Should britian deport terrorist suspects if they're going to be tortured?

This is all over the news right now in the UK. Basically, the radical muslim cleric Abu Qatada is using the english legal system in his own defence, claiming that if he is deported back to his home country of Jordan he will be tortured for his involvement in terrorist activities there. It is therefore, he claims, a violation of his human rights which British law guarantees to protect.

A lot of people are up in arms about this though, because the man does nothing but preach hatred against the west, and openly encourages people to kill british citizens. He also only got into britian in the first place because of a forged passport; so technically you could say, in terms of the law, that since he's here illegally he doesn't have any rights under our law.

What do you guys think? Should he be deported or should we honour our laws and values and keep him here, however horrible a man he is?

Personally, while i think the guy is a dispicable human being, i think far too many people have died (especially in WW2) to ensure that we have basic human rights laws, and we'd be selling out our own values to just disregard all of that when we encounter a person we'd rather not benefit from them.

What do you guys think? Should he be deported or should we honour our laws and values and keep him here, however horrible a man he is?Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]What do you guys think? Should he be deported or should we honour our laws and values and keep him here, however horrible a man he is?solid_mario

That's a hard call really. You have to find an alternative if the answer is no letting him hang out in your country doesn't seem like a good idea either.duxup

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

[QUOTE="solid_mario"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]What do you guys think? Should he be deported or should we honour our laws and values and keep him here, however horrible a man he is?Jandurin

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

Oleg_Huzwog

The only country in which he has committed a crime is Jordan, but he cant be extradited there because they wont guarantee that he wont be tortured. Ninja-Hippo

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

Oleg_Huzwog

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

Oleg_Huzwog

he's never actually killed a person in this country or planned a terrorist attack, therefore we have no grounds on which to lock him up.Ninja-Hippo

As far as we know.

The only country in which he has committed a crime is Jordan, but he cant be extradited there because they wont guarantee that he wont be tortured. Ninja-Hippo

What about a fraudulent passport?

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

Oleg_Huzwog

They don't want them in their country either.duxup

I don't think Jordan was being dumb. They didn't want to outright say no, so they backed the UK into a corner by saying they couldn't guarantee he wouldn't be hurt so they wouldn't even try to send him there. Jordan has had its own issues with such folk. They don't want them in their country either.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Oleg_Huzwog"]

Assuming Jordan is willing to receive the deported individual, can't your government simply contact Jordan's Embassy and obtain assurance the suspect will be handled in a proper manner?

Ninja-Hippo

What about a fraudulent passport?

LikeHaterade

[QUOTE="duxup"]They don't want them in their country either.Ninja-Hippo

I think they should send him home unless it is a 100% chance that he will be tortured. And if they don't send him home I think they should put him in jailhorgen123

If Jordan really wants him back, I'd imagine they'd be willing to make some concessions regarding what they can and can't do to him. Their unwillingness to budge seems to imply they're content with leaving him as Britain's problem.

If Jordan really wants him back, I'd imagine they'd be willing to make some concessions regarding what they can and can't do to him. Their unwillingness to budge seems to imply they're content with leaving him as Britain's problem.

Oleg_Huzwog

Who'd have thought? The government has literally just received confirmation from Jordan that they wont torture him - off he goes! :P Human rights activists are very unhappy though.Ninja-Hippo

Who'd have thought? The government has literally just received confirmation from Jordan that they wont torture him - off he goes! :P Human rights activists are very unhappy though.Ninja-Hippo

Well, that was easy. So what's next on Britain's list of problems?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Who'd have thought? The government has literally just received confirmation from Jordan that they wont torture him - off he goes! :P Human rights activists are very unhappy though.Oleg_Huzwog

Well, that was easy. So what's next on Britain's list of problems?

