Abu Qatada

[Filo]

What is it with some judges, almost everyone in this Country wants this terrorist kicked out of our Country, but just as we`re about to get rid some appeal judge decides he can stay for more years of legal processes. Stick him on a Hercules transport plane, open the back doors and throw him out mid atlantic!

[The L J Monk]

For the last decade he has been detained, off and on, without charge. If he's as awful as we're led to believe, surely something the UK could charge him with would have surfaced in that time?

[Filo]

For the last decade he has been detained, off and on, without charge. If he's as awful as we're led to believe, surely something the UK could charge him with would have surfaced in that time?

He`s a Jordanian national, wanted in Jordan, let them deal with him, why have him here costing millions to the taxpayer in legal fees, sponging off the state, and preaching hate towards a nation that gives him a safe haven. I`ve nothing against people coming here to make a better life for themselves from different cutures, so long as they live in harmony with the people that already live here, him and a lot of people like him publicly burn the poppy and the national flag and preach hate towards us, the vast majority of this country`s citizens don`t want him here.

[The L J Monk]

It would have been a lot cheaper for the tax payer if he'd been charged and convicted of something years ago. I find it all very odd.

[MrFrost]

Can see some vigilante type people after him now he has been released

[bobjimwilly]

Just be cause a criminal can't be proven guilty, doesn't mean they're not though. Just making public hatred of the UK a punishable crime, that should sort it

 

[MrFrost]

Just be cause a criminal can't be proven guilty, doesn't mean they're not though. Just making public hatred of the UK a punishable crime, that should sort it

 

If I went out and burned the Quran, would I be punished?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Just making public hatred of the UK a punishable crime, that should sort it

 

I hate the monarchy, does that mean I'd be guilty?

[The L J Monk]

Just be cause a criminal can't be proven guilty, doesn't mean they're not though.

The odd thing though, is that the UK government, over the course of a decade, has never attempted to prove he is guilty of anything. They'd have to charge him to attempt that, and they never have...

[The Red Baron]

It would have been a lot cheaper for the tax payer if he'd been charged and convicted of something years ago. I find it all very odd.

I think there are plenty of things he could have been charged with, not least inciting racial hatred against Jews. However, they would result in him being behind bars for a few months at most. He is, though, wanted on very serious terrorism charges in Jordan and that is why successive governments have tried to deport him.

Might have been easier of course had the last Labour government not introduced the Human Rights Act- the single greatest act of folly carried out by a British Government since WW2.

[The L J Monk]

"SIAC, in a key judgment five years ago, noted that Abu Qatada argued that MI5 "knew the sort of views he was expressing and took no steps to stop or warn him, to prosecute him or prevent his fundraising for groups which are regarded as terrorist groups"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/13/abu-qatada-english-court

The UK could also try him for the crimes he is said to have committed overseas. Such is the man's reputation, surely evidence of these crimes shouldn't be too hard to uncover. However, this has not happened. Why is this?

[Glyn_Wigley]

Might have been easier of course had the last Labour government not introduced the Human Rights Act- the single greatest act of folly carried out by a British Government since WW2.

Why? It didn't really change anything.

[wilts rover]

Might have been easier of course had the last Labour government not introduced the Human Rights Act- the single greatest act of folly carried out by a British Government since WW2.

Oh for the days where we could lock people up without charge for years and no one critisied the police. Why are we not allowed to bomb civilians any more, we started that too.

An internment camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, enemy aliens, people with mental illness, members of specific ethnic or religious groups, civilian inhabitants of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The term is used for facilities where the inmates were selected by some generalized criteria, rather than detained as individuals after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary.

Got to admit I am suprised at you TRB.

[Filo]

This person, with his links to various terrorist organizations, poses a threat to the security of our citizens, he should be returned to his country of origin, where he is wanted on terrorist charges, let them deal with him

[MrFrost]

This person, with his links to various terrorist organizations, poses a threat to the security of our citizens, he should be returned to his country of origin, where he is wanted on terrorist charges, let them deal with him

Here here.
I wonder if people will be as quick to defend his human rights if he masterminded another 7/7 whilst on bail.

