Another proud moment for Human Rights...

You might as well shoot him here and save everyone the bother.

bugger being politically correct, this guy is heavily involved in international terrorist activites encouraging the killing of innocent civilians

If the ECHR don't want him to go to Jordan

Then he can be tried for that. Nobody is saying he can't and should not be tried for that.

What does that have to do with the appropriateness of relying upon evidence obtained by torture? If not allowing evidence obtained by torture is your idea of 'politically correct' that might be over-egging the pudding.

there comes a point where morals should take precedent.

Nice to see you in agreement for once, Brewster.

If you are really after a misscarage of justice look towards the USA extraditing a UK citizen for something that isn't even a crime here.

Do you honestly believe that what the ECHR has done here is based on morality?

Do you think the lawyer that has won this case will go home to his big, tax-payer funded mansion and feel a warm glow that he has done the right thing?

What has happened is some clever dick laywer(s) have seen a way of putting in yet another big bill to the EU whilst getting many slaps on the back from all the other honourable defenders of justice hovering around that trough for sticking two fingers up to the UK Govt.

If anyone thinks this case was anything more than a lawyer making a name for himself and earning a new wing to the mansion they are very misguided.

i'm sorry but this guy wouldn't think twice about killing any of us or our families or supporting organisations that would do and would rejoice were any of us to meet our demise in such an unfortunate way

this is a guy who utterly despises our infidel way of life and who will actively seek to recruit other lunatics into organisations who seek to actively harm individuals in both our country and abroad, yet at the same time taking full advantage of the benefits systems and the legal protection afforded by our state

this softly softly approach taken by certain individuals within our country and backed up by the ECHR will make this country a haven for lunatics like this and while its all very well to take the moral high ground and say the individuals rights should be protected surely it is more important to protect the rights of the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding citizen rather then the vile minority of those terrorists who come in to this country

Or, just perhaps, you could be going off on one (entertaining as it may be) without having really understood and balanced the arguments?

So what action are you advocating and based on what evidence?

this is a guy who utterly despises our infidel way of life and who will actively seek to recruit other lunatics into organisations who seek to actively harm individuals in both our country and abroad, yet at the same time taking full advantage of the benefits systems and the legal protection afforded by our state

this softly softly approach taken by certain individuals within our country and backed up by the ECHR will make has made this country a haven for lunatics like this and while its all very well to take the moral high ground and say the individuals rights should be protected surely it is more important to protect the rights of the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding citizen rather then the
vile minority of those terrorists who come in to this country

If I was High Chancellor I'd arrange a live television broadcast addressed to the ECHR where I kicked the defendant off the white cliffs of Dover, based on the fact that he is an odious man advocating terrorism in a country that is stupid enough to defend his right to do so. Looking down the camera I'd then ask them what they'd like to do about it while I flagged the vees and an orchestra played some rousing Elgar in the background.

Unfortunately for everyone, bar muslim extremists, I am not.

Surely if he as evil as the press would have me believe, how come he's not in prison already?

Do I detect a whiff of apparently undetected sarcasm?

...that'll rid him of his fag habit!

I thought he was held in Belmarsh without charge or trial, before being released when the bleeding heart liberals pointed out that such a course of action was illegal.

I think you'll find he's now under a (slightly less illegal) control order, and under house arrest, so I doubt we are feeding him any more.

surely it is more important to protect the rights of the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding citizen rather then the vile minority

And that is *exactly* why we should be punctilious in our application of legal justice to him, lest we descend to his level.

Liberals are so shyte aren't they,

this is a guy who utterly despises our infidel way of life and who will actively seek to recruit other lunatics into organisations who seek to actively harm individuals in both our country and abroad, yet at the same time taking full advantage of the benefits systems and the legal protection afforded by our state

this softly softly approach taken by certain individuals within our country and backed up by the ECHR will make this country a haven for lunatics like this and while its all very well to take the moral high ground and say the individuals rights should be protected surely it is more important to protect the rights of the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding citizen rather then the vile minority of those terrorists who come in to this country

So what action are you advocating and based on what evidence?

Thereby hangs a fundamental misunderstanding of what is happening here. If ONE individual's rights in law are not protected, NONE of our rights in law are protected.

i am advocating deporting a man who supports murder and terrorist activities, do you seriously want a bloke like this in our country, do you put his 'civil rights' before the safety of decent people, lets remember this guy activily encourages and promotes terrorist activity, the aim of which is ultimately to blow up innocent people, i'm sorry but lets be real here and get this lunatic out of our country

