferer, Talha Ahsan in solitary

Post Reply New Topic

I didn't say unbiased, I said independent from the case, so BBC News, Al Jazeera English, Russia Today, The Guardian, all manner of sources would count.

And the article has a banner above it saying "Voices: Views from Elsewhere", which implies it's an opinion piece. It also links to the campaign, which no major news source would do outside of an opinion piece.



I'm not saying it's fair or appropriate, just that it's perhaps dodgy to be arguing the semantics of the case rather than his guilt. It seems like they're trying to get him on technicalities not because he's in any innocent (he might very well be innocent, but that's not the impression I get from arguments the campaign is using)...


No, if he was convinced he was innocent and able to prove it, he could have had his day in court, the system does not prevent trial, it makes it in criminal interests to confess early, rather than wasting time and money. The fact he plead guilty, suggests he was either guilty or the cards were very much stacked against him.

They could have reached that conclusion, but they could have also easily reached the conclusion that they couldn't prove his innocence and it was better to plead guilty for a reduced sentence than to go through a trial, fail to prove innocence and get the full sentence...

New Statesman isn't a magazine I regularly read but I cannot see how it is less (or more) independent from the case than the other news sources you have listed are.



Wrong. It is the work of a guest writer rather than an employee of New Statesman. Many newspapers and magazines have sections for guest writers, so New Statesman is far from unique in this regard, and they are NOT synonymous with a opinion section because guest writers more often than not write factual articles.



Do you work in journalism?

The article has hyperlinks connecting to a variety of cited sources of information. Citations are unconventional in news articles from the mainstream media but they are mandatory in academic writing like research papers in order to enable the reader to find and examine the information used so they can study them in more depth or verify them for accuracy. I make an intelligent guess that New Statesman considers its readers to be of a higher intellectual calibre than most readers of populist rags like the Daily Mail, who want references to sources of information used to create the article rather than blindly accepting what journalists write at face value. If an article doesn't have any citations then for all anybody knows it could be entirely fabricated or misinformation.



As I have previously stated, it is a cock up of justice. A highly confused case where British law and American law have been mixed up with each other and a law applied retroactively. The CPS was also denied the 'evidence' that the Americans claimed to have which prevented Talha Ahsan from standing trial in a British court where a judge would have made a decision that he is not guilty and charges dropped; he should be extradited to stand trial in a US court under American law; or it is in the public interest that the case should be further resolved in a British court under British law - not necessarily one relating to terrorism.



This is a comment of a naïve individual with a poor knowledge of the workings of the American system of justice.

If the prosecutors had a cast iron concrete case against him with sufficient evidence that he could not deny he was guilty then they could have had him in court and in jail before the end of 2012. The reality of the American system of justice is that there is no right to a speedy trial and they put suspects into lengthy pre-trial detention whilst claiming to put the finishing touches on the case. The reality is that they use lengthy pre-trial detention to 'break down' suspects to make them plead guilty to crimes they did not commit or else they may never live to see freedom or their court trial. It happened with Talha Ahsan. The prosecutors had 6 years to put on the finishing touches whilst he was in jail in Britain but decided to impose 12 months pre-trial detention in the US after he was extradited then extend it another 6 months on flimsy allegations that they weren't finished.



To prove ones innocence means having to prove a negative. If you have studied the laws of logic then you will know that it's impossible to prove a negative. That is why British law is based on a platform of innocent until proven guilty. It works in harmony with the laws of logic.

I don't work in journalism, but most news sources wouldn't make an opinion like that. And the link at the bottom of the article is not a citation, it's a recruitment drive for the campaign. And it shoots down any credibility the guest writer may have had.



It involves a website, chances are the website was hosted by or used American facilities, therefore the crime took place in America and he should be tried under American law.

To paraphrase what I said earlier if he's guilty (and from the arguments being used it doesn't sound like his guilt is even in dispute anymore) why should I feel sorry for him regardless of whether the law's being applied unfairly? It sounds like he's guilty, and is now just playing cards to try and get himself out of it. Asperger's or not, if you don't want the time, don't do the crime.


