Government loses Abu Qatada appeal

samharris said:
Skashion said:
samharris said:
I asked the question as you seemed knowledgeable in this subject.

'research it' is not what I expected the reply to be..
This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.

I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.

He was not detained and subjected to control orders due to his extradition case with Jordan, but alleged terrorist activities in breach of UK law. However, he was NEVER convicted. Despite this he spent many years in prison, and the rest subject to virtual house arrest. I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.

His extradition was a separate matter to do with whether he'd get a fair trial in Jordan considering that 'evidence' obtained by torture would be used against him. He was allowed to remain because the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, guarantees him a right to a fair trial (one of the conditions of that is that 'evidence' obtained by torture is not permissible). Jordan signed a treaty agreeing not to use that 'evidence'. The only issue I see with that is that you can't take a dictatorial oppressive regime at their word, and we probably wouldn't care if they broke that treaty, but on paper at least that issue has been overcome and I'm not as concerned over this as by the UK government robbing us of our civil liberties.
 
Skashion said:
I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.

.

A perfectly rational argument to any sane person surely.


But nutjobs dont care about civil liberties as long as they are safe from bogeymen
 
Skashion said:
samharris said:
Skashion said:
This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.

I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.

He was not detained and subjected to control orders due to his extradition case with Jordan, but alleged terrorist activities in breach of UK law. However, he was NEVER convicted. Despite this he spent many years in prison, and the rest subject to virtual house arrest. I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.

His extradition was a separate matter to do with whether he'd get a fair trial in Jordan considering that 'evidence' obtained by torture would be used against him. He was allowed to remain because the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, guarantees him a right to a fair trial (one of the conditions of that is that 'evidence' obtained by torture is not permissible). Jordan signed a treaty agreeing not to use that 'evidence'. The only issue I see with that is that you can't take a dictatorial oppressive regime at their word, and we probably wouldn't care if they broke that treaty, but on paper at least that issue has been overcome and I'm not as concerned over this as by the UK government robbing us of our civil liberties.

Do you think him innocent or guilty of suspected terrorism??
 
Skashion said:
samharris said:
Skashion said:
This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.

I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.

He was not detained and subjected to control orders due to his extradition case with Jordan, but alleged terrorist activities in breach of UK law. However, he was NEVER convicted. Despite this he spent many years in prison, and the rest subject to virtual house arrest. I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.

His extradition was a separate matter to do with whether he'd get a fair trial in Jordan considering that 'evidence' obtained by torture would be used against him. He was allowed to remain because the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, guarantees him a right to a fair trial (one of the conditions of that is that 'evidence' obtained by torture is not permissible). Jordan signed a treaty agreeing not to use that 'evidence'. The only issue I see with that is that you can't take a dictatorial oppressive regime at their word, and we probably wouldn't care if they broke that treaty, but on paper at least that issue has been overcome and I'm not as concerned over this as by the UK government robbing us of our civil liberties.

I am also concerned about his extradition as it seems you can always find an excuse to deport someone either to US or one of its puppet states.
 
Rascal said:
Skashion said:
I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.

.

A perfectly rational argument to any sane person surely.


But nutjobs dont care about civil liberties as long as they are safe from bogeymen

Bogeyman is exactly what he was in the UK- he was here for almost 20 years, and more than half of that period locked up or under the attention of the security forces if he was as dangerous to the UK as was made out, thenthey would have enough evidence to convict him. Or is it a case that he was a pretty pathetic person who posed very little threat to the UK but was wanted for previous crimes in a foreign jurisdiction. I don't have much fear for terrorists, but if I did then it would be for UK born British nationals.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.