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.

It's a bit like you opening his rucksack and finding a rusty penknife and maybe he had a funny kind of look about him.

TiggyR - So in this example you would murder someone rather than lock them up? I don't see how their intention matters. They are no longer a threat to you. You therefore owe them the same duty of care that applies to anyone.

It isn't a matter whether or not, in this instance, Pakistani law is superior or inferior, but rather that there is reason to believe that there is a realistic prospect of torture.

In the Gary McKinnon case, there were discussions between the Foreign Office and the USA as far not seeking the death penalty and reassurances about a fair trial, so it is possible to come to some sort of arrangement with a foreign country.

I kind of understand babybarrister point about the intelligence here in the UK at least being able to monitor, but at the same time wonder whether the security services would allow a major operative to go back to Pakistan? Seems to me that it would have been risk assessed, or at least would have hoped so.

Of course the hallmarks of a civil country is not torturing, nor allowing others to torture, but at the same time, don't think there are only 2 options here.

I wasn't suggesting the boat as a serious analogy - I was just using it to point out the flaws on Onagars.

Why are they no longer a threat to me? When did the policemen climb aboard my boat?! Having him arrested was not an option as I remember. In the example we were using I was alone on my boat and had to make a decision based on my own gut feeling. And besides, acting in self defence is not murder. It's what you do when you don't have the luxury of time to call the police. And throwing him overboard isn't murder either - he may not drown - especially not if you throw him in the direction of a Pakistani Naval ship - they'll take him home.

Anyway, you are now giving me the choice between murdering him or sending him to prison. As I understood it, prison was not an issue because we cannot prove he meant to do me harm. I don't want him murdered and I certainly don't intend to do it, I just want him off my boat and away from me and my family because I DON'T TRUST THE SLIMY TWO-FACED SNAKE. He came on my boat under false pretences and he has given me sufficient reason to distrust him, and to believe he intended to do me serious harm. That should be reason enough. I just hope he's a good swimmer.

Anyway, all of this is pointless. the law needs to be changed in the interest of state security. And Sharmi Chakrabarti's a silly bag of hot wind who waffles on like a self-righteous sixth former.

if you deport someone to torture, that is iplied approval of torture. He should face justice in this country if there is evidence against him, or he should be extradited if the Pakistani government can giv a guarantee that he will face a fair trial.

torture is not a legitiate instrument of justice, and the rule of law is what makes the Uk government bteer than a bunch of terrorists or a dictatorship.

failure to treat terror suspects within the law of this country puts bullets and bombs in the hands of terrorists. we may as well be recruiting for them if we are not above moral in our treatment of these people.

TiggyR - I think the police would certainly see throwing someone overboard as murder

It's a crap analogy anyway, I was just pointing out problems with Onagar analogy. This isn't a complicated case that NEEDS analogies.

Sending someone back to a country where they will be tortured makes you complicit in the torture. I'm not sure if joint enterprise covers it strictly legally, but that is the concept that applies.

These people were accused of terrorism offences.
The case against them was not proved.
We have decided that they do not have a legal right to remain here on the pretexts that they entered the country.
They have now claimed asylum on the grounds that because they are thought to be terrorists they will be tortured if returned to Pakistan.
This is almost certainly true.
Returning them to Pakistan is therefore saying that we don't care if they are tortured.
If we don't care if they are tortured then either we approve of torturing human beings or don't consider them worthy of being treated as human beings.

If you dissaprove of this then what needs to happen is a change to the law, change Pakistan, or to our opinion of Pakistan.

If you want to change the law, you either need to say torture is ok (unlikely to sell this one despite 7 series of 24), is a price worth paying (more salable, but morally dubious), or preventable (best option - but unlikely to actually be carried out).

We are already trying to change Pakistan, as are a lot of Pakistanis - but I don't think it's going to change any time very soon.

Or we can just pretend that torture doesn't happen in Pakistan - this is not likely to be a sustainable position.

Sophable Absolutely not. I am repeating this thread as MN appeared to have taken it off.

My son on July the 7th was nearly killed as I took him to nursery pass the BMA, where a bomb exploded on a bus. My freind helped the dead and dying and my vicar rushed to the scene to help, but the BMA already had a chaplain administering to the dead and dying
It was a scene I would not wish on my worst enemy.

These terrorists/operatives should certainly be deported,, the judge clearly stated they were a threat to this country. Why should we worry what happens to them, they and people like them do not care what they do to others.

I take it you have never personnaly never witnessed the aftermath of a terrorist attack, but I have.
I was angry when I first saw your post, but I'm now very sad that you see fit to post this. It is an absolute disgrace and affront to all who have lost loved ones and who have been affected by terrorism as I have.

want more terrorism?

allow our own government to behave in an unlawful fashion, and hand Al Qaeda propaganda victories by acting like the thing they say our government is - that is Anti-Islamic and depotic.

Complimentary - I understand your anger, and am glad that I didn't see the things that you did. I live in London, my partner works in Kings Cross and they were in a meeting all morning on that day so I couldn't get hold of them. It was a terrible day.

But it makes no difference to the issue of whether or not it is ok to torture people.

'want more terrorism?'

It doesn't matter if you do or don't. Because you're going to get it. Just for being here.

You may not even be British. You may even be Muslim.

It matters not to AlQueda. If you are in teh wrong place at the wrong time, you are fair game to be murdered.

Your human rights mean nothing to Al Queda.

