Al-Qaeda ringleader can stay here......Surprise!!

[dandarez]

Mr_B said:

5unny said:

Mr_B said:

Great, just as Labour have gone, it took a week for the default position to be that gullible UK must accept them into this country - the first Tory fail.
I love the way there are totally innocent and should be treated as such but the nasty suspicious UK people, but as soon as they set foot at home, someone is going to kill these totally innocent people.
Silly me for thinking I elected a government that might serve me and the people of the UK first.

This was not a decision made by the Government. In fact the Government (the Home Office) were the ones pushing for his deportation. It was the The Special Immigration Appeals Commission which made the decision.

I'm aware of that, but I didn't vote for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, I voted for a government to get tough and not allow the stupidity that Labour did.
The government have already said they will no appeal the decision, this is why I said it's the first Tory fail.

That's why I said 'nothing changes'. I've seen Govs of all persuasions. Believe me. Nothing changes.
Don't believe me?
Wait and see!

When I was born in 1950 half the world was starving, the other half either had the wealth or were fighting wars.

See what I mean? Nothing changes.

[Mr_B]

I know... silly me for thinking they would at least try for a week or so to get it right, maybe get one good news story right as much for PR as doing right for the country. Post election optimism is dead.

[anonymous-user]

Thank the Lord for Tony Cherie Blair and the human rights act, commonly practised in their own Countries i see

[5unny]

digimeistter said:

Thank the Lord for Tony Cherie Blair and the human rights act, commonly practised in their own Countries i see

The court has based it's decision on the European Convention on Human Rights, not the human rights act.

Article 3 of this prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and the British courts have ruled that this means the UK cannot deport people to places where that might happen.

Get used to more of this st because unless we completely get out of the European framework then there is no way we can deport such people.

And none of the main political parties campaign on removing ourselves from Europe.

Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 20:33

Edited by 5unny on Tuesday 18th May 20:33

[Parrot of Doom]

Can we deport you, please?

[loafer123]

I don't get your hostility to my idea.

After all, I am offering a safe haven instead of sending them back to their home country where they *may* be harmed.

What exactly are you after - full British citizenship for them?

Edited by loafer123 on Tuesday 18th May 22:08

[harryowl]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8690572.stm

[Police State]

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.

do you happen to know whether the other Pakistani students who voluntarily returned to their home country have been tortured?

[Parrot of Doom]

No.

[ln1234]

Greedydog said:

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

As I understand it prior to trial an accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. A statement of fact was made that he was innocent, I'm merely pointing out that fact wasn't established by trial, the correct statement would be "he's presumed innocent."

So what we're saying here is that these guys were being monitored because they were up to no good, and once arrested there wasn't even one crime they could have been convicted for. Not one - surely if these guys were in the middle of planning an attack then it would be pretty easy to convict them based on telephone conversations/emails?

I wonder why they haven't been convicted of anything. Lock em up and throw away the key if they were indeed planning something.

[Kaelic]

ah feck them send them back, they aren't brits and are only here as students they are not our responsibility, we dont owe them a thing.... but yet again we will end up giving them all they want.

We need to start playing hardball with these muppets, if they dont bring any value to our country then get rid!

No doubt will end up with a nice council house, family landing at heathrow and still preaching hate ......

[Greedydog]

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

As I understand it prior to trial an accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. A statement of fact was made that he was innocent, I'm merely pointing out that fact wasn't established by trial, the correct statement would be "he's presumed innocent."

So what we're saying here is that these guys were being monitored because they were up to no good, and once arrested there wasn't even one crime they could have been convicted for. Not one - surely if these guys were in the middle of planning an attack then it would be pretty easy to convict them based on telephone conversations/emails?

I wonder why they haven't been convicted of anything. Lock em up and throw away the key if they were indeed planning something.

I suspect a lot of the intelligence available won't be admissable/useable as evidence, that's not to say it's not correct, just that it can't be used as evidence in court, hence no proceedings.

[Greedydog]

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

As I understand it prior to trial an accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. A statement of fact was made that he was innocent, I'm merely pointing out that fact wasn't established by trial, the correct statement would be "he's presumed innocent."

So what we're saying here is that these guys were being monitored because they were up to no good, and once arrested there wasn't even one crime they could have been convicted for. Not one - surely if these guys were in the middle of planning an attack then it would be pretty easy to convict them based on telephone conversations/emails?

I wonder why they haven't been convicted of anything. Lock em up and throw away the key if they were indeed planning something.

I suspect a lot of the intelligence available won't be admissable/useable as evidence, that's not to say it's not correct, just that it can't be used as evidence in court, hence no proceedings.

[5unny]

Greedydog said:

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

ln1234 said:

Greedydog said:

Their guilt or innocence hasn't been established the fact that there isn't enough evidence to proceed with a trial does not make them innocent.

