Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Abu Qatada
last reply
292 replies
6.7k views
0 watchers
0 likes
Quote by GnV
So YOU have an English passport then star when everyone else has a European Union one issued in the United Kingdom
No I think it states ' British ' on it, but 'I' that is 'ME' does not class myself as that. Never have and never will. I am sure the Scots whilst having the same on their passports, would never class themselves as British either. I would love anyone person who has a bit of bottle to go into bonny Scotland and tell them they are British. Would you survive the onslaught do you think GnV?
Quote by GnV
There is a place called England for sure, but the British live there...
No GnV a lot of people live there that class themselves as English, and a lot of people who came here on lorries etc who say they are now British. A world of difference between the two :thumbup:
Quote by Ben_Minx
I was just wondering, back in the early sixties, would you have sent Nelson Mandela back?
Times change. If Nelson Mandela acted in the same way he did back then when attached to the ANC, in today's world he would have been labelled a terrorist, so in 2012 we would be sending him back if he was here.
It was only in 2008 that the USA removed Nelson Mandela and South African leaders from the US terror watch list.
Interesting reading.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I was just wondering, back in the early sixties, would you have sent Nelson Mandela back?
Nelson Mandela did not visit Britain until 1996, he was not accused of any crimes against Britain did not confess to inciting his peers to attack and kill British soldiers or to go to war against Britain - where is the comparison for me to make the descision you request ?
Quote by Ben_Minx
He was a terrorist convicted in his home country.
I just wondered if you or others could see any parallels.
Absolutely none, not in this instance though I am sure that research would unearth many valid examples of people who have come to reside in this Country, broke our laws, incited people against us or simply had to have our courts decide if they should be extradited or not.
The man you quote was imprisoned by the then Government of his Country for what they considered criminal or terrorist actions within his Country, they were not governed by another Government such as the EU or treaties, World Opinion was largely against thier actions and later the accusation of being a terrorist was dropped and he was labeled a freedom fighter. There was no question raised about throwing him out of the Country where he was born nor was there any applications for extradition made against him.
The situation of Abu Qatada is totally different, history may call him a terrorist or a freedom fighter but we cannot judge criminals by what the future might consider a crime or not, we cannot refuse to charge a person for having sex with a 15 year old in the UK because it is legal in other countries or because it we may in the future lower the age of consent just as you would not expect to be charged with that offence if you had sex with a 17 year old just because in the USA the age of consent is 18.
The UK is still trying to catch, put to trial and punish the perpetrators of the Inniskillen massacre on Rememberance Sunday all those years ago as has been highlighted in the news recently, should that idea be scrapped on the grounds that the IRA may one day be seen as freedom fighters rather than terrorists ?
If you do want some form of precedence, take the case of General Pinochet, who came to this Country from Chile and was arrested in London, applications were made by Spain to have him extradited there for crimes of genocide and torture, Margaret Thatcher campaigned to refuse the extradition on the grounds that the former chilean leader had given this Country a lot of assistance over the years.
After battles in the Lords who said extradite him and the Home Secretary supporting his release back to Chile, time spent in hospital and in a London Mental Institution he was finally released back to Chile and the extradition to Spain rejected.
Similar but not the same circumstances, he did not break UK law whilst here, approved the aid given to Britain by Chile during the Falklands War, did not incite people to harm British subjects anywhere in the world but DID have questions to answer about the charges of Murder, Genocide and Torture brought against him by the governments of Spain and Switzerland, but we chose to let him go without trial despite having an extradition treaty with Spain in place and no doubt believing that he would be given a fair trial in Switzerland.
Well first that is only something the Crown Prosecution Service to answer, he is by his own actions and admissions guilty of inciting criminal activity against the population of the UK (including non extremist muslims and members of the armed forces) he is a suspected terrorist activist.
But the whole thread is not about his alledged crimes in the UK they are just an interesting sideline, the thread is about wether or not we should extradite him to the Country of his Birth ie Jordan to face charges there.
But the whole thread is not about his alledged crimes in the UK they are just an interesting sideline, the thread is about wether or not we should extradite him to the Country of his Birth ie Jordan to face charges there.
