News Abu Qatada wins appeal against deportation

[Scouse]

It's that pesky European Court of Human Rights again.

Good on them. We shouldn't deport this angry hate-monger to face "trial" in Jordan.

Why?

A key part of his case is that he has only been implicated in two terrorism plots in Jordan because other suspects named him after they had been tortured

And we know, because science has proven, that evidence gained through torture is unreliable.

IMO making sure governments don't use torture is more important than letting potential terrorists go free.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Hommm....have to think about that for a while.

On one hand; yes, abolishing torture saves a lot of innocent folk(and protects rights of lesser "bad" people).
On the other; not using every mean possible to keep people safe from bombings etc is not optimal.

Could argue that torture is fine, if done in reasonable amount(to avoid forced confessions) and if done only with enough proof.

Though that can be controlled as much as a diplomatically immuned peadophile in disneyworld.

 

[Scouse]

Could argue that torture is fine

You could. But science shows you're wrong.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Don't take that out of context.

 

[soze]

While I agree that sending him back to Jordan would be bad, we should still be able to kick him out. Send him to the ECoHR and let them find somewhere for him to live. I know its impractical and it should not happen until there is indisputable proof of his guilt. But being forced to house a terrorist does not seem right.

 

[Scouse]

being forced to house a terrorist does not seem right.

No. It doesn't. But we can't prove he's a terrorist - and that's the point.

We have (history shows) more to fear from our governments than we do terrorists. Therefore we should celebrate when the rights of an individual outweigh the wants of the state.

Abu Qatata's a cunt, no doubt about it. But he deserves due process.

As for housing him somewhere else - he's currently our cunt. Why should we get to inflict him on anyone else?

 

[soze]

No. It doesn't. But we can't prove he's a terrorist - and that's the point.

We have (history shows) more to fear from our governments than we do terrorists. Therefore we should celebrate when the rights of an individual outweigh the wants of the state.

Abu Qatata's a cunt, no doubt about it. But he deserves due process.

As for housing him somewhere else - he's currently our cunt. Why should we get to inflict him on anyone else?

I said about indisputable proof. So it does not count in this case I know. But the ECoHR telling us we have to keep a terrorist is country seems wrong to me. They say he can not go home so its our job to house him for life. Again this is a hypothetical where we have adequate proof of guilt. As unless i remember wrong they do not let you deport some one to face a death sentence?

 

[Scouse]

I understand the point about indisputable proof. However, the ECoHR isn't telling us to keep a terrorist. It's telling us to keep a suspected terrorist that we've no proof against.

I've got no problem with that.

Us being unable to deport someone to face a death sentence (or maltreatment) is also correct - and that's not european law, that's British law. And right it is too.

 

[old.Tohtori]

No proof should be no problem, let guy go.

 

[Embattle]

Shocker.

 

[Scouse]

Shocker.

Ooooh! All mysterious and ambiguous. Like the terrorist you are Em. You do have the word "battle" in your name after all


So. Shocking he should be let go? Or is it the "meh" type of shocker that says "I don't care"...

 

[Gwadien]

cba to read up about him, but is it that guy who slags off the country that he lives in? and wants the people to live here die etc? - If he doesn't want to live here, fine, Jordan seem quite happy to take him in. Let the fucker go.

 

[Raven]

3 flights of stairs.

Problem solved.

 

[Scouse]

We all know you're not for freedom or due process, Gwadien. Glad to see that you admit to not being arsed enough to familiarise yourself with a case before holding the view that he should be deported to a country that routinely uses torture.

Abu Qatada is being held because of the people he knew and the views he holds. Not what he's actually done.

Although, to be fair, if I was held without trial for a decade in the heart of freedom, democracy, fairness and the rule of law that the UK claims to be as soon as they let me go I'd be blowing people up left right and centre

Murder him.

One problem solved and an authoritarian facist government created.

