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

'But that's the beauty of human rights legislation, they apply to all equaly. No one can say "sorry, no human rights for you, don't like your face".' No, they don't apply to all equally; I would argue that Gary McKinnon for instance should not be deported to the US because it infringes his human rights, but for a long time that has been ignored; and yet we are happy to keep Al-Qaeda operatives here.

I would also rather that MI5 fucked up (if they did) on the side of caution and prevention.

Yeah Marilyn Monroe's secret plane took them in league with Elvis who controls all the black helicopters. That's the secret evidence Mi5 can't tell us.

What no bombs Cool? Shiiit, they must have sent them all to Iraq.

Yeah they've gone. 10 of them are back in Pakistan. 2 are in the UK. Happens all the time.

But it's nothing to do with terrorism.

Nothing to do with Al-Quaida. Mi5 and the security services fucked up - again - and try and terrorise the UK population to cover their backsides.

And you all fell for it. Again.

What did you do when you heard De Menezes had been killed? Wait until you had all the facts? Or celebrate? After all De Menezes had an out of date visa.

< I don't hate Human Rights, I just think they seem to apply more to some than others >

But that's the beauty of human rights legislation, they apply to all equaly. No one can say "sorry, no human rights for you, don't like your face". The suspected terrorists can't be sent to a place where they might be tortured, but then nor can you and nor can those you love.

You may think the liklihood of it ever happening to you or some one you care about is non existent but the more human rights are eroded the more likely it is. It starts slowly. First you give up your right not to be sent somewhere else to be tortured, then you give up your right not to be tortured in your own country. I've spent a lot of time in countries where human rights abuses are wide spread. Not the Burmas and North Koreas of the world but places that look like they are free. But where people are careful of what they say and who they say it to because anyone could take it the wrong way.

I don't feel in the least bit ashamed of myself. They've committed visa fraud.

Off they go.

You can actually see these guys interviewed here:

www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/dec/04/pakistani-students-arrest-release

The photos uncovered by the police were on Facebook...

Really you lot should be ashamed of yourselves.

So, apart from the fact that there was no bomb factory. No manuals. No tapes. No plans. There were some emails which could be construed - possibly - to mean something about bombs. (You can read them, they are so sensitive the security services released them to the media).

But then even though there are no bombs and the woman at the centre of all this testified in court...oh no...she could be lying. Yeah she could.

But first all the hang em brigade, where are the bombs? You know, the bomb factory...

Not only this, but this has already gone before a court and been thrown out...

What do you think about the Guilford 4, the Birmingham 6, the Cardiff 3, the Bridgewater Gang, Enghin Raghip, Mark Braithwaite, Winston Silcott, Steven Kizsko...all guilty right?

"Sources told The Daily Telegraph that the arrests of 12 men in the north west of England on Wednesday were linked to a suspected plan to launch a devastating attack this weekend.

"It could have been the next few days and they were talking about 10 days at the outside," one source said. "We had to act." Police are now engaged in a search for an alleged bomb factory.

Daily Mail:

"Senior detectives said they moved quickly following an 'imminent and credible' threat of an atrocity by an Al Qaeda linked group, including the construction of an explosive device, said to be a conventional bomb rather than a 'dirty' bomb incorporating nuclear material.

One officer said: 'These are the most significant terrorism arrests to be made for some time.

'There was information which led us to believe that these men were planning something major.

'It was not clear when or where they would strike but they were collecting material for a large explosion. We are talking about something big.'"

...and people don't lie under oath do they?

Apart from the fact there is zero evidence these guys are in Al Quaida.

The woman at the centre of the emails (proposed marriage) even gave testimony in court.

But she's probably Osama Bin Laden in disguise right?

I suspect it depends Ooojimaflip if you happen to agree with that particular law or not. Like others on this thread, I think they should be deported, article 3 or not, and I have an inkling this is what the more robust of our European neighbours would do.

I don't hate Human Rights, I just think they seem to apply more to some than others, and that they are used to avoid the consequences of some actions. Expat put it well earlier when she pointed out that Al-Qaeda don't give a shit about our human rights. It's all well and good claiming the moral high ground, like Sophable, but that won't protect you with a little 'I can't get hurt' bubble as others have pointed out having experienced terrorist attacks.

Oh nice, message deleted.

Shall I do you a nice post with lovely flowers?

The 12 guys were ACCUSED by the security services of being ready to bomb a shopping centre. They leaked to the media, it was all over the front of the BBC Online, they were going to bomb a shopping centre the next weekend.

Apart from the fact when the security services grabbed the guys there wasn't one jot of evidence. No bombs, no kit, no manuals, nothing.

They very well may have been illegal immigrants, trying to use study visas to get into the country. But at no point have they been identified as Al Quaida operatives.