Quote by Ben_Minx
I am gad you agree that the "other" stuff doesn't matter and therefore the only question that matters is:
Should we extradite people to face trial in regimes where people are tortured to provide evidence?
And the answer to that question is NO.
We have had assurances from Jordan that he will not be tortured and will be given a fair trial, the eyes of the world will be invited to watch the trial and monitor his treatment, I believe that these assurances should be respected when given by one of our allies and Jordan has given it's pledge of alliegence to the UK.
Would you support the extradition of people to Britain or the USA, Nations that have also been accused of torture very recently and it's abuse, torture and murder of prisoners held in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Quote by Robert400andKay
... Lithuania is quite North as is Poland and other member states, Britain would be more South East and without checking the list of European states probably the most Southerly state of the EU.....
If you look Vilnius is on about the same latitude as Hull
.Concede that one but won't concede that Sweden and Finland are less North than the United Kingdom
Quote by Ben_Minx
I thought the delay was because the reassurances about torture were inadequate.
The USA has a long standing tradition of human rights abuse and I would expect the process to take this into account on a case by case basis.
so has the United Kingdom, Jordan has been accused of torture to obtain confessions but has also carried out many trials without torture, so by you own account this should also be looked at case by case and in view of the invite to the world to monitor his treatment and trial I personally believe they should be given the chance to try him.
Sexpert
Quote by MidsCouple24
... Lithuania is quite North as is Poland and other member states, Britain would be more South East and without checking the list of European states probably the most Southerly state of the EU.....
If you look Vilnius is on about the same latitude as Hull
.Concede that one but won't concede that Sweden and Finland are less North than the United Kingdom
Also the UK, or as it is sometimes known 'England and the collection of countries that were vanquished by England', is more to the West of Europe. Germany and Poland both have bits that are further south than the Lizard point.
I think the remaining argument about Abu Qatada is that he might now be tried based on evidence which had been obtained by torture. It appears that he is now planning to sue the UK for 10 Million.
Sex God
Quote by Ben_Minx
I am gad you agree that the "other" stuff doesn't matter and therefore the only question that matters is:
Should we extradite people to face trial in regimes where people are tortured to provide evidence?
And the answer to that question is NO.
and exactly who are WE to question the laws of others and tell me who says our way is correct
its only correct because that's what we are conditioned to believe :huh:
when in Rome and all that
as a foot note in the uk we can be tried and convicted in our absence (double :huh
Quote by Lizaleanrob
I am gad you agree that the "other" stuff doesn't matter and therefore the only question that matters is:
Should we extradite people to face trial in regimes where people are tortured to provide evidence?
And the answer to that question is NO.
and exactly who are WE to question the laws of others and tell me who says our way is correct
its only correct because that's what we are conditioned to believe :huh:
when in Rome and all that
as a foot note in the uk we can be tried and convicted in our absence (double :huh
Agree Rob.
Also I am a bit confused here and hope that somebody a bit cleverer than me can answer what seems a rather simple question.
In recent cases we have had trouble kicking out Hamza and Abu Qatada because the ECHR has decided and ordered the UK to comply with it's rulings which it seems we have. In fact we have bent over backwards to meet the ECHR's directives on these matters. So much so that Abu Qatada is walking our streets, and Hamza took almost eight years of legal wrangling before we could extradite him but.........
This Friday is the UK's cut off point to comply with the ECHR's directives to give prisoners the vote. Now David Cameron has already stated this is not going to happen whilst he is PM, and it looks like the MP's who will be voting AGAIN on this will reject the ECHR's ruling.
So Cameron it seems is going to go head to head with the ECHR on the voting issue, and yet did not on the other issues of Hamza and Abu Qatada, WHY ??? Surely we cannot pick what we do not like and what we comply with under the ECHR's decisions can we? Well it seems we can. I do not know about others here but I would much rather Cameron stood his ground on Hamza and Abu Qatada and defied the ECHR, and agreed with the ECHR's and gave prisoners the vote. He decides to stand firm on an issue that most do not give a monkeys about, and yet something that almost everyone in this country finds sickening with the removal of terrorists he caves into.:wanker:
How can we defy them on one issue of no fecking importance, and yet we have a convictedJordanian terrorist walking our streets laughing at us. Also living in a 800 thousand pound house with benefits as well. Am I missing something here? It is about time Cameron grew some big balls where Muslim terrorists and extremists are concerned. I thought national security was the number one thing a Governemnt put before all others ( well except expense sheets of course ).
