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

One has a right to self defence.

Has Qatada even been convicted of a crime?

In April 1999 he was convicted in Jordan (in his absence) of conspiracy to cause explosions and sentenced to life imprisonment. He applied for asylum here on the grounds he'd been tortured by the Jordanians and got it in 1994.

In 2000 in Jordan he was again convictyed, again in his absence, of conspiracy and got another 15 year sentence.

He is likely to be re-tried for these alleged offences if deported and is keen to avoid facing the charges.

In 2005 he was served with a notice of intention to deport him to Jordan on the ground that he was a threat to national security. Whilst he challenged the finding, he did NOT advance any positive case that he was NOT a threat to national security. So, not even he thinks he isn't.

In dismissing his appeal against deportation, the SIAc found that he:
"… [ihas given advice to many terrorist groups and individuals, whether formally a spiritual adviser to them or not. His reach and the depth of his influence in that respect is formidable, even incalculable. It is not a coincidence that his views were sought by them. He provides a religious justification for the acts of violence and terror which they wish to perpetrate; his views legitimised violent attacks on civilians, terrorist group attacks more generally, and suicide bombings. He may have spoken against some grosser excesses, but that does not go very far. Even if his views are sometimes couched in careful language, their import is clear to those who take notice of what he says and know how to interpret it. His views, scholarly in any conventional sense or not, are important to extremists seeking to justify violence.[/i"

So the reason for deportation isn't because he has comitted any offence, but because of the above. He supports and encourages blowing people up, and his word is held in high regard by those who may do such things. The simplistic view that he "has not been convicted of any offence" is utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

The current decision rests on whether the Jordanians would use against him evidence obtained by torture. Jordanian law does not permit evidence found to have been obtained involuntarily to be admitted, but it does require the defendant to prove that the statements given to the Prosecutor, which are most likely to be at issue in his case, have been obtained in that way.

Our courts seemingly sensibly held that the fact that under Jordanian law, statements to a Prosecutor which might have been obtained by prior duress are not excluded, because they have not been shown to have been so obtained, does not make the trial unfair. To uphold Qatada's objections is to hold that the Jordanians would not uphold their own laws in relation to this. The point is, if Qatada had evidence that any of the evidence against him HAD been obtained by torture, then under Jordanian law, it would be inadmissible.

So as matters stand and flying in the face of the sensible ruling on this point of our courts, the general position seems to be that he can't be deported because if he was, and IF he was re-tried for these offences, evidence against him (which by definition neither he nor anyone can yet know what it would be) would have been obtained by torture, AND that if he could provide evidence that such hypothetical evidence had been obtained by torture, the Jordanians would not uphold their own legal system but would admit it anyway.

This seems to me to be barking mad. We seem to have a whole bunch of experts on the forum intimately familiar with how Jordan runs its legal system, but surely we can't make decisions on the basis that whatever they say, and even without knowing what case may be brought, much less what evidence the Jordanians may adduce, they are lying, because whatever it is, it WILL have been obtained by torture, and that if the defendant has evidence of this, such evidence WILL be rejected.

The decision thus seems to condemn the entire Jordanian justice system as institutionally bound to flout its own laws and procedures and convicts it of proposing to adduce evidence obtained by torture without even knowing what that evidence is, whilst simultaneously assuming that if there was any evidence of obtaining such evidence by torture, the Jordanians would routinely flout more laws and just reject this.

Do we not have laws that cover the encouragement etc of terrorism?

Apart from
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011
Counter-Terrorism Act 2008
Terrorism Act 2006
Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 2005
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998
... not many

But if He was tried for one of these then found guilty, do a couple of years and out. Would that make it impossible to keep Him in Belmarsh? Genuine question.

It wasn't a view, simplistic or otherwise, it was a question. I genuinely don't know a great deal about the individual or the case (though I know more having read your post). And I wasn't implying that he shouldn't be deported, even if he hadn't been convicted of an offence, merely questioning one poster's desire for him to be executed.



That thought had occurred to me also. If we can't deport him for inciting terrorism, can't we at least imprison him? The police/security services are presumably in possession of evidence relating to his alleged activities in order for the deportation hearing to have gone ahead.

Its a big dilemma, on the one hand we want to show how much more civilised we are than other nations and we have done this by allowing nutters who want to kill us, live here and on the other we want to protect our own people from these nutters. I, for one don't think its worth it, let this guy be deported, he has brought it on himself anyway. I would like to be a fly on the wall when one of the exponents of these policies is explaining to some grieving parents of a child who has been blown to smithereens by one of the aforementioned nutters as to why it was worth the sacrifice of their loved one to ensure the human rights of these nutters has been protected. Stiff upper lip, it makes us better.

He's in the nick, as far as I'm aware – Long Lartin, I think someone mentioned earlier, to correct the view that it was Belmarsh.

I'm not aware that he's getting out of there anytime soon. But then I haven't been following the case in great detail.



You're right about the dilemma bit , but I do think it's not so much about showing other countries how much better than them we are, but what we are ourselves and what we want to be.

This is a particular test of that, because – and I don't see anyone disputing such an opinion – he's a pretty despicable individual, and indeed, a dangerous one.

Somewhere along the line, there will be a push to free him by some human rights lobby. No matter how despicable he is, if he cannot be tried here I doubt we can keep him locked up for life. The best way to me is get an agreement with Jordan not to abuse his rights and get shut of him.

We've already got that. What the problem is, is that when they put him on trial again, the evidence they will use against him will have come from abusing the rights of other (i.e. torturing them).

He is a despicable individual, but I wonder if keeping him in a maximum security nick as long as we can would be better than deporting him anyway, at least if we have him under control he can't foment discontent and terrorist actions by others.

I haven't, but I thought I'd read somewhere that he was under a form of house arrest under terror legislation, but without actually having been convicted.

Having looked into it further, it seems that he's in detention, but house arrest is the likely outcome if and when he has to be released from detention:

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16594683Here.[/url

you are Quite correct Mintball he is in Long Lartin.