Abu Qatada deportation farce

[Infinite Chaos]

Radical cleric Abu Qatada's deportation has been thrown into doubt after the European Court of Human Rights said it had received a last-minute appeal.Home Secretary Theresa May said the appeal was a "delaying tactic".
The appeal was lodged late last night, but Mrs May said she was "absolutely clear" that the deadline had expired. Link

Hopefully this will be easy to clear up but I also wonder who exactly launched the appeal and why the ECHR would still consider the appeal if a deadline has been passed.

If it's Qatada's lawyers, I hope they are not being paid otherwise it could be seen as a cynical attempt to access the public purse but equally, it could be someone hoping to discredit the ECHR or drive the UK to withdraw / demand to renegotiate the agreement

P.S. (I know we were originally involved in the drawing up of the principles PeteEU but that doesn't mean legislation and agreements can never be re-negotiated)

 

[PeteEU]

Hopefully this will be easy to clear up but I also wonder who exactly launched the appeal and why the ECHR would still consider the appeal if a deadline has been passed.

The amount of rumors going around are astounding, and it is the conservative press pushing it. Tonight on Sky News Press review, a conservative pundit claimed that the court rang up the lawyers of Abu Qatada to ask if they wanted to appeal and he tried to make a big deal out of it. So what if the court called them up and asked if they wanted to appeal? They knew the deadline and would have lodged an appeal at the last minute regardless I bet. Will it delay the extradition? Of course, but hey that is how the legal system is! It is funny how there is never any complaints when UK appeals...

If it's Qatada's lawyers, I hope they are not being paid otherwise it could be seen as a cynical attempt to access the public purse but equally, it could be someone hoping to discredit the ECHR or drive the UK to withdraw / demand to renegotiate the agreement

The Conservatives have been trying to do that for decades. This case is a weak case since it is in large part based on **** ups by the UK government, and not because of the ECHR. Of course propaganda from the Tories will try to change this fact and most likely succeed, since Europe is a bad word n the UK at the moment and the popular thing to blame everything bad on..... a typical reaction in times of "crisis".. not like we have not seen that before... Italy and the Romani, and some Austrian guy in Germany.

But the reality of the whole mess is and yes I am repeating myself yet again... A treaty written by a conservative politician and forced on the rest of the Europe by the UK (and US and France), so it is freaking hypocritical to come now and blame the convention for cluster****s made by the UK government. You could say.. stop breaking the human rights of people, and then it wont be a problem.

P.S. (I know we were originally involved in the drawing up of the principles PeteEU but that doesn't mean legislation and agreements can never be re-negotiated)

You were a bit more than "involved".. you were the driving force.

Now if the UK wants to leave the ECHR.. by all means, but that means leaving the EU, since that is now a requirement... something ironically the UK wanted HAHAHA. That is of course something the Conservatives would love.. leaving the EU.... and good luck being an island with no friends. Wonder when the camps will start being put up for "undesirables".. there is after all then no legal issue preventing human rights violations. Plus of course being labelled in the same box as Cuba, North Korea and so on.. countries that dont agree to human rights.

As for renegotiating.. you can try, but 40+ nations would have to agree... and which parts would the UK want to renegotiate? The right to family life? The right not to be sent to a country that has the death penalty or tortures? Dont the UK support these things? It is funny that the very people up in arms about the treaty, and demanding blood, cant explain what exactly they want to change in the treaty... hmmz

And the ironic thing is... the ECHR does not have any enforcement possibility.. so the UK could just ignore the court. Of course that would be pissing on UK law which is the basis of the ECHR and being labelled as being a human rights problem country along with Syria and so on.

 

[Wiggen]

There is a basic flaw in any country's legal system when issues of their national security and public safety are subject to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats responsible to nobody.

Thanks to you however, I now know that, like ever other evil in the world, it is actually the fault of the U.S.

 

[Higgins86]

There is a basic flaw in any country's legal system when issues of their national security and public safety are subject to the whims of unelected foreign bureaucrats responsible to nobody.

Thanks to you however, I now know that, like ever other evil in the world, it is actually the fault of the U.S.

your posts are getting pretty pathetic Wiggen....

 

[Manc Skipper]

I see no change at all in such posts.
Labour are certainly making the most of it, but you have to question the government's judgement in moving on Quatada the minute they could. 24 hours delay would have ensured that he was out of time, and he was isolated under virtual house arrest anyway.

 

[Wiggen]

your posts are getting pretty pathetic Wiggen....