Am I missing a point here ?
Sometimes the UK brings things on itself.
Who bets there are a street load of compensation lawyers ready to do battle for him.
He is a convicted terrorist waiting to be jailed in Jordan for his crimes. We do not know how they came to that conclusion but it is not our concern. What I think we can all agree on is that this man is dangerous, has indeed been involved with terrorism and needs to face the Jordanian authorities to start his jail term.( well it seems not everyone )
Instead after everything this country has done for him, like allowing him to stay in the UK when found to have a fake passport so entered the UK illegally. Allowed him help and housing and help for him and his family, and yet plots against us.
I watched Question time last Thursday evening and the question was asked as to why this man has never been convicted of anything here. The answers were truly one of ineptitude and incompetence so typical nowadays of the British legal system where it protects the guilty and damns the innocent.
Who wants to bet that this man will win his case and live in luxury forever courtesy of the British taxpayer. No wonder this guy is constantly smirking to himself. You really could not make it up courtesy of the British incompetent Government headed by that useless Ms May.
Who bets there are a street load of compensation lawyers ready to do battle for him.
He is a convicted terrorist waiting to be jailed in Jordan for his crimes. We do not know how they came to that conclusion but it is not our concern. What I think we can all agree on is that this man is dangerous, has indeed been involved with terrorism and needs to face the Jordanian authorities to start his jail term.( well it seems not everyone )
Instead after everything this country has done for him, like allowing him to stay in the UK when found to have a fake passport so entered the UK illegally. Allowed him help and housing and help for him and his family, and yet plots against us.
I watched Question time last Thursday evening and the question was asked as to why this man has never been convicted of anything here. The answers were truly one of ineptitude and incompetence so typical nowadays of the British legal system where it protects the guilty and damns the innocent.
Who wants to bet that this man will win his case and live in luxury forever courtesy of the British taxpayer. No wonder this guy is constantly smirking to himself. You really could not make it up courtesy of the British incompetent Government headed by that useless Ms May.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
I am gad you agree that the "other" stuff doesn't matter and therefore the only question that matters is:
Should we extradite people to face trial in regimes where people are tortured to provide evidence?
And the answer to that question is NO.
and exactly who are WE to question the laws of others and tell me who says our way is correct
its only correct because that's what we are conditioned to believe :huh:
when in Rome and all that
as a foot note in the uk we can be tried and convicted in our absence (double :huh
I believe most of our current wars are based on questioning the laws and practices of others.
In this instance we have a responsibility more than a right because he is here.
I dont know about "conditioned", more custom and practice according to both the European and UN treaties.
I don't know many wars that have been fought over an objection to other peoples laws, the only one that springs to mind is the Zulu Wars which historians say was an excuse for Britain to march into the Zulu lands of the Transvaal and Natal Provinces and take control of said area, they told King Cetshawayo that he had to stop executing his own people or face the consequences but that was just the excuse for the invasion.
Most wars are fought on the grounds of "we want what you have" some on religious grounds or using religion as an either an excuse for war or as a label for the enemy. Some are fought to protect what someone owns either rightfully or wrongfully, (Falklands a typical example of "want what you have" and "protect what you say is yours" I saw no evidence of Argentina or the United Kingdom objecting to each others laws, nor did I see that in the Gulf Wars or even in Afghanistan where shouts were made about the Taliban rules but the Taliban were not the elected government of the place and the reason given by the alliance was "to stop terrorist activities".
In Bosnia and the area it was ethnic cleansing, religion was part of the identification process but again it was all down to people wanting to control and own what others had again no evidence of laws being objected to since they all had the same laws.
I support kicking him out (extraditing him) because I believe the Home Office, Courts, Parliament has a greater responsibility to the safety of the law abiding inhabitants of the United Kingdom than it has to this individual, 2 of those responsible for the London Bombings are known to have regularly visited him to listen to his preachings of hate and attacks on the UK and it's citizens and visitors.
