ChatterBank1 min ago
So Is Qatada To Go Home?
50 Answers
We've signed a treaty with Jordan.....apparently.
Have we really changed the rules of the game?
Why don't we put him on a plane and be done with it? What would the ramifications be except putting two fingers up to the ECHR?
Have we really changed the rules of the game?
Why don't we put him on a plane and be done with it? What would the ramifications be except putting two fingers up to the ECHR?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DTCwordfan. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://
possibly, crafty....New Judge around?
possibly, crafty....New Judge around?
Qatada should have been thrown out back in 1995, when he issued a Fatwa justified the killing of anyone in Algeria, including women and children who converted from Islam, and this is from a dangerous extremist who claimed asylum on the grounds of religious persecution!. In 1997, Abu Qatada is alleged to have called on Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers. Again in 1999, he effectively issued a fatwa authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children", and all the other vile nonsense he influences. A convicted international terrorist and our own domestic laws can't get rid of him.
There are two sorts of people here
Those that oly care about human rights that affect them, their friends and famillies
And those that care about them for everybody because of what happens when you start picking out one group of people and say 'you don't have the same rights as other people'
If you think that you're a member of a third group that doesn't care about them at all - that's probably because you've never been deprived of them
Those that oly care about human rights that affect them, their friends and famillies
And those that care about them for everybody because of what happens when you start picking out one group of people and say 'you don't have the same rights as other people'
If you think that you're a member of a third group that doesn't care about them at all - that's probably because you've never been deprived of them
For a man of the Law NJ you seem awfully keen to ignore the general principles of it and start making 'special cases'.
As I recall the judges acknowledged that sucessive home secretaries thought this man was dangerous but pointed out that was not a legal consideration.
Or would you like the UK Home Secretary to be given arbitary power unregulated by law?
As I recall the judges acknowledged that sucessive home secretaries thought this man was dangerous but pointed out that was not a legal consideration.
Or would you like the UK Home Secretary to be given arbitary power unregulated by law?
No. Well not soon anyway.
This whole thing about a treaty is a red herring. It has come much too late. News of it is really just designed for May to save face. It is a meaningless piece of news.
It is rather like being fined for not having a TV licence, then going out and buying one and then trying to get your conviction squash because you now have the bit of paper. That is exactly what has happened here. The Government needed the treaty with Jordan BEFORE they went yo court, not after.
This whole thing about a treaty is a red herring. It has come much too late. News of it is really just designed for May to save face. It is a meaningless piece of news.
It is rather like being fined for not having a TV licence, then going out and buying one and then trying to get your conviction squash because you now have the bit of paper. That is exactly what has happened here. The Government needed the treaty with Jordan BEFORE they went yo court, not after.
The issue is whether his Human Rights may not be respected if he is sent to Jordan for trial. The main thrust of that issue is that he may be tried using evidence gathereed by torture. It seems the UK government has done everything possible to ensure that will not be the case. The latest treaty does little to add to the measures that have already been taken.
So no, jake, I don't think that Qatada is a "special case" and nor do I wish politicians to acquire arbitary judicial powers. What I'd like is for the law to be applied sensibly and for judges to provide sensible outcomes to serious problems. There is no earthly reason why this man should remain in the UK and if judges are interpreting the law in a way that means he can then the law needs amending - by politicians.
So no, jake, I don't think that Qatada is a "special case" and nor do I wish politicians to acquire arbitary judicial powers. What I'd like is for the law to be applied sensibly and for judges to provide sensible outcomes to serious problems. There is no earthly reason why this man should remain in the UK and if judges are interpreting the law in a way that means he can then the law needs amending - by politicians.
