Al-Qaeda ringleader can stay here......Surprise!!
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8688501.stm
The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.
Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.
Another student, Ahmad Faraz Khan, also 23, won his appeal on similar grounds.
Lawyers for the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, said they would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
E-mail evidence
The security services believed the men were planning to attack within days of their arrest, but neither student was charged.
A third man, Shoaib Khan, 31, who is already back in Pakistan, was cleared of any involvement in terrorism.
ANALYSIS
By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent
This judgement shines a public light on the difference between intelligence assessments and hard evidence - with the tribunal concluding that MI5 was on the right side of the line.
Its conclusions will be regarded by security and police chiefs as a vindication of their assessment that there was a plot, even though detectives never found a bomb and the men were never charged with an offence.
Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan will be added to the list of other suspects in similar situations - men who are unwanted by the UK but, simultaneously, cannot be deported because they could be tortured.
The home secretary's answer for some suspects is to place them under a control order, a form of house arrest that restricts their movements.
But both of the men in this case say they will fight on to clear their names, and that MI5 simply got it wrong.
The ruling effectively means that MI5's case against two of the men has been supported by the courts even though neither of them was ever charged with a criminal offence.
Two other men also arrested in the raids lost their deportation appeals. Abdul Wahab Khan, 27, and Tariq Ur Rehman, 38, had already returned to Pakistan.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Mitting said Mr Naseer was sending e-mails to a contact in Pakistan - and that the recipient was an "al-Qaeda operative".
The e-mails were said to be at the heart of the plot and culminated in a message sent to Pakistan in April 2009 in which Mr Naseer said he had set a date to marry, something MI5 said was code for an attack date.
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.
It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."
The judge said Ahmad Faraz Khan had become a "knowing party" to the plan because he had "undergone a radical change in view" between leaving home and studying in the UK.
But in both cases, Mr Justice Mitting said it was impossible to return the men to Pakistan.
'Committed Islamists'
"There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance," said the judgement.
Turning to the three students who have already left the UK, Mr Justice Mitting said Abdul Wahab Khan and Tariq ur Rehman were committed Islamists who knew of Mr Naseer's plan.
Neither Ahmad Faraz Khan nor Abid Naseer were present for the ruling
The final student, Shoaib Khan, however, won his appeal, with the court saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing against him.
The controversial affair began last April when the Metropolitan Police's then head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, accidentally revealed details of the investigation.
Mr Quick resigned after he was photographed with clearly visible secret documents outside 10 Downing Street.
Police brought their operation forward and raided a series of locations across Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire, eventually detaining 11 men.
Ten of them were students from Pakistan, who were all either close friends or loosely known to each other.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown said at the time that the security services were "dealing with a very big terrorist plot".
But no explosives were found and all of the men were released without charge after two weeks.
They were immediately detained again under immigration laws after the then home secretary sought their deportation, saying they were still a threat to national security.
The alleged leader of an al-Qaeda plot to bomb targets in north-west England has won his appeal against deportation.
A special immigration court said Abid Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative - but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.
Mr Naseer, 23, was one of 10 Pakistani students arrested last April as part of a massive counter-terrorism operation in Liverpool and Manchester.
Another student, Ahmad Faraz Khan, also 23, won his appeal on similar grounds.
Lawyers for the new Home Secretary, Theresa May, said they would not be appealing against the ruling, handed down by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
E-mail evidence
The security services believed the men were planning to attack within days of their arrest, but neither student was charged.
A third man, Shoaib Khan, 31, who is already back in Pakistan, was cleared of any involvement in terrorism.
ANALYSIS
By Dominic Casciani, BBC home affairs correspondent
This judgement shines a public light on the difference between intelligence assessments and hard evidence - with the tribunal concluding that MI5 was on the right side of the line.
Its conclusions will be regarded by security and police chiefs as a vindication of their assessment that there was a plot, even though detectives never found a bomb and the men were never charged with an offence.
Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan will be added to the list of other suspects in similar situations - men who are unwanted by the UK but, simultaneously, cannot be deported because they could be tortured.
The home secretary's answer for some suspects is to place them under a control order, a form of house arrest that restricts their movements.
But both of the men in this case say they will fight on to clear their names, and that MI5 simply got it wrong.
The ruling effectively means that MI5's case against two of the men has been supported by the courts even though neither of them was ever charged with a criminal offence.
Two other men also arrested in the raids lost their deportation appeals. Abdul Wahab Khan, 27, and Tariq Ur Rehman, 38, had already returned to Pakistan.
In his judgement, Mr Justice Mitting said Mr Naseer was sending e-mails to a contact in Pakistan - and that the recipient was an "al-Qaeda operative".
The e-mails were said to be at the heart of the plot and culminated in a message sent to Pakistan in April 2009 in which Mr Naseer said he had set a date to marry, something MI5 said was code for an attack date.
"We are satisfied that Naseer was an al-Qaeda operative who posed and still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom," the judgement said.
It added: "Subject to the issue of safety on return, it is conducive to the public good that he should be deported."
The judge said Ahmad Faraz Khan had become a "knowing party" to the plan because he had "undergone a radical change in view" between leaving home and studying in the UK.
But in both cases, Mr Justice Mitting said it was impossible to return the men to Pakistan.
'Committed Islamists'
"There is a long and well-documented history of disappearances, illegal detention and of the torture and ill-treatment of those detained, usually to produce information, a confession or compliance," said the judgement.
Turning to the three students who have already left the UK, Mr Justice Mitting said Abdul Wahab Khan and Tariq ur Rehman were committed Islamists who knew of Mr Naseer's plan.
Neither Ahmad Faraz Khan nor Abid Naseer were present for the ruling
The final student, Shoaib Khan, however, won his appeal, with the court saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing against him.
The controversial affair began last April when the Metropolitan Police's then head of counter-terrorism, Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick, accidentally revealed details of the investigation.
Mr Quick resigned after he was photographed with clearly visible secret documents outside 10 Downing Street.
Police brought their operation forward and raided a series of locations across Liverpool, Manchester and Lancashire, eventually detaining 11 men.
Ten of them were students from Pakistan, who were all either close friends or loosely known to each other.
Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown said at the time that the security services were "dealing with a very big terrorist plot".
But no explosives were found and all of the men were released without charge after two weeks.
They were immediately detained again under immigration laws after the then home secretary sought their deportation, saying they were still a threat to national security.
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.If this chap is/was an 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' who had plotted a 'very big terrorist attack' then charge him and lock him up.
The article states that the security services have emails from this guy communicating with an Al-Q operative in Pakistan and specific threats were discussed/planned.
So why the hell wasn't he charged?
And if the allegations against him are false then it seems a tad harsh to refer to him as an Al-Q 'ringleader'.
As for the deportation thing, it appears 'human rights' has won again
The article states that the security services have emails from this guy communicating with an Al-Q operative in Pakistan and specific threats were discussed/planned.
So why the hell wasn't he charged?
And if the allegations against him are false then it seems a tad harsh to refer to him as an Al-Q 'ringleader'.
As for the deportation thing, it appears 'human rights' has won again
Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 12:57
Gun said:
This is unbelievable, they'll all be heading over here how, just make up some BS about facing torture then they'll get to stay here.
I'm thinking the same. I notice from that article that there were a number of other named people who were involved, but who are back in Pakistan, and (presumably) still alive and un-tortured. How are allegations such as "I will be tortured if I am sent back home" substantiated? Gun said:
Shami Chakrabarti
Don't. Oli.
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.5unny said:
If this chap is/was an 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' who had plotted a 'very big terrorist attack' then charge him and lock him up.
The article states that the security services have emails from this guy communicating with an Al-Q operative in Pakistan and specific threats were discussed/planned.
