Now that radical preacher Abu Hamza Al-Masri and four other terror suspects will be extradited to the US after a marathon legal battle in Britain, London and Washington have won, but the UK's extradition arrangements remain deeply flawed. It is incredible that Britain has battled for 14 years to secure Al-Masri's extradition to the US where he is wanted in connection with alleged plans to establish a terrorist training camp in Oregon, as well as claims he provided material support to the Taliban. He is also wanted in connection with allegations that he was involved in hostage-taking in Yemen in 1998. Al-Masri could not be arrested during the period when he regularly aired vehemently anti-British views as imam of Finsbury Park mosque in north London which was once attended by Sept. 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui and shoe bomber Richard Reid. Even Queen Elizabeth, who never expresses overtly political views herself, off the record said she could not understand why there was no way to arrest Al-Masri and had reportedly lobbied a home secretary to secure his arrest. It is incomprehensible that extradition proceedings against somebody who publicly incited racial hatred and encouraged followers to kill non-Muslims should have taken so long. The process should be measured in months, not years. In Britain, Al-Masri was eventually convicted and sentenced to seven years for soliciting murder and racial hatred but not before prime ministers and US presidents came and went while the courts debated whether to send him and the four others to America. There was a sense the government was too slow to realize how dangerous Al-Masri was in radicalizing other people. How is it that British justice - so admired around the world - is not capable of dealing with people who incite violence, call Britain a toilet and, to rub it in, live on free UK money? It seems one can always find immunity in Britain; it is a notorious safe haven for wanted criminals. Egypt's former finance minister Youssef Boutros Ghali is currently living in exile in London after having been found guilty of corruption by a court in Egypt and sentenced in absentia to 30-years imprisonment. Even though an Interpol international arrest warrant was issued, Ghali enjoys immunity in London as he thumbs his nose at the law of his country, shielded by the British human rights umbrella. The five current cases were the ultimate test of the delicate balancing act called human rights. A Strasbourg court took over the cases because of what was at stake: Was Europe prepared to send these men to America to face trial and possibly harsh punishment? In the end, the British courts, the European Court of Human Rights and Britain's home secretary approved. In the end, very serious crimes outweighed any rights one of the world's oldest democracies could offer. A marathon court battle is finally over. The next time we will see Al-Masri and his co-defendants will be in court in New York. The fact is America finally got its men, but it took an extraordinarily and dangerously long time. Perhaps, though, this will speed up future similar extraditions.
