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

Well as someone who still has nightmares over a terrorist attack that took place more than 20 years ago when I was 18, and witnessed close up, I wish he'd been deported.

'want more terrorism?'

It doesn't matter if you do or don't. Because you're going to get it. Just for being here.

You may not even be British. You may even be Muslim.

It matters not to AlQueda. If you are in teh wrong place at the wrong time, you are fair game to be murdered.

Your human rights mean nothing to Al Queda.

Complimentary - I understand your anger, and am glad that I didn't see the things that you did. I live in London, my partner works in Kings Cross and they were in a meeting all morning on that day so I couldn't get hold of them. It was a terrible day.

But it makes no difference to the issue of whether or not it is ok to torture people.

want more terrorism?

allow our own government to behave in an unlawful fashion, and hand Al Qaeda propaganda victories by acting like the thing they say our government is - that is Anti-Islamic and depotic.

Sophable Absolutely not. I am repeating this thread as MN appeared to have taken it off.

My son on July the 7th was nearly killed as I took him to nursery pass the BMA, where a bomb exploded on a bus. My freind helped the dead and dying and my vicar rushed to the scene to help, but the BMA already had a chaplain administering to the dead and dying
It was a scene I would not wish on my worst enemy.

These terrorists/operatives should certainly be deported,, the judge clearly stated they were a threat to this country. Why should we worry what happens to them, they and people like them do not care what they do to others.

I take it you have never personnaly never witnessed the aftermath of a terrorist attack, but I have.
I was angry when I first saw your post, but I'm now very sad that you see fit to post this. It is an absolute disgrace and affront to all who have lost loved ones and who have been affected by terrorism as I have.

TiggyR - I think the police would certainly see throwing someone overboard as murder

It's a crap analogy anyway, I was just pointing out problems with Onagar analogy. This isn't a complicated case that NEEDS analogies.

Sending someone back to a country where they will be tortured makes you complicit in the torture. I'm not sure if joint enterprise covers it strictly legally, but that is the concept that applies.

These people were accused of terrorism offences.
The case against them was not proved.
We have decided that they do not have a legal right to remain here on the pretexts that they entered the country.
They have now claimed asylum on the grounds that because they are thought to be terrorists they will be tortured if returned to Pakistan.
This is almost certainly true.
Returning them to Pakistan is therefore saying that we don't care if they are tortured.
If we don't care if they are tortured then either we approve of torturing human beings or don't consider them worthy of being treated as human beings.

If you dissaprove of this then what needs to happen is a change to the law, change Pakistan, or to our opinion of Pakistan.

If you want to change the law, you either need to say torture is ok (unlikely to sell this one despite 7 series of 24), is a price worth paying (more salable, but morally dubious), or preventable (best option - but unlikely to actually be carried out).

We are already trying to change Pakistan, as are a lot of Pakistanis - but I don't think it's going to change any time very soon.

Or we can just pretend that torture doesn't happen in Pakistan - this is not likely to be a sustainable position.

if you deport someone to torture, that is iplied approval of torture. He should face justice in this country if there is evidence against him, or he should be extradited if the Pakistani government can giv a guarantee that he will face a fair trial.

torture is not a legitiate instrument of justice, and the rule of law is what makes the Uk government bteer than a bunch of terrorists or a dictatorship.

failure to treat terror suspects within the law of this country puts bullets and bombs in the hands of terrorists. we may as well be recruiting for them if we are not above moral in our treatment of these people.

Why are they no longer a threat to me? When did the policemen climb aboard my boat?! Having him arrested was not an option as I remember. In the example we were using I was alone on my boat and had to make a decision based on my own gut feeling. And besides, acting in self defence is not murder. It's what you do when you don't have the luxury of time to call the police. And throwing him overboard isn't murder either - he may not drown - especially not if you throw him in the direction of a Pakistani Naval ship - they'll take him home.

Anyway, you are now giving me the choice between murdering him or sending him to prison. As I understood it, prison was not an issue because we cannot prove he meant to do me harm. I don't want him murdered and I certainly don't intend to do it, I just want him off my boat and away from me and my family because I DON'T TRUST THE SLIMY TWO-FACED SNAKE. He came on my boat under false pretences and he has given me sufficient reason to distrust him, and to believe he intended to do me serious harm. That should be reason enough. I just hope he's a good swimmer.