So why the hell wasn't he charged?
And that my friends is the REAL Question...The article states that the security services have emails from this guy communicating with an Al-Q operative in Pakistan and specific threats were discussed/planned.
So why the hell wasn't he charged?
Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 12:57
ps BBC news making out that it is a Tory failing and that
"BBC political correspondent Laura Kuenssberg said Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude has suggested the coalition government will, for now, retain the Human Rights Act.
This is despite a promise in the Conservative manifesto to replace it with "a British Bill of Rights"."
Edited by Mojocvh on Tuesday 18th May 14:50
Oh Lord, why don't we go the whole hog and give them money and bring their dependents over as well! I though this type of shenanigans was a New Labour hallmark. Let's hope the Tories stick with their election pledge of rejigging the Human Rights laws so that we can despatch these undesirables back to where they came from.
Please let common sense prevail! It's why I voted Tory.
pp
Please let common sense prevail! It's why I voted Tory.
pp
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
The Hebrides are too good for them and too easy to get away from, South Georgia or West Falkland would be better!!! And send all the fat chavs, doleites and pikeys there too!!!loafer123 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.If he is deported, the authorities have judged it likely that he will be tortured or executed. Therefore, he must be allowed to remain here.
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.If he is deported, the authorities have judged it likely that he will be tortured or executed. Therefore, he must be allowed to remain here.
Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
I think we need to build a little village on an uninhabited island in the Hebrides where all of these convicts can live free and fulfilling lives without bothering the rest of us.
They're not convicts though, are they? They're innocent men for whom deportation would likely result in torture or death. As such, they cannot be deported.If he is deported, the authorities have judged it likely that he will be tortured or executed. Therefore, he must be allowed to remain here.
loafer123 said:
OK - so he hasn't been convicted (bizarre, but that's the facts, as you rightly point out), but otherwise would have been deported.
Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.
Why is it bizarre that he hasn't been convicted, and why are you assuming that he might harm us?Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.
Parrot of Doom said:
loafer123 said:
OK - so he hasn't been convicted (bizarre, but that's the facts, as you rightly point out), but otherwise would have been deported.
Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.
Why is it bizarre that he hasn't been convicted, and why are you assuming that he might harm us?Does that make my suggestion any less fair? He can stay safe under our protection, but can't harm us...seems fair to me. Practical human rights.
He has never been charged.
Are you suggesting that someone who has not been charged with anything let alone found guilty should be deported and face torture/execution?
I'm no fan of religeous nutters comming here and spreading hate /trying to kill us, but we have a justice system for a reason. If they are so sure he is a risk then charge him!
Are you suggesting that someone who has not been charged with anything let alone found guilty should be deported and face torture/execution?
I'm no fan of religeous nutters comming here and spreading hate /trying to kill us, but we have a justice system for a reason. If they are so sure he is a risk then charge him!
There's no hope for the future security of this country if when we need to be hard we're soft, I mean so what if they're possibly going to be tortured when sent back to Pakistan?
If the safest course of action is to remove these b
ds from our country, then that MUST be done. Let them stay and they won't think twice about pushing a knife in your back, they hate you with a passion but will smile to your face, while planning to strap explosives around themselves and go for a ride on a packed bus. It's no doubt being planned by others as I type, but luckily they appear to be mostly highly incompetent students. Look at the Scottish airport fireball farce a couple of years ago - useless tts!
The evidence should be reviewed and their history delved into and analysed until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, then fk them off for good.
If the safest course of action is to remove these b
ds from our country, then that MUST be done. Let them stay and they won't think twice about pushing a knife in your back, they hate you with a passion but will smile to your face, while planning to strap explosives around themselves and go for a ride on a packed bus. It's no doubt being planned by others as I type, but luckily they appear to be mostly highly incompetent students. Look at the Scottish airport fireball farce a couple of years ago - useless tts!The evidence should be reviewed and their history delved into and analysed until guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt, then f
k them off for good. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff