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

I don't want them tortured anywhere. But they haven't sought asylum here. They came on time-limited student visas so obviously knew full well they would be going home.

The judge found they were a threat to the UK and were involved in planning terrorist crimes. We are under no obligation to keep people who try to kill us in our country.

There are dozens of flights between the UK and Pakistan every day, should we prevent every outbound passenger?

I think it's a v. good place to start, Vesela.

Post it again, so that my slightly silly interjection doesn't "lose" it.

I was in fact in the process of looking up enthymeme! I should have given more options (includying ilovemydog's that they should be deported with cast-iron guarantees of no torture) - however, I wanted to gauge levels of support for torture.

Sorry - that was from another thread.

Ooh, Vesela, I think you may have given us our first example of enthymimetic satire of the day. Gold star.

OK, so:

Who wants them to be tortured in the UK? and
Who would rather they were tortured in Pakistan to save UK taxpayers' money?

Don't be shy.

JACK

Jack Bauer face

They do want to see him tortured, though, animula.

I agree he shouldn't be deported.

Seriously, if you want to live in a democracy that does not indulge in torture, this should cheer you.

Torture-by-proxy is still torture - it's simply distantiated. Sending people off to Pakistan to be subjected to their "amicable" methods of information-gathering is (mn word) "disingenuous". And that's one implication of this ruling.

If people come here for any reason, for any length of time, and they fall foul of the law, outstay their visas, arrive under false pretences to attend 'fake' universities, or are involved in anything at all that makes them a possible threat to national security then they should be deported. We should not really concern ourselves with what may or may not face when they go home. People need to know in no uncertain terms that if they abuse our hospitality, break our laws, or cheat our system they will be told to leave. What happens to them from then on should not be our problem. I don't see that means we condone or collude in torture. We cannot be held responsible for what other nations may do. If people genuinely live in fear of their lives in their home countries then they need to make sure they don't do anything that pisses us off sufficiently to get them sent back there. This is all about people demanding their rights but failing to accept their responsibilities yet again, just for a nice change. God how the rest of the world must laugh like drains at us.

Did legal aid pay for this by the way? Even though they are not British citizens? Actually I don't think I even need to ask that question. What a joke.

My understanding is that article 3 ECHR as incorporated by the HRA is that no one should be subjected to torture/inhuman degrading treatment which has been interpreted by case law to include sending a person to where they could be tortured, either by the state or others.

Of course the law extends to those who have been convicted of crimes, and in this case the accused was not found guilty, but could be deported based on his immigration status. He isn't being deported due to a real risk that he would be tortured by the state, however there have been instances when people have been deported and the state has agreed not to torture. The question then becomes how reliable the word of the state would be, however Pakistan is a country where the UK has amicable relations. If there is an issue about Pakistan's human rights record, then this should be addressed, but it's a bit arrogant to deem the UK as protectorate of all.

The choice shouldn't be whether one agrees with torture or not, or allow someone who wasn't convicted of murder, but acquitted, yet may possibly pose a threat to security of UK citizens, stay here.

Sophable - I am another one that agrees with you.

Like Anastasia, my concern is more to with the principle, long held in this country, of "innocent until proven guilty".

.....not that you would have realsied that they had not been convicted of anything that listening to some of the news bulletins (and reading this tread) last night.

The threat of torture comes from Pakistan, which has "robust" methods of interrogation.

It is a matter of shame that Britain has been sending various individuals off to Pakistan, basically outsourcing torture-based interrogation.

Generally, on this thread, I would only reiterate points made by Molesworth and others.

1. Secret evidence, and circumvention of jury/defence, is a serious destabilisation of the justice system.

1. They weren't convicted. That matters. You can't, seriously, cry out for a circumvention of the law - the impact on all of us is just too great.

1. We, rightly, have agreed not to send people off to places we know they'll be tortured - it's not good.

Terrorists are few, the law covers, in theory, all. You don't want to go making the law more authoritarian just on the basis of extreme instances. And certainly not because of government's telling you you're under threat by terrorists. It's craziness.

1. Yup, I agree with Molesworth, asylum should be extended to the Iranian woman.

so let's get this straight - the man came here because he was fleaing persicution in pakistan.... oh no wait. he came here on a student visa to study at a fake university and kill some people while he was here. So where did this threat of torture come from?

The great irony is that he was probably planning to die anyway in the name of his cause.

Not time to catch up properly now.

Coolfonz, the OP doesn't say "isn't it good they are innocent" but that we should not deport someone even if they are guilty.

of British Law. ooops

allegedly plotted to kill British citizens.

Important difference to the conversation IMO. He may have done so - but without evidence we have to presume innocence. Otherwise we undermine one of the fundamental principles British Law and may as well kiss goodbye to living in a free country.

Yes, but if it's a government who is the alleged threat of torture, there is precedent for getting an agreement that they will not torture.

I don't want people who have plotted to kill British citizens to go around with as little as a control order.

Absolutely object to the choice being whether to send a human being to be tortured, or they stay in the UK relatively free.

Thought I recognised it ooj. I live with an old raver

Though I have discovered the Dead Kennedys since.

Nazi Punks Fuck Off on running playlist
sings alongarrested

I agree with Sophable. I don't feel strongly about this one guy, I don't know a huge amount about the case, but:

1. We shouldn't abandon the principle of innocent until proven guilty because it's allegedly about terrorism. Without evidence it is nothing and that precedent is so important to us all. If you allow it to be bypassed for one 'crime' - how long until another is deemed serious enough that evidence for conviction is not needed?

1. We shouldn't condone torture - EVEN if he had been convicted of being a terrorist.

No, it's Jello Biafra.

Though I know it from the Coldcut Mix cd ;)

"...the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar.?