Anyway, all of this is pointless. the law needs to be changed in the interest of state security. And Sharmi Chakrabarti's a silly bag of hot wind who waffles on like a self-righteous sixth former.

I wasn't suggesting the boat as a serious analogy - I was just using it to point out the flaws on Onagars.

It isn't a matter whether or not, in this instance, Pakistani law is superior or inferior, but rather that there is reason to believe that there is a realistic prospect of torture.

In the Gary McKinnon case, there were discussions between the Foreign Office and the USA as far not seeking the death penalty and reassurances about a fair trial, so it is possible to come to some sort of arrangement with a foreign country.

I kind of understand babybarrister point about the intelligence here in the UK at least being able to monitor, but at the same time wonder whether the security services would allow a major operative to go back to Pakistan? Seems to me that it would have been risk assessed, or at least would have hoped so.

Of course the hallmarks of a civil country is not torturing, nor allowing others to torture, but at the same time, don't think there are only 2 options here.

TiggyR - So in this example you would murder someone rather than lock them up? I don't see how their intention matters. They are no longer a threat to you. You therefore owe them the same duty of care that applies to anyone.

It's a bit like you opening his rucksack and finding a rusty penknife and maybe he had a funny kind of look about him.

But just to tie it back to our real life example, the security services don't have enough proof to take these men to court and get a conviction. So they can't have that much proof.

Well I did say 'it depends'. Just how much cast iron proof should we need? No matter how friendly he was and how plausible his story, if I peeked in his rucksack and he had a knife, a gun, some handcuffs and a few books with titles like 'Piracy for beginners' and 'How to kidnap for ransom' then I'm sorry but I'm not waiting for 'proof'. I'm throwing him overboard! Really - just how much of a gullible sap do you want me to be with this man on my boat?

No, it doesn't make a difference.

I am assuming, as I assume in Onagars example that at the point of the decision the person is not a threat to you and you are able to dictate terms. If you pushed them off the boat to prevent immediate harm that would make a difference.

But Tiggy, you have no proof that the man on board your boat intends to harm you. He just happens to be in a place he shouldn't be in. Perfectly fair to throw him out if he's just going get a bit wet, not exactly civilised to throw him out if there's a chance he may drown.

Depends ooojimaflip - did he climb on board because he was drowning and needed help, or because he was planning to do me harm? Big difference. If it's the latter then the risk of drowning sounds perfectly fair to me. He should have thought of that before he trespassed on my bloody boat.

Onagar - it's not really a fair analogy though is it. 'Getting a bit wet' is not generally considered a form of torture.

If someone breaks into your boat in the middle of the ocean is it reasonable to force them to leave? You don't have to prove that the knife in their hand was going to be used against your family.

If they say "but I will drown" is that their problem?

were they here illegally?

Some of them went to Liverpool university - that isn't a 'fake' school.

One of the students already deported has overturned the ban from entering the UK because there was no evidence at all about him being involved. That doesn't paint a reassuring picture about how much evidence is required to deport someone in the first place.

Have you seen this article?

Actually, just realised you and I have been allies on thread before! You are the voice of common sense and reason.

Thank you Onagar, you've said in your last two posts what I've been trying to formualte in my mind all afternoon!

You don't have to prove they were terrorists to send them home as they were already here illegally. If someone breaks into your house in the middle of the night it's reasonable to force them to leave. You don't have to prove that the knife in their hand was going to be used against your family,

If they say "but it's raining outside" that is their problem.

And again what about those who would be happy to protect them from prosecution back home even if they had actually blown up a school here. They are the ones that shock me.

Are you seriously suggesting that we should forget about the burden of proof when dealing with terrorism?

No. I mean it. There are lots of bits of argument I've used on this thread. I just found myself using one particular bit/tool/discourse that I feel quite squeamish about.

I want to abandon that one.

In a way, it's a simplification of the earlier bits -- about the law not being changed for one, extreme, instance. But it's a simplification too far.

I want to put that one back on the shelf, and remind myself there are some things I don't, personally, use, because they lead in directions I, personally, don't like.

I was curious, though. Because I think it opens onto the question of what people care about. What they/we are prepared to forego in the name of (a dubious - imo) "protection".

I really do not like what I/we have been required to give up in the name of "protection". It's made me wonder about the position of the masses in modern politics. We are the objects of violent political action, and also our rights as individuals may be infracted in the (spurious) name of our "protection".