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.

mmmm maybe dangerous BUT certainly a danger that would allow me to sleep soundly at night the Danger we all face if we don't give better support to the SS to do their job is far more serious

This idea that we must protect someone (even terrorists) from their own countries legal system is fascinating.

Are we going to detain tourists visiting here from Pakistan and prevent them returning home?
Surely they too are at risk of torture back home so we should force them to stay here for their own good.

I'm kind of on your side too Soph.

Not exactly heartened but don't see that making a martyr of him is going to help.

Being a bleeding heart liberal too I'm not sure we do have the right to feel that safe when we are at war? If we are killing foreigners in foreign lands then won't they or their allies try to attack us at home?

And of course I'm not saying that is right but surely war can't be one sided?

Good lord, scratch a few liberals and what do you get? Frightened idiots who adhere to everything the state tells them to.

These guys went to court and were acquitted.

What is it about that you do not get?

They were acquitted, they were found guilty of some visa breaches. There are also a dozen of them...not one...

They were acquitted like a lot of other people arrested under terrorism laws. The Manchester kebab shop owners, the guys in Forest Gate one of whom was shot...the ricin plot...Jean Charles de Menezes had intelligence against him, they all had intelligence against them, it was all rubbish...what intelligence did Mi5 have against the 7/7 bombers, fuck all...

How do you know the courts were wrong? How do you know Mi5 are correct? You don't have a clue.

You guys really prove that all the state needs to do is leak nice stories to the media and people lap it up.

Oh we didn't totally fuck up again, we have secret evidence`.

Unbelievable.

The reason these guys can't be deported is because the British state accused them of being terrorists without any evidence. If there was even the remotest of evidence they would be in jail. There isn't any evidence they wanted to blow people up, which is why they were acquitted.

This case is much more sinister, it is about allowing the security services to prosecute people WITHOUT SHOWING EVIDENCE TO THE DEFENCE. Chucking out centuries of legal principle.

And you halfwits are buying it...

Really embarrassing yourselves, I bet you were all punching the air the day De Menezes was shot yeah we got one!!

Onagar, you put it so succintly here and demonstrate this to be an utterly illogical argument.

'Are we going to detain tourists visiting here from Pakistan and prevent them returning home?
Surely they too are at risk of torture back home so we should force them to stay here for their own good. '

As for you Coolfonz, your naivity is either touching or utterly frightening.
I can't quite decide yet.

Good ole' British justice eh?

Didn't you just holiday in the States Sophable?
How do you feel about accepting the hospitality and spending your money in such a country?

They are heartless old meanies too aren't they when it comes to blameless little brown men?

Cool I think the report was that they are still considered a danger. You are right though if the process and evidence is not transparent then why should we believe them.

Still every society needs a bogyman be it god, the state or terrorism. Fear has always kept the proles in line.

"We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under martial law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents or attorneys.
Shut up.
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone caught outside the gates of their subdivision sectors after curfew
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in
the morning.
Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine examples will be
shot.
Stay in your homes, remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is questions.
National security is more important than individual will.
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up, be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The comfort you've demanded is now mandatory.
Be happy.
At last everything is done for you."

Sorry, I don't care about what would happen to him back home in Pakistan.

He should have thought about that before he decided it was all right to hurt people here.

(Former Amnesty member.)

Um, I think you're out of your mind. And I am a Guardian reader and (former) member of Amnesty International!

"ooojimaflip" Is that Bill Hicks?

I don't understand about the threat of torture. Who would be inflicting torture?

"...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.?

No, it's Jello Biafra.

Though I know it from the Coldcut Mix cd ;)

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.

Though I have discovered the Dead Kennedys since.

Nazi Punks Fuck Off on running playlist
sings alongarrested

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

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.

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.

of British Law. ooops

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.