Abu Qatada deportation farce

[PeteEU]

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.

If you knew just a bit about the Lockerbie case, then you would know that it is far from certain that the guy convicted actually had any part in the bombing.

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

At least the British have justice that is blind to your religion, race and sexuality... unlike the US. I dont think the US should be lecturing anyone about justice when you have a gulag at Gitmo and held hundreds of men and boys who all were innocent.

 

[PeteEU]

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!

Yep but of the western countries the UK is at the top of the naughty list and with some real whoppers thanks to Northern Ireland. But the UK has been behaving it self some what the last decades despite the so called war on terror.

Ironically this whole mess could have been averted if the Conservative government of John Major had done their job and not accepted his asylum in 1994 on religious persecution. They knew or should have known that he entered the UK on a false UAE passport and that alone should have sent him packing.. but nope they gave him asylum because the UK agrees with the ECHR when it comes to religious persecution... dang that one bit you in the ass.

 

[Meathead]

If you knew just a bit about the Lockerbie case, then you would know that it is far from certain that the guy convicted actually had any part in the bombing.



At least the British have justice that is blind to your religion, race and sexuality... unlike the US. I dont think the US should be lecturing anyone about justice when you have a gulag at Gitmo and held hundreds of men and boys who all were innocent.

You are really dredging the bottom here, aren't you? Better running a gulag than letting bastards who killed hundredswalk Scot free (if you'll pardon the pun) .

Btw, no one is lecturing anyone here. The bleeding hearts of British justice are a disgrace to the those whose lives were lost and a stain of the UK, not to mention BP. Mollycoddling of terrorists work for you, but don't expect admiration or respect for it.

 

[Higgins86]

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.

kinf of like that apart from the fact I contribute to the US Gov through my taxes...

 

[Higgins86]

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

so what you think Gitmo is funded by fairies and elves? Tax payers lose out no matter what.

 

[Red_Dave]

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)

Well Baroness Waarsi was on question time this week saying that the UK will be using its presidency to attempt to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights (as if it had any) so we needent fear such interference from due process and the rule of law ever again.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Well Baroness Waarsi was on question time this week saying that the UK will be using its presidency to attempt to curb the power of the European Court of Human Rights (as if it had any) so we needent fear such interference from due process and the rule of law ever again.

Muslims are trying to take power from European courts? Sharia can't be far behind! :lol:

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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

That's not an answer to what I asked you. You do this everytime one of your points is quashed or questioned; rather than discuss or elaborate your initial point, you use hit and run throwaway points loosely related to try and divert attention to the weakness of your position or statement.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

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.

How is it hypocrisy if the ECHR has agreed Qatada could be deported because of assurances that Qatad won't be tortured and evidence obtained through torture will not be brought against him?

On a looser note, in the murky world of national security across Europe that rendition / torture etc have not recently happened. In times of war, bad things happen - in the logical conclusion extradition by any country to any other would not be allowed.

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

Leave conspiracy to the right wing of the Conservatives, the other wing is arguing that if cases have been properly dealt with through sovereign law then there is no need for the RCHR to be involved. There's also a strong argument for a UK Bill of Rights which would all the UK to step out of the convention but still meet obligations to Human Rights Conventions.

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

--snip--

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

[/sigh] I meant there's no need to repeat what we know regarding the origins of the ECHR and the role of British officials in constructing the system.

-- 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.

Is everything that the current UK govt does / says / issues about diverting attention from the budget? OK..... :roll:

-- 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...

The UK courts don't throw cases down the road to the ECHR, people currently can complain and petition to the ECHR to have their cases referred upwards if they are not happy with decisions made at the sovereign state level. That allows constant temptation to delay cases such as the Qatada case where a decision has been made at the UK level, agreed at the ECHR and then delayed by right of appeal when no new evidence exists to show that the case is any different now from when the ECHR last reviewed the case.

-- just ask the Northern Irish

Why not bring up every colonial country from the days of the British Empire while you're at it? You could go back to the original cro-magnons and neanderthals if you wish to start delving in historical examples of cruelty and inhumane treatment on these islands?

 

[PeteEU]

How is it hypocrisy if the ECHR has agreed Qatada could be deported because of assurances that Qatad won't be tortured and evidence obtained through torture will not be brought against him?

It is hypocrisy because it was the UK that wanted the anti-torture rules in the ECHR back in the late 1940s, and then in the 2000s they try to deport people to countries that are known for their torture which is why the ECHR got into the game in the first place.

On a looser note, in the murky world of national security across Europe that rendition / torture etc have not recently happened. In times of war, bad things happen - in the logical conclusion extradition by any country to any other would not be allowed.

Fine by me. Either we live by the rule of law during peace or war or we are no different than the people/countries we are fighting.

Leave conspiracy to the right wing of the Conservatives, the other wing is arguing that if cases have been properly dealt with through sovereign law then there is no need for the RCHR to be involved. There's also a strong argument for a UK Bill of Rights which would all the UK to step out of the convention but still meet obligations to Human Rights Conventions.

LOL the bill of rights is basically the ECHR... and you cant leave the ECHR since you have to be in it to be a member of the EU. UK Bill of rights is nothing but a conservative attempt to be able to change "human rights" legislation as they see fit.

