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.

Not caring about this chap is precisely what you should be doing, and precisely what so many of you are doing.

The law hasn't stopped him being sent to Pakistan because it feels sorry for him. He's not being sent there, and all the rest, because the law is supposed to be impartial, and it's not worth tearing everything up for just one extreme instance.

And it's awful to be having to argue this, when the law has been changed so much already under the "threat" of terrorism.

Then we REALLY need to look at the law. But are you in favour of a change in law to say it's ok to deport under circumstances like these?

so many of you aren't doing ...

No. I like the Human Rights convention and am gladdened when I see evidence that I live somehere that complies with that, saddened when I see evidence to the contrary. If I have a sense of nationalism, it is built around things like NHS, free education (if you choose), and human rights stuff.

I think HR is an Ideal worth aspiring to. And you don't nibble away at it and hope no-one notices.

Its not a free education, we pay for it.

Do you consider the rights of the humans who are blown to bits by terrorists, or only the terrorists rights?

How about this: Changing the law, because of terrorism, is a kind of "surrendering" to terrorism.

I'm using a discourse I don't really like here, but still, you must have come across that argument?

Actually, I just feel appalled by having resorted to that vocabulary and level of simplification. So I think I really will have to go and get on with my life.

No i think it is DEALING with terrorism.

Bye bye

ANIMULA That is a really effective way of loosing your argument, it is all beneath me now I am walking away.

Okay let me get this right in case I have missed something.

They came here pretending to be students having arranged with a fake school to back up their story.

So let's stop talking as though they are innocent victims. They were already criminals on that basis alone. Since they were only pretending to be students I assume they had no plans to go home after. So either they didn't expect to survive the attack or they had some other plan to break our laws.

Of course by planning a terrorist attack they have won the right to stay here forever so quite a good result for them I suppose and an inspiration to others.

Now some of you are saying that we had to obey our own laws in this. Of course we did. That part is correct. However some are saying 'isn't it good that we HAVE a law that protects terrorists from being sent home' and that is another matter entirely.

I don't even know if they would be tortured back home, but if so it wouldn't be for being Pakistani citizens as they have lots of those already. It would be because they had planned terrorists attacks. Against us yes, but not tortured for our benefit. For the protection of their own country from crazy murdering criminals.

Now I happen to think that a nation such as Pakistan has the right to pass it's own laws and enforce them as it sees fit. I personally may not like them, but I don't have to. The implication of some posts seems to be that Pakistani law is inferior to British law. That could be another thread really as it seems to reflect prejudices from the old days of the British Empire when we taught the 'uncivilised' countries how things should be done.

"Well they are like children" some would say. "Someone has to tell them what to do"

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".

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

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.

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

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

Have you seen this article?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.