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

[Heathcliffscathy]

because we absolutely should not deport anyone under any circumstance who we know will be tortured.

a victory for justice and human rights today imo.

They are not unrelated. They are both about the decision to deport and fears about the treatment of the deported person in their home country. The contrast is striking. One man who our courts say is a real risk to this country is protected, one woman who is no risk to us at all is told 'tough shit'.

But if the decision to deport KF is wrong, it doesn't automatically make the decision to allow the terrorist suspects to stay wrong.

The law says that people who are likely to be tortured at home shouldn't be made to go back. With the terrorist suspects the courts agreed that they were likely to be tortured. Either you think that the law is right and we shouldn't deport people to be totured abroad, or you think it's wrong. If you do think it's right, and it seems you do because you are citing the example of KF, then the only question is whether they will be tortured if they go back. The courts agree it is a risk.

So on what grounds would you send them back? Because they are terrorist suspects? Problem is any one of us can be accused but not convicted.

edam - how would deporting the terrorist suspects help Firouz?

I think the point that edam is making is that the way the law is applied seems unfair. which is fair enough, but is about application rather than principle of the law.

point being that for the purposes of this thread NO ONE should be being deported to be tortured and that there is a strong chance of innocence in BOTH cases not just in the case of KF.

KF clearly IS innocent. Unless you agree with despotic regimes that homosexuality is a crime?

The other guys clearly aren't. As the judge said.

So guilty people should be tortured?

well I'm sure we could volunteer to take in the world's terrorists and death row inmates.

but we won't.

Guilty? By which you mean not actually guilty.

No, I don't approve of torture. But equally I don't think we owe anything to these criminals. Not our job to protect them. They are free to leave the country, let them find some other nation more to their taste. Yemen seems like a possibility.

There's yet another story about a woman being sent back to face violence in today's Observer (she fled here to escape domestic violence). Wonder whether an audit of decisions to deport would find women who flee violence are more likely to be sent back than men? Would be interesting to see.

One of those blokes they decided to keep here 'for his own safety' has decided to go back to Pakistan anyway.

What say ye to that, Chardonny swillers?

That's up to him.

(Coolfonz, yes, I should have said "people you think are guilty")

or simply "terrorist suspects."

Can someone explain to me exactly why we (they) are sure they'd be tortured if deported and shipped back home? Presumably they didn't come here to escape persecution in their home country - they came here to 'study'.

Earlybird - it's because they're now terrorist suspects and Pakistan routinely tortures terrorist suspects. They weren't suspects when they arrived in the UK.

I prefer sauvignon blanc.

"these criminals"

you mean the ones who were acquitted in court.

Ps: a bomb factory was uncovered in the UK this weekend.

This still doesn't make sense to me, or add up.

So the assumption is that even though there is not enough evidence to convict in our country, Pakistan would torture them and treat them as terrorists if they are returned 'home'? Based on what - simply the suspicion?

The UK doesn't have enough evidence gained by regular means to convict them (partly because we don't allow most intercept evidence to be used, although the government is moving to change this).

Pakistan, however, will (going on past experience) torture terrorist suspects to get evidence out of them so that they can be convicted. Under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights we're not allowed to deport anyone to a state where they are likely to be subjected to torture.

The UK had received assurances from Pakistan that these two would not be tortured, but they were confidential assurances and so it would be difficult to check if they were being complied with.

more here.

I see you're all up in arms about the actual bomb factory found in the UK.

Link, Coolfonz, link ... .

My google skills aren't that good.

Link schmink. Just shows how badly informed and out of touch about current affairs you are.

The state and their cohorts in the media create a storyline and you all follow it like kids reading Harry Potter...

"Ooh Mummy Mi5 have secret evidence they can't tell us about, ooh ooh!"

coolfonz - shame on you!
I'm not going to lecture you on the importance of information and thus why its flow is impeded and controlled by vested power interests, and the history of struggle to break that control ... and how your cynicism is an act of censorship, and a breaking faith with those who struggle ... you must know all that like a leftie catechism.

So, I'll just say - I'm busy, i'm lazy ... but interested, just about enough, but limited ... .

That said, I'm not that interested in bomb factories. I tend to see my power to ignore as an act of refusing to be mobilised into the state of paranoia that permits more authoritarian measures to be brought in. So...

A knotty problem and no mistake. As some American President said it is better to have them in the tent pi**ing out than the other way around.

I am loath to send somebody to another country, knowing that there is a good chance he will be tortured but he has violated our good nature. I have the right not to be blown up as I ride a train or bus, as do the rest of us so if that is a notion they do not believe in, then I am afraid they must return to their own country.

I do not think the public purse should waste any more money on this person. Yes I suppose I am selfish but I work damn hard for my money why should an enemy of this country sit around getting benefit money?

I think there should be some kind of statute that says everybody who is in danger is welcome to our protection but if you violate our laws and do not respect our country then I am afraid you are going back to whatever fate awaits.

jodevises - So like the current law then?

Jodevises - the court acquitted them. There is no evidence they were going to bomb anything. Not a shred of it.

The reason the last guy does not want to go back to Pakistan - all the others have and have given interviews, they are just a bunch of students - is because of the accusation made by the British state.

If the British state had got them on visa charges then they would go back, but they did not, they accused them wrongly of being involved in armed plots.

So the decision is not because there is any evidence to link him to any non-governmental armed group.

Once again Mi5 fucked up, like they did on 7-7, De Menezes etc.