Is everything that the current UK govt does / says / issues about diverting attention from the budget? OK..... :roll:

It is actually a real political ploy. Kersner in Argentina is doing it at the moment..Her VP is under investigation for corruption but suddenly she nationalises a Spanish oil company and then that is what is on the headlines in country. It is very common to try to hide bad news with sensational news.

The UK courts don't throw cases down the road to the ECHR, people currently can complain and petition to the ECHR to have their cases referred upwards if they are not happy with decisions made at the sovereign state level.

Actually they do. When human rights are involved then they punt the case to the ECHR. On top of that people can complain directly to the ECHR or countries can.

That allows constant temptation to delay cases such as the Qatada case where a decision has been made at the UK level, agreed at the ECHR and then delayed by right of appeal when no new evidence exists to show that the case is any different now from when the ECHR last reviewed the case.

That is not exactly how the case went. The UK wanted to deport him to Jordan well knowing that he was convicted in abstentia based on witness material optained by torture. He appealed to the ECHR who agreed with him and set conditions under what situations he can be deported to Jordan. Then the UK had to make a back ally deal with Jordan and Jordan had to change its laws for the ECHR to agree to the deportation. Then he appealed to the grand chamber.. delaying tactic? Of course, but that is how the law is. So unless you want to get rid of the right of appeal, then you have to allow for such delaying tactics.

Why not bring up every colonial country from the days of the British Empire while you're at it? You could go back to the original cro-magnons and neanderthals if you wish to start delving in historical examples of cruelty and inhumane treatment on these islands?

Because Northern Ireland was the only area in Europe where abuses were done after the ECHR was written and signed by the UK. And since when is the 1970s and 1980s "long ago"?

 

[Manc Skipper]

So Greenlanders hate the Danes. That's just as relevant.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

It is hypocrisy because it was the UK that wanted the anti-torture rules in the ECHR back in the late 1940s, and then in the 2000s they try to deport people to countries that are known for their torture which is why the ECHR got into the game in the first place.

No, you're forgetting or ignoring what I said - the ECHR had agreed that he could be sent and that there was no risk. That is plain fact.

-- Fine by me. Either we live by the rule of law during peace or war or we are no different than the people/countries we are fighting.

Now you're just being obstinate. There is nothing in politics or international relations that is clear cut black and white.

-- LOL the bill of rights is basically the ECHR... and you cant leave the ECHR since you have to be in it to be a member of the EU. UK Bill of rights is nothing but a conservative attempt to be able to change "human rights" legislation as they see fit.

No, the intention is to make sure that cases in the UK are dealt with in the UK. If due process is observed and seen to be observed then there is no need for higher strata. Or yet more delay and taxpayer expense.

-- It is actually a real political ploy. Kersner in Argentina is doing it at the moment..Her VP is under investigation for corruption but suddenly she nationalises a Spanish oil company and then that is what is on the headlines in country. It is very common to try to hide bad news with sensational news.

[/sigh] Are you trying to move this to the "conspiracy theories forum?"

-- Actually they do. When human rights are involved then they punt the case to the ECHR. On top of that people can complain directly to the ECHR or countries can.

Which is why we need a UK Bill of Rights, so that justice can be done under sovereign guidelines.

-- That is not exactly how the case went. The UK wanted to deport him to Jordan well knowing that he was convicted in abstentia based on witness material optained by torture. He appealed to the ECHR who agreed with him and set conditions under what situations he can be deported to Jordan. Then the UK had to make a back ally deal with Jordan and Jordan had to change its laws for the ECHR to agree to the deportation. Then he appealed to the grand chamber.. delaying tactic? Of course, but that is how the law is. So unless you want to get rid of the right of appeal, then you have to allow for such delaying tactics.

Yes but there's enough against him here to make him personae non grata. He's abused his right to free speech and went on to incitement of hatred, he's also encouraged the killing of Apostates and Jews. There are terms under which migrants should be allowed to remain even under asylum and they can be deported.
This guy just happened through contacts to have better lawyers who knew how to milk and delay the system.

Because Northern Ireland was the only area in Europe where abuses were done after the ECHR was written and signed by the UK. And since when is the 1970s and 1980s "long ago"?

Since it had no relevance to the case of an Al-Q operative..

 

[PeteEU]

Since it had no relevance to the case of an Al-Q operative..

Err I was commenting on why the UK was getting cases against it and how recent it was... nothing about Al-Q... /shrug.

 

[Wiggen]

If you knew just a bit about the Lockerbie case, then you would know that it is far from certain that the guy convicted actually had any part in the bombing.



At least the British have justice that is blind to your religion, race and sexuality... unlike the US. I dont think the US should be lecturing anyone about justice when you have a gulag at Gitmo and held hundreds of men and boys who all were innocent.

And you know they were innocent how? Or is any terrorist automatically innocent in your eyes?

 

[Wiggen]

That's not an answer to what I asked you. You do this everytime one of your points is quashed or questioned; rather than discuss or elaborate your initial point, you use hit and run throwaway points loosely related to try and divert attention to the weakness of your position or statement.

There is absolutely nothing wrong or weak about my statement. You have surrendered your soverignty and your right to decide who lives in your country to a pack of left-wing unelected bureaucrats. That is a simple statement of fact.