Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

Thyiad

Moderator Single Player, D2 Assassin, Barbarian
Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

The UK was prohibited from deporting Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe because judges feared evidence gained from torture could be used against Abu Qatada in a future trial. He was also released from prison and given bail on condition he stays within his home for 22 of 24 hours a day, wears an electronic tag and does not use electronic communication devices.

Does anyone else think this is a ridiculous situation?

While I absolutely support asylum for those in genuine danger, why should that be extended to terrorists? Doesn't that just make us one huge joke? You can beat us with a stick and we'll do anything you want. And pay for it.

To have a man go from 'most wanted' to sitting at home enjoying his latest movies at our expense, despite his own wealth is a slap to tax payers.
I have to wonder what criteria they're using to determine who goes and stays.

Yes an even hand is necessary and yes we should have a higher standard than other countries but surely not to the level of this idiocy?
 

Holysinner

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

Why was the Memorandum of Understanding with Jordan mentioned in those articles dismissed by the judge? Couldn't the Home Office have negotiated with the Jordanian government a further agreement that in his case any evidence obtained under torture would not be used in his anticipated retrial (without Jordan having to admit to torture, of course)?

This decision does set a difficult precedent considering there are other terrorist suspects Britain wants to deport to Jordan. I do respect Britain's efforts to protect the human rights of even those they don't want, and I acknowledge from the US experience with rendition to torture-practicing home countries that these agreements are often not worth the paper they are written on. However, I do think that at a certain point you have to focus on protecting your own citizens, and though the risk of keeping him in Britain may be slight given the conditions of his release, he remains a cause for sympathizers. Britain can't ensure the human rights of Jordanians in Jordan, so must they go out of their way to ensure them for this particular Jordanian just because he is in Britain (particularly as he entered on a false passport)? I guess because they granted him asylum in the '90s makes it all the more complicated.

Why he is receiving financial benefits is beyond me though, shouldn't that be means tested?
 

SSNLDO

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

Maybe I'm an oversimplified kind of person... but, why not just put him out of our misery call it good?
 

Rashiminos

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

The same people who don't want him deported also don't want him dead...
 

SSNLDO

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

Tell them to pick one side of the fence. Simply can't have it both ways. Now, if they want to compromise... I'm sure something can be worked out.

I remember a Law & Order episode about a murderer that escaped to Canada, Canada wouldn't extradite her until the US agreed not to persue the death penalty. Eventually, they did when the death penalty was removed from the table.
Funny, later in the episode, she was charged with something else and got the death penalty anyway.
 

Tanooki

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

I loved that episode. The look on the lawyer's face when the judge quotes his crap back at him.. ah, memories.

*edit* The episode's coming more and more into focus.. let's see... The guy did like rape and murder (and stole a car), fled into Canada and then got caught shoplifting. The two sides went before a judge, and the prosecutor said that if they allowed this, Canada will become a safehaven to murderers. The defense lawyer said they have to apply the law (which said that they don't extradite people who have committed capital crimes to states with the death penalty), and can't assume anything else.

When the US then dropped the rape and murder charges and only kept the stolen vehicle charge as the extraditing request, the defense lawyer said they were doing it as a ploy, and once the defendant was in the US he'd be charged with the murder. The judge smiled at the lawyer and said they have to apply the law and can't assume anything else.
 

SSNLDO

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

It was a woman... Black Widow kinda thing... but generally, your paraphrase was correct.
 

S Z

Diabloii.Net Member
Re: Prohibited from deporting terrorists?!

The point here is not that terrorists can't be deported, it is that no-one can be deported to be tried in a nation known to practise torture. Generally speaking, the (severity of the) crime of the accused isn't relevant - the same decision should be reached by a judge presiding over a case where the accused 'comitted' burglary.

The much-vaunted Memoranda signed in 2005 are of little legal value. If a nation is known to torture suspects, or use information gained via torture in the conviction of suspects, then it is by its very nature not upholding legal norms and hence has an untrustworthy legal system. Assurances don't matter unless they are boldly "we don't use torture under any circumstances anymore", and even then should be taken with a pinch of salt for a not inconsiderable period of time.

Another way to look at this controversy is that the Government wants to abuse the deportation process to deport the accused - tried in absentia - to a nation known to utilise torture. The above notwithstanding, Abu Qatada was described as bin Laden’s “right hand man in Europe†in 2001 by a Spanish judge investigating European links to the September 11 attacks, so why can't we deport him to Spain? Similarly if we are so sure about his operational links to Al Qaeda why can't we prosecute him, or any one of the other European nations that want him? Unfortunately, though we want to be shot of him at the soonest convenience the law doesn't allow it, and if we want to change the law we have to come to terms with the UK tacitly supporting torture.
 
Top