Your's continue to be - as do those of all the other apologists for the Abu Qatada's of the world. Enjoy the decisions of your unelected foreign bureaucrats as they force you, against your will, to harbor scumbag terrorists. Pity - Britain used to be a proud and independent nation at one time. Now, matters of their national security and public safety are being decided elsehwere - not because they were conquered in a war but because they voluntarily surrendered their soverignty.

 

[Wiggen]

I see no change at all in such posts.
Labour are certainly making the most of it, but you have to question the government's judgement in moving on Quatada the minute they could. 24 hours delay would have ensured that he was out of time, and he was isolated under virtual house arrest anyway.

Nor I in yours. Still the defender of the indefensable.

 

[Higgins86]

Your's continue to be - as do those of all the other apologists for the Abu Qatada's of the world. Enjoy the decisions of your unelected foreign bureaucrats as they force you, against your will, to harbor scumbag terrorists. Pity - Britain used to be a proud and independent nation at one time. Now, matters of their national security and public safety are being decided elsehwere - not because they were conquered in a war but because they voluntarily surrendered their soverignty.

I just think its sad that you seem to use any thread in the Europe section as an excuse to attack the UK and Europe, blind hate

 

[PeteEU]

I see no change at all in such posts.
Labour are certainly making the most of it, but you have to question the government's judgement in moving on Quatada the minute they could. 24 hours delay would have ensured that he was out of time, and he was isolated under virtual house arrest anyway.

Of course labour is making the most of it.. in fact did you know it was a conservative government that originally gave Abu Quatada asylum?

But the thing we are not discussing is the botched budget are we now.... it was slowly cropping up again because of no "big news" and then suddenly this happens.

It is odd timing since this poll of polls came out

George Osborne's botched Budget sends Conservative ratings to a new low - UK Politics - UK - The Independent

with the Conservatives failing in the polls, and with the London elections coming up this week. And what is the best way to rally the troops? To create a scandal by Europe against the UK and add in someone everyone hates and you have this case. The Falklands only worked for a short time, and I doubt the UK will join forces with Spain (because of Gibraltar) over Argentina.. soo, what then.. oh yea Europe!

And what are we actually discussing in this case? All experts are siding with the EHRC and their definition of 3 months... the case law is very very clear, and it is only the Tories that are backing the minister .. and doing it pathetically at that. And then we are back to.. what about the UK economy and the failing budget?

And thankfully the most of the British media (the serious parts) are taking the government to town on this supposed **** up.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

--You were a bit more than "involved".. you were the driving force.

Now if the UK wants to leave the ECHR.. by all means, but that means leaving the EU, since that is now a requirement... something ironically the UK wanted HAHAHA. That is of course something the Conservatives would love.. leaving the EU.... and good luck being an island with no friends. Wonder when the camps will start being put up for "undesirables".. there is after all then no legal issue preventing human rights violations. Plus of course being labelled in the same box as Cuba, North Korea and so on.. countries that dont agree to human rights.

As for renegotiating.. you can try, but 40+ nations would have to agree... and which parts would the UK want to renegotiate? The right to family life? The right not to be sent to a country that has the death penalty or tortures? Dont the UK support these things? It is funny that the very people up in arms about the treaty, and demanding blood, cant explain what exactly they want to change in the treaty... hmmz

And the ironic thing is... the ECHR does not have any enforcement possibility.. so the UK could just ignore the court. Of course that would be pissing on UK law which is the basis of the ECHR and being labelled as being a human rights problem country along with Syria and so on.

The original human rights conventions weren't drawn up to prevent foreign born terrorists from being deported to their countries of origin, it was to prevent some of the horrors of what happened in WW2 ever happening again. As for renegotiating - you do like to bang on and give the impression we're locked into this system but in reality, there are negotiations on reform and scope of the ECHR and a deal was struck today. This will still take time though.

Let's tone down the strident "it's the UK's fault" rhetoric and look at one of the core issues - Theresa May and the Conservatives in the Govt seem to have messed up their timing. It's now coming out that the advice had come from the civil service and her staff that the deadline had passed, she jumped the gun and had Qatada arrested ready for deportation when cooler heads might have waited and made sure.

Why did this happen? It may have been done so as to put greater pressure on the court and on member countries to enforce change and in some ways - this is about time.

The other core issue is the scope of practice within the ECHR itself, not that the UK is breaking people's human rights. There is the question of whether cases that have been dealt with once should be brought back so soon when there is an acknowledged serious backlog which hampers the effectiveness of the court. Qatada's case has been heard, the court itself was satisfied that Jordan would not use information gathered through torture but now that case may be back - will it suddenly be at the top of the caseload or wait in queue?

In my opinion, there is no new evidence to warrant the case being brought back, the last minute appeal is more mischievous than an actual serious reason to appeal the decision. The UK was always obliged to wait the full 3 months and if Qatada's lawyers did have anything, they could have brought that out weeks ago. This case may have helped the UK achieve what you have been laughing about in the time you've been here - uniting 47 member states to agree on reform.

As for your claim it's to detract from economy figures... :lamo

 

[Wiggen]

I just think its sad that you seem to use any thread in the Europe section as an excuse to attack the UK and Europe, blind hate

Yes, I hate the UK so much that two of my three historical heroes were Brits. In fact I like the UK and Brits generally, in spite of mental lightweights who seem determined on turning the country into a satellite of the French and the Germans, while at the same time exercising due care not to offend any radical Muslims - presumably in the hope that they'll be eaten last.

The fact that you cannot deport a known terrorist because people who are not British tell you that you can't is a stain on British integrity and soverignty.

 

[Higgins86]

Yes, I hate the UK so much that two of my three historical heroes were Brits. In fact I like the UK and Brits generally, in spite of mental lightweights who seem determined on turning the country into a satellite of the French and the Germans, while at the same time exercising due care not to offend any radical Muslims - presumably in the hope that they'll be eaten last.

The fact that you cannot deport a known terrorist because people who are not British tell you that you can't is a stain on British integrity and soverignty.

well we can and we will deport him but their are rules and proper channels that you have to go through. (can't all be gunslingers)

 

[Manc Skipper]

It's that British adherence to the rule of law even when we're disadvantaged by it...

 

[Wiggen]

It's that British adherence to the rule of law even when we're disadvantaged by it...

Well, if you have passed a law saying that your national security and public safety is subject to the veto of unelected foreign bureaucrats in another country, I guess you deserve what you get. Lots of luck with that.

 

[Higgins86]

Well, if you have passed a law saying that your national security and public safety is subject to the veto of unelected foreign bureaucrats in another country, I guess you deserve what you get. Lots of luck with that.

what does it matter to you?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Well, if you have passed a law saying that your national security and public safety is subject to the veto of unelected foreign bureaucrats in another country

Qatada was under house arrest and if he isn't deported straight away then he goes back into house arrest.

Can you otherwise show how UK national security and public safety are "subject to the veto of unelected foreign bureaucrats in another country?"

 

[PeteEU]

The original human rights conventions weren't drawn up to prevent foreign born terrorists from being deported to their countries of origin, it was to prevent some of the horrors of what happened in WW2 ever happening again.

Yea like torture... which is the core of the case. It is in fact UK law that the UK does not send people to countries where they can be tortured... ironically the UK is blaming the ECHR for not being allowed to send someone back to a country where they can be tortured... hypocrisy at its best.

As for renegotiating - you do like to bang on and give the impression we're locked into this system but in reality, there are negotiations on reform and scope of the ECHR and a deal was struck today. This will still take time though.

And? It will take time and wont change the core Conservative belief that the ECHR is anti-British.

Let's tone down the strident "it's the UK's fault" rhetoric

But it is... so why tone it down? Afraid of facts?

and look at one of the core issues - Theresa May and the Conservatives in the Govt seem to have messed up their timing. It's now coming out that the advice had come from the civil service and her staff that the deadline had passed, she jumped the gun and had Qatada arrested ready for deportation when cooler heads might have waited and made sure.

In other words it is the UKs fault, as the UK government represents the UK no?

Why did this happen? It may have been done so as to put greater pressure on the court and on member countries to enforce change and in some ways - this is about time.

Hardly.. this is a non story outside the UK. Hence my theory this was to deal with domestic politics, aka the budget, more than anything else.

The other core issue is the scope of practice within the ECHR itself, not that the UK is breaking people's human rights. There is the question of whether cases that have been dealt with once should be brought back so soon when there is an acknowledged serious backlog which hampers the effectiveness of the court. Qatada's case has been heard, the court itself was satisfied that Jordan would not use information gathered through torture but now that case may be back - will it suddenly be at the top of the caseload or wait in queue?

So you want to deny the appeal processes? The problem is the case load of the ECHR, I fully agree. But then one has to ask why there are so many cases? Do they need a system that throws out the cases who are just there as a delaying action? Or do the local courts (aka the UK courts) need to use case law instead of constantly throwing the ball the down the road? Does the ECHR need some reform in how it does things .. sure, but I would not want the convention change in any way since that would only impact people in Europe who need protecting from the abuses of governments and companies... just ask the Northern Irish.

In my opinion, there is no new evidence to warrant the case being brought back, the last minute appeal is more mischievous than an actual serious reason to appeal the decision. The UK was always obliged to wait the full 3 months and if Qatada's lawyers did have anything, they could have brought that out weeks ago. This case may have helped the UK achieve what you have been laughing about in the time you've been here - uniting 47 member states to agree on reform.