So, once again, the British security services, who totally failed on 7-7, failed again. Like they did with their huge operation to arrest a kebab shop owner and his workers in Manchester, shooting a lad in Forest Gate who was completely innocent after a huge intelligence-led operation, De Menezes on the tube, again where the security services leaked to the media (and perjured themselves in court).

And now with these guys, they have dragged them through the courts, the courts acquitted them. If there was even a manual, a tape they could be sent to jail.

Take the so-called Blackburn Resistance, two lads who love(d) the A-Team and Rambo, who took stupid pictures of themselves in a public park, in the daytime, in front of many passers by. They were jailed as terrorists, had their lives wrecked by the security services. It is very easy to get a conviction on terrorism these days.

That is why these men can now not be deported as they might face torture as once again Mi5 have shown themselves to be racist gung-ho thugs...

Even as bombs are going off in the UK.

Even as actual ricin plots happen in the UK.

Even as men with bombs and guns are actually caught.

But no one cares about those cases, they aren't Muslims...

I assume that a 3rd country is legal though if there is no threat that the person would be tortured in the 3rd country?

All these people that hate human rights so much, why aren't you queuing up to move some where a bit closer to your liking. Plenty of places lack human rights. Anyone interested in a move to North Korea or Burma? Or maybe the UK should be a bit more "pragmatic" like them?

Seem to recall an EU country sending a terrorist suspect back to a 3rd country to evade the article 3 (prohibition of torture) issue.

scaryteacher - so we should be ashamed of following the rule of law?

scaryteacher - That is an entirely different issue though - "Are there circumstances under which torture is permissible?"

To which the answer is 'of course' as it's always possible to construct a hypothetical situation where is clearly is (most of 24). The reality is that in general we don't know what suspects know, or what they need us to tell us. So the reality of your example is "would you prefer the information about terror attacks to be obtained from hundreds of people (via torture, not always physical) that could then save hundreds from attack?"

In general torture is not acceptable. If you want the man who put the nuclear bomb on the bus to tell you which bus then maybe. But that basically never happens.

That's assuming in other countries that the suspects actually get to court in the first place..... I think the Lubyanka isn't entirely a museum yet, and I wouldn't lay odds in Russia on anyone surviving to appeal to the Court of Human Rights - pragmatic, as I said. I have a sneaking suspicion the French are too.

The ECHR is incorporated into UK law so this decision was made by a English court. I believe most of Western Europe would similarly have incorporated the ECHR into their own laws and would have had to make a similar decision on that basis. The UK is very unusual amongst Western Europe in that it has done this very recently. Even in Russia, a person in a similar situation would have the right to appeal the European Court of Human Rights and they would have come to the same decision.

I think that the UK being a law abiding country is something that it should be proud about. I find it disturbing that so many people think that it should lean towards being a pariah state.

Well, the fact that Russia is on there says it all. Many European countries will pay lip service to the ECHR and then ignore it...that's what I meant by other European countries being 'more pragmatic'.

Coolfonz - Sometimes the security services can be right though can't they? They claim they have evidence they can't show.

That may or may not be convenient to them, but until they can show these people are guilty they will not be imprisoned or deported to a country where they will be tortured. That seems inline with the rule of law.

Scene 1.

Cold, squatted building in corner of London. Bare floorboards. A few bookshelves and posters adorn the walls.

A group of very young boys are huddled around a desk, close to a calor gas heater, drinking from cans.

Boy 1: OK. First item on the agenda. "How can we get more women involved in anarchism?"

Boy 2: Ffs, feminism is a bourgeois struggle. We don't want to get sucked into the feminism thing.

Boy 3: Mothers can't be anarchists. They exert power over children; they're necessarily excluded.

Boy 1: I don't think that being an anrchist means refusing power ... I think we need more women.

Boy 2: Ffs. There are loads of women. there's X, and Y, and Z.

Boy 1: They come to the parties, but they don't get involved with stuff.

Boy 2: That's because they f about with their f bourgois f* revolution. Ffs. they just don't get it.

Boy 1: But we need to get more women involved. We need to work out why they're not getting involved.

Boy 3: We don't need women. they're natural conservatives. Because they raise children. they can't be anarchists.

Boy 2: F this. Let's work on our leaflet about bashing the pigs and denouncing the idiocy of fluffy demonstrations without any violence. Ffs. I went on one the other day with a f kidsspace. Completely f* middle class.

scaryteacher, sadly it doesn't work like that in practice. People have been known to give false information when tortured so torturing people is not a reliable method to obtain information that may save lives. It may have even cost lives.

As for whether any other European country would shelther these men, the decision is based on case law from the European court of human rights. The case law is in turn based on the European convention on human rights. The map below shows the countries that are signed up to it in blue.

signatories to the ECHR

All of the countries in blue are bound by the same law.