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Who'd have thought? The government has literally just received confirmation from Jordan that they wont torture him - off he goes! :P Human rights activists are very unhappy though.JabbaDaHutt30

laws making it illegal to photograph a policeman.duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"]laws making it illegal to photograph a policeman.Jandurin

It is not illegal to take pictures of a policeman. It is only illegal to own pictures of police officials 'likely to be used in preparing an act of terrorism'. In other words, you cant take pictures of police on duty outside the government buildings and what-not. Obviously like any law, it can be abused, and you might find the police claiming a photograph of them could be used in an act of terrorism, but it'd never be accepted in court because it's be up to them to prove that any given photograph is a serious terror risk. Ninja-Hippo

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It is not illegal to take pictures of a policeman. It is only illegal to own pictures of police officials 'likely to be used in preparing an act of terrorism'. In other words, you cant take pictures of police on duty outside the government buildings and what-not. Obviously like any law, it can be abused, and you might find the police claiming a photograph of them could be used in an act of terrorism, but it'd never be accepted in court because it's be up to them to prove that any given photograph is a serious terror risk. duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]It is not illegal to take pictures of a policeman. It is only illegal to own pictures of police officials 'likely to be used in preparing an act of terrorism'. In other words, you cant take pictures of police on duty outside the government buildings and what-not. Obviously like any law, it can be abused, and you might find the police claiming a photograph of them could be used in an act of terrorism, but it'd never be accepted in court because it's be up to them to prove that any given photograph is a serious terror risk. Ninja-Hippo

The thing is I don't see how it makes anyone the LEAST bit safer. If a dude wants to go blow up a bus again he doesn't need to do any surveillance, just get on the bus and blow it up.

The crazy thing was that in Spain when the attacks hit one of the FIRST requests from the government was to ask civilians who may have photos from that train in the day to turn them in. This despite the fact that it would have been illegal for their own citizens to take those photos. If anything the government should be happy that civilians are out there firing off snapshots.

The crazy thing was that in Spain when the attacks hit one of the FIRST requests from the government was to ask civilians who may have photos from that train in the day to turn them in. This despite the fact that it would have been illegal for their own citizens to take those photos. If anything the government should be happy that civilians are out there firing off snapshots.

duxup

[QUOTE="duxup"]

The crazy thing was that in Spain when the attacks hit one of the FIRST requests from the government was to ask civilians who may have photos from that train in the day to turn them in. This despite the fact that it would have been illegal for their own citizens to take those photos. If anything the government should be happy that civilians are out there firing off snapshots.

Jandurin

The article I read said they weren't allowed to take photos of some places along the trains as some sort of silly anti terrorism measure.duxup

I think the people who write those laws watch too many movies.duxup

They don't have to prove anything to arrest you and hassle people. That is the problem. Not convictions, but that people get harassed with that crap.

The thing is I don't see how it makes anyone the LEAST bit safer. If a dude wants to go blow up a bus again he doesn't need to do any surveillance, just get on the bus and blow it up.

The crazy thing was that in Spain when the attacks hit one of the FIRST requests from the government was to ask civilians who may have photos from that train in the day to turn them in. This despite the fact that it would have been illegal for their own citizens to take those photos. If anything the government should be happy that civilians are out there firing off snapshots.

duxup

It's just an example of them abusing the law to make their lives easier, and that's why they're taking so much flak for it. They've gone too far. It's no longer about terrorism, it's about them seeing how far they can push the law to their advantage.

I dont understand why the police demanded all pictures be turned in after the train bombings either. It's very strange. The same thing happened after 9/11 if you remember, the FBI confiscated all the cameras around the pentagon. Very strange.

Why don't they just exile him from Britain? Make it illegal for him to be there? He can go anything else except in the country.

Plus, just because he is there illegally doesn't mean that he isn't guarenteed to basic British rights.

[QUOTE="duxup"] They don't have to prove anything to arrest you and hassle people. That is the problem. Not convictions, but that people get harassed with that crap.

The thing is I don't see how it makes anyone the LEAST bit safer. If a dude wants to go blow up a bus again he doesn't need to do any surveillance, just get on the bus and blow it up.

The crazy thing was that in Spain when the attacks hit one of the FIRST requests from the government was to ask civilians who may have photos from that train in the day to turn them in. This despite the fact that it would have been illegal for their own citizens to take those photos. If anything the government should be happy that civilians are out there firing off snapshots.

Ninja-Hippo

It's just an example of them abusing the law to make their lives easier, and that's why they're taking so much flak for it. They've gone too far. It's no longer about terrorism, it's about them seeing how far they can push the law to their advantage.

I dont understand why the police demanded all pictures be turned in after the train bombings either. It's very strange. The same thing happened after 9/11 if you remember, the FBI confiscated all the cameras around the pentagon. Very strange.