am I alone in being very heartened that the alquaida operative is not being deported?

edam - This just isn't even SLIGHTLY true is it:- "Islamic extremists - come on in, enjoy the full protection of the British law you flout and hate so much.

Democrats, protestors, human rights activists - tough shit, we're sticking you on a plane back to Iran.
"

Yes, we send back people who in all probability are not safe.

Yes, we sometimes allow people to stay in the country who are in all probabilty a threat to us.

This does not equate to us giving islamic extremists a free ride, and kicking out the puffs and the protestors.

the thing is, at the same time as protecting these men, the courts are happy to deport people to face torture and death. The difference is, if you believe in Western values of freedom of speech and freedom of belief, our courts will deport you - telling you that it'll be fine if you just keep quiet about being gay or about your belief in human rights (even though the people involved in those cases are known to the regimes in their countries and assuredly will be harmed).

Islamic extremists - come on in, enjoy the full protection of the British law you flout and hate so much.

Democrats, protestors, human rights activists - tough shit, we're sticking you on a plane back to Iran.

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's outrageous. Human rights are indeed supposed to apply to everyone equally - but in practice the UK courts deny them to people who believe in our values and are genuinely at risk of torture and death.

Btw, I do not believe torture is EVER justfied, because it's both wrong and pointless. People will say anything under torture to get the torturer to stop. I wish Pakistan and every other nation that uses it - including Western nations outsourcing torture - would stop immediately.

abr1de - It doesn't really have anything to do with it at all, other than if you accept that in both cases Security services may have/are attempting to present themselves in a more favorable light than the available evidence would suggest.

Deporting people to countries where the will be tortured is a violation of human rights though - whether is is for terrorism, murder, visa fraud, or parking on the zig zag lines.

erm, because death is a possible consequence of torture, and if he was sent (without trial in this country, due to insufficient evidence) to be tortured, the fact he'd committed visa fraud would not make that Ok?

But that is not the prevailing culture.

'i think it was because someone said that the fact that they'd commited visa fraud made it fine for them to be deported to a country where they may face torture.'

I made that comment and fail to see what it has to do with someone being murdered by the British police without a trial, etc.

Exactly.

i don't expect the security services to be perfect - that is, after all, why we have courts - otherwise the word of the police 'here's your man' ...would be sufficient.

the courts are part of the machinery guaranteeing our rights.

Coolfonz - Isn't the issue in that case a political culture that expects the security services to be perfect? They should be able to admit mistakes instead of having to cover them up. Our expectation that people can run around with guns is without anyone innocent getting hurt is as misplaced as the idea that anyone arrested should turn out to be guilty.

I see. I hope everyone agrees now that killng visa overstayers is not ok.

De Menezes comes up because of the similarities.

1. Security services balls up
2. They leak to the media (man in coat jumps barrier) to cover themselves.
3. At the time it was presented that he was a `terrorist` and folks cheered.
4. Security services escape any condemnation or prosecution.

i think it was because someone said that the fact that they'd commited visa fraud made it fine for them to be deported to a country where they may face torture.

De Menezes had overstayed his visa - which did not make it fine for him to be shot. that was the cause of comment.

I don't see why the DeMenzes case is coming up. If you give people guns at some point they will kill someone they shouldn't. This is why we don't give the Police guns as a matter of course. It was a cock up, nothing sinister about it. Attempting to minimise the scale of the cockup - well that was stupid, and people needed to be sacked for that.

Or is there some idea that someone wanted DeMenzes to be killed for some other reason?

there are plenty of people out there commiting visa fraud for a variety of reasons(in some countries a small element of fraud is the standard route into a work visa..my Taiwan visa for instance...)

it doesn't change the fact that this guy had a legitimate claim to potential torture in Pakistan, which was the grounds of apppeal..

really, are you lot so blind to the potential conequences of the erosion of civil liberities?

Yeah good, but the title of this post (Al Quaida operative) is just stupid, which I'm sure you aren't.

With De Menezes, we have an execution of a man by the British security services in public. And not a single person is brought to justice over it. Not even disciplined.

Not only that but the jury rejected the police claim they gave a warning but the judge forbade - for no reason - the officers to be tried for perjury.

They got on a carriage, went over to a guy reading a paper, pushed him to the floor, sat on him, shot him seven times in the head, pulping his face, from point blank range.

Imagine if it happened in Iran...

Vesela - the court thought so, a woman came forward as well.

But secondly, what if they were talking about something else, like trying to outstay their visa, buying weed, nicking cars, wanking off dogs...?

Where do you suddenly go - hmm dodgy letters, they must be al quaida?

No bombs, no manuals, no traces of anything even remotely being explosive - yet Mi5 tell the media there was imminent danger (ie: bombs were ready to go).

Not only that but the guys themselves give interviews in Pakistan, get representation from the Pakistan govt (who are not at one with Al Quaida as you might note) to London. Which is not what people in Al Quadia tend to do you may note.

Yet despite all this, a load of halfwits, still go, oh yeah Alquida operatives. Fucking idiocy.

That people are so ready, against every shred of evidence, to believe the security services, is frightening. People like that have learned nothing from history.

Like I say, what did you do when De Menezes was shot seven times in the head from point blank range while a man sat on his back? Do you even give a shit?

People who give succour to torture, extra judicial police killings and overwhelming security service power should f off to Saudi Arabia or Burma...you'd love it there.

You don't know that they will be tortured for anything! It's all hypothesis. The authorities said they will supervise the situation.

If they've committed visa fraud I don't want them here. End of. There are enough law-abiding people keen to work and study here.

Human rights apply to all human. Saying they apply to some less than others is close to saying some are less human than others. I am extremely uncomfortable with that.

let me make this clear - human rights abuses can happen to anyone. there is nothing to stop you, or a member of your family being arrested, held without charge for 42 days and the deported to a country that condones torture. Unless the country you live in doesn't do things like that....

human rights guarantee your rights. if they are ignored, then everyones freedom is at stake.

visa fraud ?! is that a crime worthy of torture? Nothing is.

Scaryteacher - I don't think that it depends what you think of the law. For individuals and maybe some organisations there may be cases made for campaigning, civil disobedience etc. But one organisation that absolutely MUST be held to the letter if the law is government. Otherwise you have tyranny.

Coolfonz, do you think that this sounds like someone weighing up marriage candidates? (OK, I know you've read them, but just putting them up here).

"I saw a slight glimpse of Huma day before yesterday but she was very weak and difficult to convince. She says she is busy with her studies and it will take her long. Nadia is more gorgeous than Huma at the moment and she is easy to befriend? Nadia is crystal clear girl and it won't take long to relate with her."

"You know Gulnaz and Fozia. WOW man. I would love to get them in my friends list but you know I have been thinking about their abilities. Gulnaz sounds ok but she is found [fond] of money. Fozia is some times bull shit. She lets you down sometime."

You really think these sound like actual women?

But isn't citing Gary McKinnon an argument for more human rights, not less?