Fixed.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Is he officially living in the UK? Or does he have a "right" to live there as such? If not, send him home.

you can't take blame for other countries misdoings and you can't start harboring them, floodgates and all.

 

[Gwadien]

Scouse, Imagine if I came to your house, said I wanted to kill your family, never did it, but said it, but then your neighbours came and were like omg, my family died, he said he wanted to kill them, but im not sure if he did, would you want to keep me in your house & protect me against your neighbour that could potentially beat me up?

That's the feeling I get about this guy, I just read up about him a bit, and he's just a complete cunt, I'm sick of our country trying to be all high and mighty and taking the moral high-ground on everything, it scares me. It makes me feel that we've got a weak country.

 

[Mabs]

luckily we dont deport people to countries that regularly use torture


apart from the good old USofA, but hey, thats "special relationship" for you

 

[Scouse]

He came here, claimed asylum. He's our problem. End of.

He said (in a televised interview) that he thought Osama Bin Laden was a great man who defended his country well. And Britain used to feel that way when we armed, trained and funded him and his "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.

He's alleged to have said in a mosque that in his opinion jews should be killed, americans attacked and that the british are no different. But if we're now in the habit of locking people up just for allegations about stuff they may say then we're on dodgy ground ourselves.

But then, I don't think we've got freedom of speech in the UK any more, so...

 

[Embattle]

Ooooh! All mysterious and ambiguous. Like the terrorist you are Em. You do have the word "battle" in your name after all


So. Shocking he should be let go? Or is it the "meh" type of shocker that says "I don't care"...

That it has cost so much money to keep him, then to try and get rid of him only to be left more or less in exactly the same position as before while knowing this person isn't really that nice.

 

[Scouse]

Scouse, Imagine if I came to your house, said I wanted to kill your family, never did it, but said it, but then your neighbours came and were like omg, my family died, he said he wanted to kill them, but im not sure if he did, would you want to keep me in your house & protect me against your neighbour that could potentially beat me up?

I wouldn't want to. But I know it would be the right thing to do. I'd take you in and ring the police to come and do their job.

That's the feeling I get about this guy, I just read up about him a bit, and he's just a complete cunt, I'm sick of our country trying to be all high and mighty and taking the moral high-ground on everything, it scares me. It makes me feel that we've got a weak country.

Yes. He's probably a cunt. However, our protection of the cunts shows we're a strong country - not a weak one.

To be fair, we used to be a strong country - but we're not any more. We're trying to deport him to a country that will torture and kill him, when we've not enough evidence to try him in our own courts.


Due process, Gwadien. It means that we don't convict people because "of what you read about him" or "because he looks like a terrorist" or because you can imagine a situation and think that it must be true...

 

[Gwadien]

But then, I don't think we've got freedom of speech in the UK any more, so...

We never had freedom of speech - speakers corner and all that.

 

[Mabs]

He came here, claimed asylum. He's our problem. End of.

He said (in a televised interview) that he thought Osama Bin Laden was a great man who defended his country well. And Britain used to feel that way when we armed, trained and funded him and his "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.

He's alleged to have said in a mosque that in his opinion jews should be killed, americans attacked and that the british are no different. But if we're now in the habit of locking people up just for allegations about stuff they may say then we're on dodgy ground ourselves.

But then, I don't think we've got freedom of speech in the UK any more, so...

no thats incitement to racial hatred.
as for "freedom of speech" there is a very large difference between

"god i hate the govt/americans/jews/people with double-barreled names" and "lets all go and kill the govt/americans/jews/people with double-barreled names"

 

[Scouse]

That it has cost so much money to keep him, then to try and get rid of him only to be left more or less in exactly the same position as before while knowing this person isn't really that nice.

If we're in the habit of deporting people who "aren't nice" then I wish we would punt my neighbour somewhere offshore. But we're not. If we've got evidence that he's a terrorist we should try him in court, or leave him alone...

