Apart from the fact that if no appeal is lodged then he'll have to be released immediately, that's all true.

So, you have no idea what you were taking about. Fair enough!

It's a shame Richard O’Dwyer didn't have his lawyer.

[urlhttp://newsthump.com/2012/01/17/radical-clerics-deportation-ruled-out-on-grounds-that-he-didnt-infringe-us-copyright-laws/[/url

Great minds think alike.

why dont we just either

kill him
or
deport him

then tell the world we ve released him.
job done.


its amazing how peaceful brits can be extradited but not murdering terrorist scum. yet again we jump when the yank/euro bassstrds tell us.

Cornish complains about something Churchill signed us up to.

minty , i doubt he had that in mind TBH.
in this day and age ADOLF would be allowed to stay in the uk rather than face extradition to israel for example.
personally i dont think thats right. obviously you do.

No. I do think that you've just posted a piece of hyperbolic nonsense, though, that OU not be able to find a single, solitary shred of evidence for

And, in the meantime, suggested tha you consider torture to be acceptable.

I'm still baffled how a young man breaking no UK law who has never been to USA and a guy with mental health issues CAN be deported yet someone who would gladly kill and incite to kill based purely on your belief system can stay.

Stuff human rights legislation, we have an agreement with Jordan so just sod the EU and send him to Jordan, what are the EU lot going to do if we do send him? hate us more than they already do.

It's not the EU!

As has been explained in this very thread.

i was being simplistic/lazy they are a bunch of EU judges.

It's not an EU organisation or body. The judges are not appointed by the EU. The fact that the judges come from Europe is not the same. And one of the judges was British. Europe is not a synonym for the EU.

Either we say that torture is bad – or we say it's okay. If we do the former, and we sign up to things involving that, then we stick with them. Not just when it's nice and easy – but when it's difficult too, as in this case, when I suspect that most people would like to get shot of a rather nasty piece of work. But nobody ever claimed that ethics and stuff like that was supposed to be easy or convenient.

I was using EU as a lazy catchall.

any who

We have assurances that he won't be tortured, ok other people have been but he is not these other people, i'm against torture, i'm sure i'd admit to being the child of Elton John and wearing my sisters underwear under torture. But at the end of the day he won't be tortured so i'm happy with that, get rid.

The Americans have the death penalty yet they still see fit to send British nationals to trial over there, which is an absolute disgrace.

What he is alleged to have done would be a crime under UK law.

I read that it wasn't but i'm happy to stand corrected.

Don't we, as a country, aspire to be better than countries that, say, consider torture acceptable?

If we do, we can't be selective about it.

Some years ago, the former Conservative Speaker, Lord Hailsham, wrote a book, [iThe Dilemma of Democracy[/i. In it, he tried to consider how you deal, in a democracy, with people who aim to end that democracy.

Yes: it is a dilemma. But if you resort to the very things that you purport to be against, then what are you defending?

These are big, difficult, philosophical questions.

I could weep sometimes that we seem to have such a poor level of public discourse – of philosophical debate, indeed – that so many people seem to think that such questions are so simple.

Take capital punishment.

If the removal of someone's life, unwillingly, by another is bad, then how it can it be good, if the person doing it is different?

Why does something unacceptable done by an individual become acceptable if done by and in the name of the state?

And the point in this case was that he would be tried using evidence that was gained by torture.



I would suggest that the US is not an example that we want to hold up and try to imitate, for vast numbers of reasons. But my understanding is that the agreement that we have with the US is that, if we do extradite someone, they will not be subject to the death penalty.

As I touched on above, the question is not whether Qatada himself would be tortured, but that he could only be tried on the basis of 'evidence' gained by torture. That's what they have on him that they could/would use in a trial – 'evidence' gained by torture.

So what's the difference between the US and their death penalty and Iran/Saudi/Jordan/China etc etc?

The only difference is they get to vote for who pulls the trigger.

The part i'm happy with is the part in which one government signs an agreement saying send him over and we won't torture him. King Abdullah seems to be one of slightly more workable leaders of the Middle East, can't we just accept this and move on?

If we're on the subject of the Yanks and 'justice', try [url=http://www.economist.com/node/21542772?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fmt%2Fanotheroneinthenetthis[/url.

They are absolute nutters.

But what I've tried to explain is that the case was not based on a promise not to torture Qatada – but on the reason that the claim to for him to be extradited is itself based on torture.

Either torture is bad and we're against it, or it's not and we're not.

We are against it, but what's done is done and this case should be taken on its own, not based on the fact someone else was tortured, i read the BBC link and i know where you are coming from, i do, but to me its simply about this one man who is not a British national who hates the West being sent back under assurances he'll be fine on the torture stakes, to me it's just that black and white.

iirc, British courts will refuse to extradite anyone to the US of they face the feath penalty (fwiw)

The judges accepted that HE would not be tortured, they were concerned that the evidence against him may have been obtained through torture.

So how do you stand on war - You appear to be against killing in the name of the state so if someone invaded the UK would you simply take the higher moral ground and let them take over and save the blood shed?

I am against the death penalty in 99% of cases - I would execute the likes of Qatada