One mans rights, having done what we can to secure a fair treatment for him do not outweigh the rights of people here to live more safely. Common sense must prevail, we have broken the rules of every treaty, affiliation, membership in the past including EU regulations, UN rules, NATO rules and the Geneva Convention so standing on our morals in this case is a bit of a waste of time.
Most wars are fought on the grounds of "we want what you have" some on religious grounds or using religion as an either an excuse for war or as a label for the enemy. Some are fought to protect what someone owns either rightfully or wrongfully, (Falklands a typical example of "want what you have" and "protect what you say is yours" I saw no evidence of Argentina or the United Kingdom objecting to each others laws, nor did I see that in the Gulf Wars or even in Afghanistan where shouts were made about the Taliban rules but the Taliban were not the elected government of the place and the reason given by the alliance was "to stop terrorist activities".
In Bosnia and the area it was ethnic cleansing, religion was part of the identification process but again it was all down to people wanting to control and own what others had again no evidence of laws being objected to since they all had the same laws.
I support kicking him out (extraditing him) because I believe the Home Office, Courts, Parliament has a greater responsibility to the safety of the law abiding inhabitants of the United Kingdom than it has to this individual, 2 of those responsible for the London Bombings are known to have regularly visited him to listen to his preachings of hate and attacks on the UK and it's citizens and visitors.
One mans rights, having done what we can to secure a fair treatment for him do not outweigh the rights of people here to live more safely. Common sense must prevail, we have broken the rules of every treaty, affiliation, membership in the past including EU regulations, UN rules, NATO rules and the Geneva Convention so standing on our morals in this case is a bit of a waste of time.
Sex God
There you go again. One man's rights are of greater or lesser value than another's. And who is to decide on which of us enjoy these rights that so arbitrarily trump another's? Govt at will, at their whim? You mentioned Bosnia. Can you not see how what you're advocating is the first step on the slippery slope that leads to the ethnic cleansing you describe, or worse, the gas chamber. Thank fuck Mids for the courts cos the thought that men who think like you might have the power you seem to think desirable fills me with dread. It's why the UK did all in its power to export its legal system to a broken Europe in the 1950s with treaties like the EHCR in the first bloody place.
So Adolf Hitler was right to use the gas chambers you mention as what he did was within the laws his government made, that is simple enough to understand, He as Chancellor of Germany, made many laws that allowed the murder of jews, the infirm, the insane, the old, the gypsies.
Everything he did to them was within the laws he made so we were wrong to stop him and accuse him of those crimes, we were wrong to execute the people we did for committing those crimes because they only acted within the laws of thier government.
Everything he did to them was within the laws he made so we were wrong to stop him and accuse him of those crimes, we were wrong to execute the people we did for committing those crimes because they only acted within the laws of thier government.
Quote by MidsCouple24
So Adolf Hitler was right to use the gas chambers you mention as what he did was within the laws his government made, that is simple enough to understand, He as Chancellor of Germany, made many laws that allowed the murder of jews, the infirm, the insane, the old, the gypsies.
No Mids it matters not about the laws that Hitler Germany made, as the war trials in The Nuremberg Trials bare testament to that. Many Germans were executed under the jurisdiction of the findings of those courts. So while they thought they could murder at will under Hitlers orders, they paid the ultimate price once the war was over as all war criminals at some point do.
Quote by MidsCouple24
Everything he did to them was within the laws he made so we were wrong to stop him and accuse him of those crimes, we were wrong to execute the people we did for committing those crimes because they only acted within the laws of thier government.
Mids calm down again. :bounce: Nazi Germany were found guilty under international law, which I think over rides ones own laws on crimes such as murder and incitement to murder.
Quote by GnV
Mids calm down again. Nazi Germany were found guilty under international law, which I think over rides ones own laws on crimes such as murder and incitement to murder.
And other human rights issues it seems, such as extradition.....
Yes GnV a lot of things boil down to this twerp.
Sex God
so is abu hamza not going to be tortured in the good old US of A :huh:
and did we not turn over and extradite a couple of citizens for the Guantanamo Bay experiment
I'm just trying to see why this guy is different
and did we not turn over and extradite a couple of citizens for the Guantanamo Bay experiment
I'm just trying to see why this guy is different
Yes we did extradite some of my neighbours (when I lived in Tividale West Midlands) to Guantanamo Bay, they were later found not guilty (personally doubt that result) and they are currently sueing the UK government for the torture they endured whilst in captivity, they were incarcerated and held without trial, something which the UK is supposed to find unacceptable and one of the main reasons we closed the H blocks in NI.