[Glyn_Wigley]

He might even get charged with something if he did that...

[The L J Monk]

This person, with his links to various terrorist organizations, poses a threat to the security of our citizens,

You'd think he'd have been charged with something then wouldn't you?

[The Red Baron]

Might have been easier of course had the last Labour government not introduced the Human Rights Act- the single greatest act of folly carried out by a British Government since WW2.

Oh for the days where we could lock people up without charge for years and no one critisied the police. Why are we not allowed to bomb civilians any more, we started that too.

An internment camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, enemy aliens, people with mental illness, members of specific ethnic or religious groups, civilian inhabitants of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The term is used for facilities where the inmates were selected by some generalized criteria, rather than detained as individuals after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary.

Got to admit I am suprised at you TRB.

I admit that I preferred it when the laws of this country protected the ordinary citizen against terrorists, and when the judiciary considered the rights of the law-abiding person to go about their business were of greater concern than those who threatened life and freedom by their actions.

I don't believe it would have been easy to remove Qatata before 1998, because, believe it or not, there were processes enshrined in law (dating back to Magna Carta) which allowed individuals to challenge arbitrary actions by the State, in many cases successfully. The point is that the HRA makes it all but impossible to remove him, because as soon as one objection is overcome, another can easily be found.

The Labour Government was warned about this, but chose to ignore the warnings. Maybe they believed that international terrorists would not use the UK as a safe haven. How wrong they were!

[Thinwhiteduke]

Did he intially come here claiming aslyum?

If so are we the first safe port of call outside Jordan?

[Filo]

Did he intially come here claiming aslyum?

If so are we the first safe port of call outside Jordan?

Correct, he did claim asylum and there are many safe havens between here and Jordan, he also arrived on a forged UAE passport

[The Red Baron]

Did he intially come here claiming aslyum?

If so are we the first safe port of call outside Jordan?

Correct, he did claim asylum and there are many safe havens between here and Jordan, he also arrived on a forged UAE passport

Yes, and this happened in 1994. Just in case you think I am being party political with my comments on the HRA (which I still believe to be an act of folly) this happened during a Conservative administration. It shows that UK Governments of all persuasions lack the will/ backbone/ call it what you like to ensure the safety of citizens and to prevent this country being abused by law-breakers.

[Filo]

RB, it does n`t matter who`s in power to me regarding this issue, the facts are that the vast majority of UK citizens from which ever end of the political spectrum they come from, want this man and others like him sent back to where they came from, why do we as a Country pussyfoot about and pamper up to the international do gooders?

[The L J Monk]

the facts are that the vast majority of UK citizens from which ever end of the political spectrum they come from, want this man and others like him sent back to where they came from,

Have you got a link to that survey?

[Filo]

the facts are that the vast majority of UK citizens from which ever end of the political spectrum they come from, want this man and others like him sent back to where they came from,

Have you got a link to that survey?

You know the answer to that


You know it`s true as well;)

[wilts rover]

Might have been easier of course had the last Labour government not introduced the Human Rights Act- the single greatest act of folly carried out by a British Government since WW2.

Oh for the days where we could lock people up without charge for years and no one critisied the police. Why are we not allowed to bomb civilians any more, we started that too.

An internment camp is a large detention center created for political opponents, enemy aliens, people with mental illness, members of specific ethnic or religious groups, civilian inhabitants of a critical war-zone, or other groups of people, usually during a war. The term is used for facilities where the inmates were selected by some generalized criteria, rather than detained as individuals after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary.

Got to admit I am suprised at you TRB.

I admit that I preferred it when the laws of this country protected the ordinary citizen against terrorists, and when the judiciary considered the rights of the law-abiding person to go about their business were of greater concern than those who threatened life and freedom by their actions.

I don't believe it would have been easy to remove Qatata before 1998, because, believe it or not, there were processes enshrined in law (dating back to Magna Carta) which allowed individuals to challenge arbitrary actions by the State, in many cases successfully. The point is that the HRA makes it all but impossible to remove him, because as soon as one objection is overcome, another can easily be found.

The Labour Government was warned about this, but chose to ignore the warnings. Maybe they believed that international terrorists would not use the UK as a safe haven. How wrong they were!

