'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation

[34064 Fighter Command]

Basically they didn't have enough evidence to convict and these people will be tortured if they go back. now I know lots of people wouldn't care if they wer tortured or not but personally i'm proud that I live in a country that can make decisions based on a moral code. For me the correct decision here given 1) they have not been found guilty 2) they will be tortured if they go home; is to keep them here and under surveillance. yes, that is expensive but the real lesson here is not that we should send suspected al qaeda operatives back home regardless of their asylum credentials but that we should make sure we have enough evidence before trying to convict them.

There's an old proverb that says you should keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

Obviously kicking him out is a knee-jerk reaction but won't stop him from plotting to commit further acts of terrorism. Keep him here under surveillance and we might just be able to gather sufficient evidence to convict him and lock him up for a very long time. Send him back to Pakistan and he'll be over the border to Afghanistan and out of our control before you can say ' special rendition '.

 

[Dandyman]

There's an old proverb that says you should keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

Obviously kicking him out is a knee-jerk reaction but won't stop him from plotting to commit further acts of terrorism. Keep him here under surveillance and we might just be able to gather sufficient evidence to convict him and lock him up for a very long time. Send him back to Pakistan and he'll be over the border to Afghanistan and out of our control before you can say ' special rendition '.

Seems the right answer.

Also worth rembering that in cases like this the defendent does not actually get to see any of the "evidence" against them or have a real chance to challenge it.

A move open procedure with normal levels of proof would, for the reasons you identify, probably result in more safe convictions.

 

[Gerbil]

Basically they didn't have enough evidence to convict and these people will be tortured if they go back. now I know lots of people wouldn't care if they wer tortured or not but personally i'm proud that I live in a country that can make decisions based on a moral code. For me the correct decision here given 1) they have not been found guilty 2) they will be tortured if they go home; is to keep them here and under surveillance. yes, that is expensive but the real lesson here is not that we should send suspected al qaeda operatives back home regardless of their asylum credentials but that we should make sure we have enough evidence before trying to convict them.

You're joking right?
They will get tortued if they go home? Good, it's what they deserve, tough luck.
Your PROUD by this? Your proud your country's the laughing stock of the world? Anyother Country would have put him on the first plane home.

 

[Kumquat]

You're joking right?
They will get tortued if they go home? Good, it's what they deserve, tough luck.
Your PROUD by this? Your proud your country's the laughing stock of the world? Anyother Country would have put him on the first plane home.

If laughing stock of the world means actually trying to prevent people from being tortured and actually taking both moral and practical considerations into account when making decisions then yes i am proud.

 

[simmo]

There's an old proverb that says you should keep your friends close, and your enemies even closer.

Obviously kicking him out is a knee-jerk reaction but won't stop him from plotting to commit further acts of terrorism. Keep him here under surveillance and we might just be able to gather sufficient evidence to convict him and lock him up for a very long time. Send him back to Pakistan and he'll be over the border to Afghanistan and out of our control before you can say ' special rendition '.

This is just nonsence, when are you people going to realise these type of people DO commit attrocities in the UK i.e 7/7/2005 and attempt others (21/7/2005, the Glasgow airport attack, the bomb outside the nightclub in London). Just how many truly innocent people (i.e those on the tube) are going to have to DIE before you people get a grip and realise that scum such as this should not be in this country, they should be as far as way from it is as possible and should not be allowed to be able to hide behind human rights acts to stay here amongst us plotting their evil deeds.

 

[The Wizard]

If laughing stock of the world means actually trying to prevent people from being tortured and actually taking both moral and practical considerations into account when making decisions then yes i am proud.

So you think this guy who is helping Al-Qaeda to plot bombings should be protected? I guess you're one of those people who thinks murderers/paedophiles/rapists should get treated well in prisons. People who are in disgusting religious extremist groups like this should automatically lose all human rights. They do not deserve human rights. Thats how low they are.

 

[Gerbil]

If laughing stock of the world means actually trying to prevent people from being tortured and actually taking both moral and practical considerations into account when making decisions then yes i am proud.

I Think the laughing stock comes from the fact the judge stated

Senior judge John Mitting said al-Qaeda plotter Naseer IS a terrorist who STILL poses a "serious threat" to British citizens.

Read more: Judge lets al-Qaeda terrorist stay in UK to protect HIS human rights | The Sun |News

but still let him off, pathetic, he should be hung

 

[Kumquat]

I Think the laughing stock comes from the fact the judge stated

Senior judge John Mitting said al-Qaeda plotter Naseer IS a terrorist who STILL poses a "serious threat" to British citizens.

Read more: Judge lets al-Qaeda terrorist stay in UK to protect HIS human rights | The Sun |News

but still let him off, pathetic, he should be hung

He let him off because that's the law. If you want to change it, scrapping the human rights act won't be enough beacuse the european law applies too. France, germany etc wouldn't be allowed to send him home either, much as people like to assume they can. Now we can withdraw from the ECHR but would be a big step. Tories are looking at trying to get ECHR amended. Anyway if you think someone should be hung for making a decision in line with the law as a judge then i'm not sure what you say has much basis in rational argument. If you want to convince people you're right, look at the facts and stop resorting to the old string em up rubbish.

 

[User removed 4]

This is just nonsence, when are you people going to realise these type of people DO commit attrocities in the UK i.e 7/7/2005 and attempt others (21/7/2005, the Glasgow airport attack, the bomb outside the nightclub in London). Just how many truly innocent people (i.e those on the tube) are going to have to DIE before you people get a grip and realise that scum such as this should not be in this country, they should be as far as way from it is as possible and should not be allowed to be able to hide behind human rights acts to stay here amongst us plotting their evil deeds.

You're wasting your time trying to explain to these clowns simmo, they're the sort of people who would put Neville Chamberlain to shame.

 

[simmo]

You're wasting your time trying to explain to these clowns simmo, they're the sort of people who would put Neville Chamberlain to shame.

When are they going to realise we are at war with these type of people and they want to kill us, yes me and you and them and Shami Chakrabiti and any apologist for them, it is only by the grace of God that we were not on those tube trains ourselves and that all of Al Queda's other attempts failed.

When you are at war, sadly sometimes the rule of law as it stands in times of peace is not sufficient to deal with the enemy and this is yet another perfect example of this. The judge himself states he is a terrorist leader yet he stays amongst us to plot and hopefully do (as he will see it) his evil deeds, utter, utter madness

 

[Kumquat]

You're wasting your time trying to explain to these clowns simmo, they're the sort of people who would put Neville Chamberlain to shame.

You're right, especially when you don't understand the facts. The people who committed the two terrorist attacks here were not properly tracked until they did so. If they had been they wouldn't have been able to do it. If they had been tracked, they may not have been able to be convicted either. That's the first point. the second is that the 7/7 bombings were committed by Yorkshire men in the large. Where would you send them back to? Yorkshire? If they had been from another country they would have been deported as long as they were not under threat of torture where they came from. If they seek asylum in this country and have a case, they are then subject to our laws. they have been tried and the evidence was not admissible so they cannot be convicted. There is an issue about whether as a threat to the country, special detainee circumstances need to be introoduced. But to say simply "send them back" doesn't help advance your case. if you want them sent back start looking at what the tories are doing to try and make that happen and debate about that. If you decide that that's not realistic given the legal complications, argue for some kind of special detainee order to ensure they are kept away from the public. Just try and be rational.

 

[Dandyman]

He let him off because that's the law. If you want to change it, scrapping the human rights act won't be enough beacuse the european law applies too. France, germany etc wouldn't be allowed to send him home either, much as people like to assume they can. Now we can withdraw from the ECHR but would be a big step. Tories are looking at trying to get ECHR amended. Anyway if you think someone should be hung for making a decision in line with the law as a judge then i'm not sure what you say has much basis in rational argument. If you want to convince people you're right, look at the facts and stop resorting to the old string em up rubbish.

Spot on.

You don't defend freedom and the rule of law by abolishing them.

 

[User removed 4]

France, germany etc wouldn't be allowed to send him home either, much as people like to assume they can.

Rubbish, take a look at Italy.

 

[User removed 4]

Spot on.

You don't defend freedom and the rule of law by abolishing them.

Nor by tying one arm behind our backs either, google the term ' useful idiot ' , it was used by adams and mcguiness to describe the likes of blair and mowlam , although i think it's an accurate description of people like yourself to be perfectly honest, what will it take for you to realise that normal rules do not apply in a war ?

 

[Silent Bob]

Wouldn't it be better to keep these people here and keep an eye on them than send them to Pakistan?

 

[Dandyman]

Nor by tying one arm behind our backs either, google the term ' useful idiot ' , it was used by adams and mcguiness to describe the likes of blair and mowlam , although i think it's an accurate description of people like yourself to be perfectly honest, what will it take for you to realise that normal rules do not apply in a war ?

The phrase comes from Lenin originally but never mind.

We are dealing with criminals and should treat them as such. If it is a war then we would be obliged to treat them as POWs.