I wasn't wrong, so don't call me naive, the system doesn't deprive anybody of a trial, (ab)use of the system does, and if his lawyers would good enough they could have probably questioned the decision to extend his pre-trial detention.

That's an allegation that won't ever be proved, and depending on the kind of evidence required for the trial, it's possible they may not have been finished, especially if it involved suspect testimony.



I meant "make a compelling enough case to not be proven guilty". And I think your application of the laws of logic there is suspect as best, but that's irrelevant really...

Are you willing to disclose what your occupation is? If it isn't journalism then are you a lawyer?

I'm curious to know why you are so interested in the Talha Ahsan case. You joined WP in February 2012, didn't post a thing until February 2014, then you suddenly chime into a discussion about Talha Ahsan making very assertive statements. There have been several discussions about Talha Ahsan in the past, so why didn't you say anything back then if you were interested in him? Already 6 out of a total of 9 of your posts are about Talha Ahsan and all in the same discussion.

Unless you can come up with an convincing explanation then something does not look right here. I'm clutching at straws but I can't help wondering if you are some sock puppet or collaborator with another member of WP.



You are the first person to come out with such a statement. New Statesman is a politics and current affairs periodical. It is not a daily paper. Therefore certain conventions relating to daily papers are not applicable or relevant to New Statesman any more than they are for engineering periodicals.



Talha Ahsan said in his plea that he only had "general knowledge" of the websites of Azzam Publications but did not operate them or have administrative access. Therefore his involvement was marginal at best. Viewing a website is involvement with a website so should all British citizens who viewed the Azzam Publications websites also be extradited for having an involvement with them?

His other involvement with Azzam Publications was processing customer orders received at the PO Box of Azzam Publications for media products advertised on the Azzam websites, and posting products to customers in Britain and abroad. As this took place entirely on British soil it is a matter for the British authorities to investigate and is outside of the jurisdiction of the US.



Do you really know as much about American law as Talha Ahsan's lawyers do? Unless you have been involved in the legal profession then I seriously doubt you. My experience is that it is rare to find any British people who have any knowledge of the US legal system and very few have even heard of plea bargaining. Even British lawyers are generally unfamiliar with American law or the peculiarities of the US legal system.



If the prosecutors had any justice, or common sense, then they would have ensured that they had a complete conclusive cast iron concrete watertight case against Talha Ahsan BEFORE issuing the extradition request. Issuing an extradition request on the basis of an allegation before the evidence is studied and examined to determine if it is correct and complete is like putting on your shoes before your socks and could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice or lengthy periods of pre-trial detention.

I'm a lurker, I generally read threads but don't post in them. Don't know why I got an account, I think it was to look at something that was locked down to members only. I only post occasionally, and prior to my engagement in this thread I didn't check the site regularly either.

It intrigues me, as does anyone attempting to use Asperger's/Autism as a "legal excuse" (not sure what the best term is). I'm generally posting, because you ask questions which I'm assuming aren't rhetorical, and to be honest I'm slightly confused really, because the family aren't arguing he's going to commit suicide, and they don't appear to be arguing his guilt as such, they're arguing prison will be uncomfortable, is that not the point of prison?

What kind of convincing explanation would I be able to provide? And just because I can't provide a convincing explanation as to my interest doesn't mean I'm a sock puppet or in cohorts with another WP member, but since I have no way of proving that, I'm just going to have to look suspicious.

Johnny come lately. If you were seriously interested in the case then you would have participated in discussions two years ago. The show is almost over now...



Unfortunately you are completely off the mark. Your knowledge of the case is shallow and superficial. I sit on the board of directors of an AS support group that has campaigned for Talha Ahsan with members who are in contact with people in the official campaign team. Therefore I know more about the case than casual lurkers like you do.