 

[old.Tohtori]

He came here, claimed asylum. He's our problem. End of.

He said (in a televised interview) that he thought Osama Bin Laden was a great man who defended his country well. And Britain used to feel that way when we armed, trained and funded him and his "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan.

He's alleged to have said in a mosque that in his opinion jews should be killed, americans attacked and that the british are no different. But if we're now in the habit of locking people up just for allegations about stuff they may say then we're on dodgy ground ourselves.

But then, I don't think we've got freedom of speech in the UK any more, so...

Ah ok, thanks for clearing that. Yeah, he's yours then and if you don't have proof, let the man go.

Unless there's some clause to deny iven asylum after X happens.

People have said worse things then that in this forum, but then again i don't differentiate between "kill all jews" and "kill all chavs", people are people and all that.

 

[Scouse]

no thats incitement to racial hatred

Two things:

1) "Incitement to racial hatred" is a new law that Labour brought in during their last period of massive civil liberties erosion that I strongly object to.

If I tell you that I think you should put your finger in the fire, or kill someone, and you're dumb enough to go and do it - it's your fault. Rational people would quite rightly tell me to fuck off and leave me to rant and rave like the madman I am.

2) If he's guilty of this new and trumped up piece of shit - prosecute him in a court of law. Not keep him imprisoned without trial - justifying the beliefs of terrorists worldwide and making him a martyr to the cause.

god i hate the govt/americans/jews/people with double-barreled names" and "lets all go and kill the govt/americans/jews/people with double-barreled names"

"Lets all go kill the jews"... Who's with me?! Oh? No-one? Erm. Oh.

Unless people get up to go and actually do it there's no crime there. Unless holding an opinion is a crime now?


Personally, I'd dance in the streets if the Americans used their constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms against their government and stood up and went "lets all kill the central bankers and all their stooges in congress" - then went and actually shot them.

Where would be the crime in that, Mabs? It's in the constitution because it's their moral duty to kill top-level corruptees...

 

[Mabs]

Two things:

1) "Incitement to racial hatred" is a new law that Labour brought in during their last period of massive civil liberties erosion that I strongly object to.

Personally, I'd dance in the streets if the Americans used their constitutionally-guaranteed right to bear arms against their government and stood up and went "lets all kill the central bankers and all their stooges in congress" - then went and actually shot them.

Where would be the crime in that, Mabs? It's in the constitution because it's their moral duty to kill top-level corruptees...

i strongly object to the fact we dont hang people in this country any more.. but that doesnt change the law

and i cant remember the wording of the constitution, but im pretty sure that applies to governements, not financial institutions, sadly

 

[Scouse]

i strongly object to the fact we dont hang people in this country any more.. but that doesnt change the law

and i cant remember the wording of the constitution, but im pretty sure that applies to governements, not financial institutions, sadly

The laws about capital punishment were changed because the argument was conclusively won. We may want to kill certain people but it has been shown that that policy is wrong.

The central bank is part of the governmental system. I'm not talking about "go kill the head of barclays". I'm talking go kill the heads of the Federal Reserve.

It just so happens that the people in congress/normal banks/central banks/etc tend to be the same people. And you don't get clean kills in a revolution any more than you do in a war.

/marinespissonthebodiesofthedead ON

 

[Mabs]

The laws about capital punishment were changed because the argument was conclusively won. We may want to kill certain people but it has been shown that that policy is wrong.

wrong how so ?
im pretty sure, last time i looked, that it has a ZERO percent reoffend rate, which is a lot better than prisons...

and yes by all means, go kill the head of the federal reserve, and replace them with.. whom ?

 

[old.Tohtori]

One thing about capital punishment being wrong is the possibility of innocence and the lack of undeniable proof in some cases.

 

[throdgrain]

Scouse you're such a wimp. Deport the twat for having an offensive beard. To anywhere, preferrably somewhere that does do torture. Cheers , BYYEE!