Well as someone who still has nightmares over a terrorist attack that took place more than 20 years ago when I was 18, and witnessed close up, I wish he'd been deported.

Sophable A young muslim girl aged 19 or 20 was also murdered on 7/7 I believe it was on the bus,and I saw a framed photo of her ouside of St. Pancras Parish Church for some weeks. I believe she may have been from Pakistan as the scarf with the colours of Pakistans' flag was also left over the photo, someone had also left Rosary beads over the photo. It was really touching. All the artefacts from around the church I believe have been given to relatives or have been archived and I'm sure will be available for people to see, one day.

I believe you give up 'your human rights' when you decide to murder other people in this way. That is why they should have been deported.

Complimentary - you can't 'give up' your human rights, they are not something that belongs to a person. They are a set of minimum standards for civilised behaviour towards other people. We would be giving up human rights not them.

It has not been possible to prove that they were guilty of terrorist offences. But the evidence available to the tribunal did convince them. This is maybe where the issue is.

Wasn't it because it was intercept evidence, and that can't (yet) be used, although the government is working on making it allowable?

That girl was originally from Bangladesh. She was on her way to work when she was murdered. The bomber was standing next to her. Someone on here recognised her as an employee she'd often work with at the bank and who'd helped her get a loan.

That girl, an only daughter, was someone's world, someone's pride and joy. Her parents couldn't even speak of it, her uncle and brother gave statements to the press.

To them, she was everything.

To her murderer, she was nothing.

complimentary your posts are a prime example of why victims don't determine legislation. of course your experience has left you with huge feelings of rage and therefore you may not be best placed to determine the law in this regard. do you understand that? do you understand that if some victims were to determine the law there would be mob rule? people would be free to hunt each other down in the street for revenge?

I couldn't disagree with the aspects of your posts that pertain to this case more.

Hate and rage solve nothing.

'Hate and rage solve nothing.'

How presumptuous and patronising to assume all victims cannot move past feeling that.

More than a few have even moved to forgiveness and beyond. Ever read 'Dead Man Walking'?

Human experience does not render one incapable of sound judgement, fgs.

There's been a very long debate about using intercept evidence in the courts. I think, from what I've read, that the argument against is that it would compromise the operations of the security services.

Anyway, the main point is these men did not flee persecution in their home country, nor did they make any attempt to claim they were fleeing persecution. They came on student visas - and then broke the law by getting jobs. They were here under false pretences. Then they behaved in a way that is undesirable, at best. We have every right to kick 'em out. If I'm a guest in someone's home, and they object to my presence, they have every right to tell me to leave. It's my tough luck if I don't really want to go back to my own house.

I would prefer suspected criminals to be put on trial. But when that suspected criminal is a foreigner who has no right to remain in the UK, we can choose to throw them out. Just as the French or the Americans could throw me out if they found my presence in their country objectionable.

They may well wish to give up their human rights - but why should we give up ours? Because that's what bending or changing the law to accommodate these extreme cases is. As oojimaflip says - it all hangs together, or it is nothing.

I live in London. I was devastated when the tube bombings took place. Each one of those people killed, injured, traumatised, was a unique life. Each person dead was someone who was irreplaceable, cherished, loved by someone. Everything they were and could have been came to a terrible and irremediable end that day. Each lost human life was and is appalling.

And that is why human rights are so important. Intellectually, I can understand what leads to acts of terrorism, I can even achieve some kind of sympathy, sometimes. But I can't accept it. Because its thinking is to reduce the uniqueness of every human life to a mass and to annihilate the living individual.

I see human rights as standing in opposition to that. It must be extended to all, or it loses what it is.

I despise authoritarianism, and the oppressive regimes that also annihilate individuals, in the name of whatever cause. I do see the encroaching on human rights as steps towards the exact kind of thinking that terrorism demonstrates. And that, I think, is why such encroachments must be resisted.

And i say that as someone who is very aware that the term "human rights" is one riddled with holes, with aporia, with terrible contradictions, and is a work that is not yet complete.

ooojimaflip - I want to completely agree with your post of 18.50.55. I am usually a very pragmatic, fair-minded person who hated hypocrisy, and the twisting of rules to suit a purpose. I love the impartiality and dogged fairness of British justice, I really do. But I can't think with my head on this one. It has to be my heart and my gut. Whether clever lawyers (and public funds) got them off or not, they were up to no good. They are not our friends. They want to take and not give. I'd like to see them off British soil and I don't really give a fuck what happens to them. Sorry, I'm weak and imperfect.

expat READ my post, there is a reason I put SOME in bold.

there were many many victims of 911 who lost close family who campaigned against the attack being used to erode human rights and wage an illegal war.

why do you think i took the trouble to embolden the text like that if not to make that exact point?

hates hypocrisy - soz

'They came on student visas - and then broke the law by getting jobs.'

Point of clarification: people here on Tier4/student visas may work. They may work up to 20 hours/week during term time and full-time during non-term time.

IIRC the issue is that the college course for which they were granted a visa was bogus, a fake college, if you will.

But again, I may be entirely wrong.

Students are indeed often bounced on re-entry to the UK or removed for violating the working restrictions, however.

because the first part of your post, soph, indeed the first sentence, generalises why victims don't determine legislation.

when in fact, some of them do.

sarah's law? megan's law? mothers against drunk drivers?

or, on a non-legislative, but still influential level, national center for missing and exploited children? amber alerts? the murder of rebecca schaefer and anti-stalking legislation in the state of california?