We had no problem extraditing them despite the evidence being purely circumstancial, (they were found in Afghanistan having left the UK to go to Pakistan on holiday).
I was asked to compare the case of Nelson Mandella to that of Abu, who will give me the reasons why this was acceptable since this is a much similar case and does involve extradition from the UK to a place where torture was known to be taking place. US Forces had already been charged with commiting atrocities at that time.
Hitler was wrong ? the rest of the world decided yet people keep quoting in this thread "what right do we have to decide which laws are right and wrong in another Country" you may be able to say he was wrong with what he did to Polish jews but the jews in Germany did come under German law, I think he was wrong but according to some here that doesn't matter because it is up to each nation to decide what is right and what is wrong or it is up to whatever treaties they sign up to.
Most of the charges against the Nazis were brought under the Geneva Convention, yet this country has broken those laws during WWII and recently.
You can't have it both ways but supporters of keeping Abu here seem to want it everyway including his favourite way of up our asses.
We had no problem extraditing them despite the evidence being purely circumstancial, (they were found in Afghanistan having left the UK to go to Pakistan on holiday).
I was asked to compare the case of Nelson Mandella to that of Abu, who will give me the reasons why this was acceptable since this is a much similar case and does involve extradition from the UK to a place where torture was known to be taking place. US Forces had already been charged with commiting atrocities at that time.
Hitler was wrong ? the rest of the world decided yet people keep quoting in this thread "what right do we have to decide which laws are right and wrong in another Country" you may be able to say he was wrong with what he did to Polish jews but the jews in Germany did come under German law, I think he was wrong but according to some here that doesn't matter because it is up to each nation to decide what is right and what is wrong or it is up to whatever treaties they sign up to.
Most of the charges against the Nazis were brought under the Geneva Convention, yet this country has broken those laws during WWII and recently.
You can't have it both ways but supporters of keeping Abu here seem to want it everyway including his favourite way of up our asses.
Sex God
Abu Qatada is a dangerous man.I got to admit that I think he's got a f*cking cool name!
Quote by neilinleeds
There you go again. One man's rights are of greater or lesser value than another's. And who is to decide on which of us enjoy these rights that so arbitrarily trump another's? Govt at will, at their whim? You mentioned Bosnia. Can you not see how what you're advocating is the first step on the slippery slope that leads to the ethnic cleansing you describe, or worse, the gas chamber. Thank fuck Mids for the courts cos the thought that men who think like you might have the power you seem to think desirable fills me with dread. It's why the UK did all in its power to export its legal system to a broken Europe in the 1950s with treaties like the EHCR in the first bloody place.
Not quite, but rather, one mans rights against the rights of the law abiding people here in the United Kingdom, whatever their status ie residents, tourists, muslims, christians, jews, black or white.
I don't see how my supporting the welfare of law abiding muslims whilst advocating the removal of one non law abiding muslim could be regarded as ethnic cleansing.
But you say in this post "and who is to decide which of us enjoy these rights so arbitrarily trum another's govt at will whilst in the same post advocating the rightousness of the "UK using it's power to to export it's legal system to a broken europe". your arguments are flawed by your own views.
Sex God
Quote by Lost
Abu Qatada is a dangerous man.I got to admit that I think he's got a f*cking cool name!
sounds like a fishing rod (need to be a fisherman to understand )
Sex God
Quote by MidsCouple24
Yes we did extradite some of my neighbours (when I lived in Tividale West Midlands) to Guantanamo Bay, they were later found not guilty (personally doubt that result) and they are currently sueing the UK government for the torture they endured whilst in captivity, they were incarcerated and held without trial, something which the UK is supposed to find unacceptable and one of the main reasons we closed the H blocks in NI.
We had no problem extraditing them despite the evidence being purely circumstancial, (they were found in Afghanistan having left the UK to go to Pakistan on holiday).
i think its called double standards mids