As for your claim it's to detract from economy figures... :lamo

 

[Manc Skipper]

The UK has lost fewer cases referred than many other members, notably Russia and Turkey. Of all UK cases, 97% are rejected as inadmissible without a full hearing. As partial creators of the court our law is broadly in step with the court's rulings anyway. What the Tories precipitate action has done is opened up the UK to being sued for wrongful arrest. We taxpayers could be forced to pay compensation to this creature. Nice one Teresa!

 

[notquiteright]

When hearing an American rant against unelected/unaccountable foreign bureaucrats you could go back to 1858 and some southern wag railing against a Damnyankee judge repealing the Fugitive Act. "South Carolina will not stand any interference with how it manages it's 'peculiar' institution of slavery! How dare an unelected 'foreign' bureaucrat try and tell us what to do!"

I made several trips to England a few years ago, spent a few nights tipping a few pints with Scousers. Their opinion and they will gladly share it, about the EU and the hated Euro, is we were better off on our own. I like British folk, but if they really want out of the EU by golly there is the door.

Europe is in transition, after centuries of often murderous ethnic/nationalist blood letting among themselves they may actually cobble themselves together as a Union of nation states. If they succeed then a central court and common set of principles WILL be the norm.

Are certain political elements in England are using this case to mask other issues? I don't know, but judging by how easily Americans are distracted by odd issues, it does seem worth a try...

 

[Wiggen]

what does it matter to you?

Well, I have relatives in the UK. The thought of terrorists being allowed to roam the streets because foreign bureacrats say so bothers me. Kind of like your commenting on U.S. affairs.

 

[Wiggen]

Qatada was under house arrest and if he isn't deported straight away then he goes back into house arrest.

Can you otherwise show how UK national security and public safety are "subject to the veto of unelected foreign bureaucrats in another country?"

The fact that this thug is still in your country, being supported by your tax payers. Tell me, is he still receiving public assistance?

 

[Wiggen]

When hearing an American rant against unelected/unaccountable foreign bureaucrats you could go back to 1858 and some southern wag railing against a Damnyankee judge repealing the Fugitive Act. "South Carolina will not stand any interference with how it manages it's 'peculiar' institution of slavery! How dare an unelected 'foreign' bureaucrat try and tell us what to do!"

I made several trips to England a few years ago, spent a few nights tipping a few pints with Scousers. Their opinion and they will gladly share it, about the EU and the hated Euro, is we were better off on our own. I like British folk, but if they really want out of the EU by golly there is the door.

Europe is in transition, after centuries of often murderous ethnic/nationalist blood letting among themselves they may actually cobble themselves together as a Union of nation states. If they succeed then a central court and common set of principles WILL be the norm.

Are certain political elements in England are using this case to mask other issues? I don't know, but judging by how easily Americans are distracted by odd issues, it does seem worth a try...

Yes, great analogy. England of today is just like the South in 1858 and arab terrorists are nothing more than fugitive slaves being rescued by those noble judges in Europe. An early entry in the worst analogy of the year contest.

You visited England? Good for you. I've visited a dozen times or more, I was born there, and I will be going back again this July.

 

[notquiteright]

Say Hey for me when you go back!

I did hear an earful over all of 'those' people being allowed into the home of a collapsed Empire. It didn't stop at Muslims, but Hindus, Buddhists and whatever else was in that same lament.

The main point I was making about the EU and England is in joining the EU 'mighty' England will have to get along with continental Europe, not merely mock them. Oh yes I heard plenty of mocking but England needs the EU, not the other way round. I do suppose it is a bit galling for the Former Mighty Empire to sit at a table where the French and Germans have so big a say in what happens.

Yes I heard a lot of frog bashing and 'we beat the krauts twice, who cares what they think' talk while over there.

Made me feel right at home, if I frequented redneck/VFW bars much... :lol:

 

[Meathead]

On a slight tangent, is that Libyan guy who blew up the Pan Am flight still alive? British bleeding hearts saw fit to release him on humanitarian grounds as I recall because he had weeks or months to live. That was in the summer of 2009 of course.

I guess some are still trying to figure why the US might not trust British justice, especially where Arab terrorists are concerned.

 

[StillBallin75]

On a slight tangent, is that Libyan guy who blew up the Pan Am flight still alive? British bleeding hearts saw fit to release him on humanitarian grounds as I recall because he had weeks or months to live. That was in the summer of 2009 of course.

I guess some are still trying to figure why the US might not trust British justice, especially where Arab terrorists are concerned.

He's still alive, is apparently on his deathbed but who really knows.