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.

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.

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.

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

I agree he shouldn't be deported.

Jack Bauer face

JACK

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.

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

Sorry - that was from another thread.

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.

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 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?

Exactly Edam. What's to stop anyone at all who lives under a despotic regime or a strict Islamic state and just fancies coming to Britain going up the steps of the plane, then just as he's about to board dropping his trousers and baring his naked arse saying 'This is for you Mr President/Ayatollah. Fuck your government, when I get back off me holidays I'm going to plan to do some anarchic terrorist shit, and by the way I'm Gay/Christian so you might like to line up a spot of persecution/torture in readiness for my return.'

With his wife videoing it on her phone so she can post it on youtube, just to be on the safe side?

Then sitting back and thinking 'That should do the job nicely.'

Edam - are you prepared though to take closed evidence of no risk of torture as sufficient evidence that there's no risk?

I don't actually think the key point here is the risk of torture. These men did not claim aslyum. They are foreign undesirables and have no moral right to stay in the UK. Nor should they have any legal right to be here.

There's a big difference between someone who claims asylum because they fear persecution and someone who comes in on a student visa and starts playing at terrorism.

Deport the fucker.

yes, but they don't have to have claimed asylum to have a legal right not to be sent to Pakistan - just to be terrorist suspects.

Not at all BB, but then we just have to get much tougher on our border controls in future. The sooner we go to iris and fingerprint recognition passports the better.

Sophable Absolutely NOT.
My young son was nearly killed on the day of 7/7 when I took him to nursery, my freind stayed to help people on the bus outside the BMA
This Bsxx should have been deported. If they want to go around and blow people up, they shoud take the consequences in their own country. My freind saw people's heads hangining off and dying on 7/7, on the bus outside the BMA. I find it a disgrace that you should post this nonsense here.

I agree with MOONDOG, these people see you and others as soft, that is one of the reasons that 7/7 occured in the first place, if we had deported these Bs who spouted hate we may not have had 7/7.
.

I'm sure you post this crap to wind people up.

well, Clegg just announced today that second-generation biometric passports are out.

Did he? Haven't heard that yet.

Who gives a fuck about the welfare of him? Why should I care? Really ? why should I care. it is really really fucking stupid. Why protect him ? Not in MY name thank you. And before you get personal, you DID ask.

passports (and other things)

You should care because it's about the law, and therefore you, your friends, and everyone you know, as well as the ones you don't.

The idea is, the law does not get bent, broken, changed just for one case. Not just however hideous, wrong, or extreme it seems, but because it's an extreme instance.

Otherwise the law is not longer there, in the shape it was, for all the other, non-extreme, instances.