It does by UK law. Innocent till proven guilty, or has that changed?

As I understand it prior to trial an accused is presumed innocent and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. A statement of fact was made that he was innocent, I'm merely pointing out that fact wasn't established by trial, the correct statement would be "he's presumed innocent."

So what we're saying here is that these guys were being monitored because they were up to no good, and once arrested there wasn't even one crime they could have been convicted for. Not one - surely if these guys were in the middle of planning an attack then it would be pretty easy to convict them based on telephone conversations/emails?

I wonder why they haven't been convicted of anything. Lock em up and throw away the key if they were indeed planning something.

I suspect a lot of the intelligence available won't be admissable/useable as evidence, that's not to say it's not correct, just that it can't be used as evidence in court, hence no proceedings.

Yes this would be the case.

In most cases even the defendants and their lawyers would not be allowed to see the evidence.

The state say that it has to be this way otherwise the evidence (phone recordings etc) would compromise their sources and be a security risk.

Pretty scary stuff but then again the threat we face is also unprecedented.

So what is the solution?

[zcacogp]

5unny said:

The state say that it has to be this way otherwise the evidence (phone recordings etc) would compromise their sources and be a security risk.

Pretty scary stuff but then again the threat we face is also unprecedented.

So what is the solution?

And that is the difficult question.

It seems that we do have a rapidly growing number of people in our country who do not have our interests at heart, and want to destroy both the country and everything that it stands for. It also seems that these people are very often those who rely on the state for a living; claiming benefits and living in state-provided accomodation. The threat is very real, and very serious, and we need to tackle it head-on.

I don't know what the solution is, but I think that the situation as he currently have it is not the solution. It is interesting that on the one hand we have some very soft-touch human rights laws which prevent potential mass-murderers who have no right to be here from being sent back to their home country because there is a risk that they will be tortured, and yet we are also allowed to try them without them seeing the evidence. This seems to be repugnant on both fronts, although for different reasons.

It also seems that the problem has largely arisen because of the hugely lax immigration controls put in place by the previous administration, but that's a different discussion.


Oli.

[Galsia]

I suppose that if he stays in the UK then the authorities can keep a closer eye on him...

[The real Apache]

Let em stay, in fact invite the lot over here, send a message to Pakistan saying 'you're all welcome!' free flights, JSA and housing for all. Only qualification is to reciprocate a UK resident for a Pakistani one. I'm sure the climate'll be a lot nicer over there

Edited by The real Apache on Thursday 20th May 15:14

[5unny]

So the Home Secretary is 'disappointed' by the decision of this court but the deputy PM agrees with the judge:

Telegraph said:

Nick Clegg defends decision not to deport terror suspects
Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has backed a decision not to deport two al-Qaeda suspects despite allegations they had been involved in a bomb plot in Britain.


Published: 1:37PM BST 19 May 2010

The Liberal Democrat leader defended laws blocking the removal of terror suspects if they faced torture or death abroad.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/7741021/Nick-Clegg-defends-decision-not-to-deport-terror-suspects.html

[Uncle Fester]

The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis manage to live in Pakistan without being tortured.

The Pakistan government doesn’t have the time, resources or inclination to torture every citizen; just those whose behaviour draws the attention of the authorities.

So presumably these individuals believe their past or likely future behaviour will draw such attentions.

This is precisely why they should be returned to Pakistan.

The Islamist ideology is as disturbing and hateful to most Muslims as it is to non-Muslims. It first emerged early in the history of Islam (around 657AD) with a group called Khawarij. There were around 12000 of them.

They caused so much trouble to other Muslims that Ali (son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed) led his forces against them and obliterated all but nine of them. One survivor managed to assassinate Ali before they could be killed.

The Islamist ideology perished with them and for about the next 1300 years Islam was free of its curse.

It was not until a number of countries with substantial Muslim populations came under the control of European nations that the problem reared its ugly head again, beginning in the late nineteenth century.

Muslims had learned how to deal with Islamists, but the European colonial control supported freedom of speech and protected those trying to resuscitate the Islamist ideology. America took in some of these and allowed them the freedom to develop the ideas. They then returned to their own countries and spread the poison.

Had we not prevented the normal Muslims they would have strangled the Islamist movement at re-birth by killing those responsible. Today we perpetuate our blunder by obstructing Muslim states from effectively dealing with the Islamist problem.

Muslims understand you cannot reason with Islamists or deal with them in any other way. It’s long overdue that the politically correct realise that human rights and logic are lost upon those who believe that they are under orders from god. If the PC brigade wish for a world organised according to human rights then they will have to accept some compromise and do it in a world which has been rid of Islamists.

[Parrot of Doom]

5unny said:

Pretty scary stuff but then again the threat we face is also unprecedented.

So what is the solution?

Stop scare-mongering, and remember what the IRA did?