Sedicivalvole, i am not suggesting that we rid our country of those who express an opionion which is seen as outwith the social norm, but i am suggesting that we get rid of those who incite and encourage murder and terrorist activity

it is not a fundamental misunderstanding at all, it's a desire to rid the country of foreign lunatics who want to disrupt and cause chaos in our society through ultimately wanting to murder people, i won't apologise for that desire at all, by deporting lunatics like this no decent individual's rights are affected at all, so i'm afraid that statement you made is just not true

this guy is not even a British national, he is just hiding out here, taking all he can get from the system for him and his family

quite frankly its saps like you with your namby pamby approach to things that make this country an easy target for lunatics

why don't you invite this guy round for tea at yours, as he's clearly just a poor misunderstood individual and you clearly don't mind supporting the 'human rights' of those who would seek to undermine and destroy our way of life, those who support and sponsor terrorist organisations

why don't you invite this guy round for tea at yours, as he's clearly just a poor misunderstood individual and you clearly don't mind supporting the 'human rights' of those who would seek to undermine and destroy our way of life, those who support and sponsor terrorist organisations

you will probably just dismiss that as another rant from an ill educated xenophobe

although if you consider the rantings from myself and the like as being more of a threat to our society than an 'actual terrorist' then it just reiterates my early opinion of your attitude

Well clearly I am a threat to the state and should be locked up for these thought crimes.

that'll rid him of his fag habit!

Oh i don't know about that, he does drive a yellow car is suspiciously friendly with Homodan

Frankly, I consider the ill educated xenophobic rantings of people who wish to ignore or destroy the well founded legal protections that all in our society should enjoy simply to satisfy prejudice , a far,far greater threat to our society than any potential or actual terrorist.

Protected in a well constructed bill of rights perhaps. Weren't we promised one by this government when they slithered into office?

Depends what is written in to it really.

If you come to the UK to escape torture and are lawfully granted asylum, allegations against you that will lead to your execution should be accepted at face value without any need for you to be charged, put on trial or have the chance to put the case against your execution.

Treason being the only crime you can still be executed for in this country.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I was Protestant.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Except that it's not. There are no offences for which the death penalty exists in this country.

Absolutely.

How about, rule 1 - if you arrive in the UK with a forged passport, then claim asylum, and then after the UK is kind enough to offer you and your family safe haven, plus a free house, hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefits, you spend every available opportunity encouraging Muslims to embrace jihad and kill innocent civilians - you are immediately executed by firing squad.

Firstly, if you come to the UK on a forged passport, you should be immediately deported to your country of origin.

Any asylum claim should be dismissed following the the crime committed above.

After this date simple hanging was felt to be sufficient. This punishment for treason was only replaced in 1998 for life imprisonment.

I stand corrected, I thought it was still a possibility.

Still, we are broke, so we can't really afford to house another prisoner for a life sentence, so a single bullet will suffice.

I can't believe I'm even bothering with this, but my cat is busy with more sophisticated arguments...

If you were wishing to escape from country A and hoping to claim asylum in country B (or C or D or ...), there is a reasonable chance that the Country A authorities might - far from issuing you with a valid passport and a cheery wave - beat you with rubber hoses and, you know, kill you. In order to avoid torture and death you might be tempted to seek another source of documentation, otherwise known as a forgery.

Blah blah blah

There will be some people taking advantage of our hospitality, of course, but i see no reason why this should mean we slam the door.

There will be some people taking advantage of our hospitality, of course, but i see no reason why this should mean we slam the door.

A wanted terrorist found guilty based on evidence gained under torture.

So I have to ask, given that the man in question is a wanted terrorist, who freely encouraged others to attack and kill British civilians, if this is not enough reason in your eyes to 'slam the door', what exactly does a man or woman have to do, to not be given the golden ticket of UK residency?

In all seriousness, why has he not stood trial in the UK? If we all have all these facts, why is he not serving life at HM's pleasure?

Even as late as 1997, he was not considered to be fully part of the wider movement of international violent jihad, which al-Qaeda was coming to spearhead.

But the authorities believe his views were hardening, particularly after a sermon targeting Jews. And by 2001, the cleric had issued rulings justifying suicide attacks, as seen in a BBC Panorama interview the same year.

A Spanish judge Baltasar Garzon described Qatada as the "spiritual head of the mujahedin in Britain" - so the question for the British authorities was whether Qatada now supported "martyrdom operations" against Western targets.

The Security Service and police eventually concluded that Abu Qatada was a threat. In a court statement they said he was providing advice which gave religious legitimacy to those "who wish to further the aims of extreme Islamism and to engage in terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings".

The authorities said that a number of people arrested in connection with terrorism had described Qatada's influence. Richard Reid, the would-be mid-Atlantic shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, both jailed for involvement in terrorism, are said to have sought religious advice from him. The cleric's sermons were found in a Hamburg flat used by some of those involved in 9/11.

When Qatada was questioned in 2001 over his alleged connections to a German cell, police found £170,000 cash in his home, including £805 in an envelope labelled "For the mujahideen in Chechnya". No charges were brought.

But on the eve of a new law to hold foreign terrorism suspects without charge or trial, he disappeared. He was later tracked down to a council house in south London and taken to Belmarsh Prison.

The Law Lords eventually ruled such detention illegal and Qatada was among those subjected to a control order, a form of house-arrest.

He was then rearrested and told he would be deported to Jordan, where he had been convicted in his absence of alleged involvement in a plot to target Americans and Israeli tourists during the country's millennium celebrations.

Correct. Until 1814 treason was punishable by hanging, but before death the bowels were removed and burnt in front of the miscreant, then beheading then quartering. Ouch .

After this date simple hanging was felt to be sufficient.

...I'd say the evidence is laid out for all to see, and its time to say goodbye to Mr Qatada.

I'm still really hoping that 50% of those on this thread are on the wind-up...

come on people, a guy with no job, a history of involvement with terrorist groups and being accused of sponsoring terrorist activites, what do you think the £170,000 was for and where did it come from, maybe he grew it in his money tree in the back garden, a guy in his circumstances does not get his hands on that kind of cash without it being highly illegal, or maybe we are wrong again and perhaps he has just been out collecting for charity and the tooth fairy really exists

Now that's where I feel your argument lacks a tiny bit of weight. Even if you were one of m'learned friends, experienced in this kind of case, your "man-in-the-street reckon" here lacks a little persuasive proof.

Don't forget, HMG agree with you in many ways and will have some pretty heavyweight briefs on the job. So, the fact that even they can't deport him makes me think the actual, real evidence (as opposed to what appears in the media) must lack a bit of substance.

You can only deport someone if it's legal to do so.

there seems to be a pattern of thought here that is we deport this guy that somehow the very foundation of our society will collapse, nobody will have any rights any more and that everyone will be arrested and we will suddenly find ourselves living in some sort of society where our every move will be monitored and we will be arrested for the merest infringement, bollocks, all that will happen is we wont have to pay a fortune every year for lunatics like this to hide in our country

Shiny, you can use all the aggrieved rhetoric you want. You may have noticed that it cuts no ice with the people that decide these issues.

What I am "actually suggesting" is that if all the bodies you list had sufficient evidence that he had committed the offences you claim, then Abu Qatada would be in prison, convicted in a court of law.

No huffing and puffing or frothing at the mouth, just proof; that's what gets criminals convicted (with one or two glaring exceptions).

Any 'human rights' you may have as an individual, you waiver as soon as you embark on such activities, and as such, just as has been reported (by the Police, Anti Terrorist Unit etc, not just the media) this man has actively encouraged, and supported terrorist groups within our own borders.

And many, many people are in prison in countries such as China and Burma for supporting organisations that the governments of those countries have outlawed - and that's the problem with saying that human rights don't apply to people who support terrorists. If the government is only bound by those constraints, and they're also the ones who decide who are terrorists then nobody has any human rights.

And many, many people are in prison in countries such as China and Burma for supporting organisations that the governments of those countries have outlawed - and that's the problem with saying that human rights don't apply to people who support terrorists. If the government is only bound by those constraints, and they're also the ones who decide who are terrorists then nobody has any human rights.

Chine and Burma outlaw organisaions that seek to actively politically oppose their government, we do not do this, we outlaw terrorist organisations, there is a big difference

i think if you conducted a pole of people in the uk who want this guy out the country the overwhelming majority of them would want him out as did our government, but it seems we are all wrong and that the ECHR with its politcal correctness gone mad approach is correct

we are not the US, we are the UK, nobody goes around calling people terrorists in this country for no reason, this guy has been rightly been labelled a terrorist

where do you think he got the £170k from given that he is on benefits and what do you think he was going to do with it

and to compare my arguement of wanting this guy out the country to a businessman not being put on trial because he is thought of as nice guy by the public is a pretty vacuous comparison

The worry with my approach is that we'll end up with people living in this country who are openly hostile towards its population.

The worry with your approach is that we'll end up living in a country where the government is openly hostile to the people.

Given the choice I'll take my chances with the people who are so clearly dangerous terrorists that they can not be properly convicted of any crime, it seems.

so by evicting a guy that comes to this country illegally and openly preaches hatred to us all and says he supports organisations that would aim to blow us up and destroy our way of life suddenly we arrive at a situation where the government is openly hostile to the people

so by evicting a guy that comes to this country illegally and openly preaches hatred to us all and says he supports organisations that would aim to blow us up and destroy our way of life suddenly we arrive at a situation where the government is openly hostile to the people

thats a bit of a fictious leap i'm afraid and the government is not trying to deport British citizens abroad just a lunatic illegal immigrant, hardly hostility to the people

we are not the US, we are the UK, nobody goes around calling people terrorists in this country for no reason,

And if you want to insist that those you feel have offensive views be prosecuted, deported and/or summarily executed, try doing so in a less offensive way lest you be hoist by your own petard.

terribly sorry if find the way i express my views offensive, but frankly some of your responses to views i have expressed have been directly rude to me and the fact you choose to trawl through a thesaurus to dress up your responses and make you feel clever doesnt make your responses to me any less rude

So your desire to act without evidence and bypass all of our laws does not equate to a fundamental misunderstanding that the rule and protection of law must apply to everyone individually before it can be said to apply to us all collectively? Perhaps the prefix "funda" was superfluous.

Frankly, I consider the ill educated xenophobic rantings

And if you want to insist that those you feel have offensive views be prosecuted, deported and/or summarily executed, try doing so in a less offensive way lest you be hoist by your own petard.

You should always remember that the ECHR was founded with the view that it should limit the power of governments, not because it's the politically correct thing to do, but because the people who founded it had seen the terrible, terrible things that governments could do when they were unrestrained.

You may think that we live in calm and stable times, but the people of the 20s and early 30s thought the same thing.