Yes correct, they allowed Margaret Thatcher's good friend General Pinochet to stay here and then return back to a hero's welcome in Chile rather than face trial in Spain for the thousands he murdered. But of course he was on our side.

Britain could not sign the HRA before 1998 because we held hundreds of people in Northern Ireland without trial. And I know all about terrorism because I was in Victoria Station when the IRA bomb went off. In no way does one justify the other - we were making terrorists, not preventing them.

The reason the HRA exists is to make the world a better and safer place for citizens across the globe. There are unfortunately many countries where this is not so, and we in a democratic UK are better then them. You should be proud of that fact - not stooping to their level.

Oh and as for Magna Carta allowing individuals to challenge the state - its less than 150 years ago that we used to transport children for stealing a loaf of bread because they were starving, and not too much longer than that for men wanting to start a trade union.

[Dagenham Rover]

"And I know all about terrorism because I was in Victoria Station when the IRA bomb went off. In no way does one justify the other"

Ok whilst I basically agree 

I was in a pub round the back of Buck House called the Bag o Nails when the Band got blown up at Regents Park!
I was in a pub called The Victoria 100 yards away from the Kings Arms in Woolwich when that was blown up although the Kings Arms was actually my local,  I drove into a TA barracks  down the Falls Road when they shot the young lad that opened the gate for me, I was walking round the Divis Flats when a fridge was lobbed out of the 10th floor at us, and thats forgetting about the Argies who thought it was fun to shoot at me !!! although thats probably not classed as terroism.
I know about terroism and most normal people  do not want these madmen in this country apart from out of touch judges   

[Filo]

"And I know all about terrorism because I was in Victoria Station when the IRA bomb went off. In no way does one justify the other"

Ok whilst I basically agree 

I was in a pub round the back of Buck House called the Bag o Nails when the Band got blown up at Regents Park!
I was in a pub called The Victoria 100 yards away from the Kings Arms in Woolwich when that was blown up although the Kings Arms was actually my local,  I drove into a TA barracks  down the Falls Road when they shot the young lad that opened the gate for me, I was walking round the Divis Flats when a fridge was lobbed out of the 10th floor at us, and thats forgetting about the Argies who thought it was fun to shoot at me !!! although thats probably not classed as terroism.
I know about terroism and most normal people  do not want these madmen in this country apart from out of touch judges   

Agreed!

And for the record, I`ve had a couple of near misses, one in the car park of Lakeland Forum in Enniskillen in 1984 when two British soldiers were killed by a car bomb after fishing the Sealink Classic, and the other was in Enniskillen a few years later when the RUC station was mortar bombed from a car park across the River Erne by the IRA, we had left that same car park only an hour earlier

[wilts rover]

Come out, come out ye black and tans.....

And did either of you ever stop and wonder why incidents like those were happening in this country? Which is vering off in a different direction but my point being, the whole of the UK is far safer now that we conform to the statutations of the HRA. If that means we dont extradite people to countries where they will be tortured, in a judges opinion, then so be it. It is up to our government to work through the proper channels to make that happen - unless Daggers wants to use his SAS training to take him out - he shouldn't be hard to find, the Daily Mail will be following him 24hrs a day for a start.

[CusworthRovers]

Do we want terrorists or supporters of terrorists in our country? (whatever that terrorist view is).

Do we want people who are deemed a threat to national security?

Rubber Dinghy Rapids innit

[Filo]

Come out, come out ye black and tans.....

And did either of you ever stop and wonder why incidents like those were happening in this country? Which is vering off in a different direction but my point being, the whole of the UK is far safer now that we conform to the statutations of the HRA. If that means we dont extradite people to countries where they will be tortured, in a judges opinion, then so be it. It is up to our government to work through the proper channels to make that happen - unless Daggers wants to use his SAS training to take him out - he shouldn't be hard to find, the Daily Mail will be following him 24hrs a day for a start.

Believe me stopping and thinking was the last thought on my mind when a terrorist`s bomb had gone off about 200 yards away, it does n`t matter what cause the terrorist`s were pursuing, the fact is innocent people are caught up in their cowardly attacks, what about their human rights?