how did britain become the worlds safe-haven for war criminals?

yesterday, a 27 year old Sudanese war criminal was given the right to stay in britain because deporting him back to sudan would be a breach of his human rights.

the war criminal, who cannot be named, was part of the Janjaweed militia who have been responsible for over 300,000 deaths in sudan and he was personally involved in the looting and burning of 30 villages.

he told newsnight during an interview: "You will not distinguish between children, the elderly or women. You just shoot and kill everybody."

he also said that he came to britain because he heard it was ''a good place to claim asylum''.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9593234/Sudanese-war-criminal-wins-right-to-remain-in-Britain.html

this story seems bad enough but it is not a one off. last year it emerged that britain was home to almost 400 war criminals who have decided that this is the safest place for them.

clearly, the word has spread to the worlds war criminals that britain will take them in and give them free food, shelter and healthcare.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/feb/04/britain-home-to-400-war-criminals

the question is, how and when did britain become a safe haven for war criminals and terrorists? how can britain justify its involvement in this so called 'war on terror' when it itself harbours so many terrorists?

i thought nations who harboured terrorists and war criminals got invaded by the united states?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1

squishy123

Following your logic, America should "invade" itself?

EDIT: For those that have negged, I don't care about "rep" but could you at least reply?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 2

pol pot noodles

That's the Human Rights Act for you.
Frankly if we can't deport them, we should simply prosecute them ourselves, either modify the War Crimes Act 1991 to allow it, or try using the Terrorism Act 2000.

Reply 3

PopaPork

The man will not be able to work, study or claim benefits in Britain, but has the right to remain indefinitely.

I’m sure the muslim community will feed and home him

However it would be nice for a change for the muslim community to completely disown him and do it in a very vocal manor

When he realises no one wants him or will home and feed him he’ll leave soon enough

Peace

Reply 4

zaliack

Original post by pol pot noodles

If it is based on the human rights act, then surely they would have a better time claiming ayslum in France/Spain/Russia, and any other signatory to the ECHR? I think there is more to it than this, but I'm not in a position to comment on this properly.

Human Rights Act.

Original post by zaliack

Well from what I understand, the Human Rights Act actually goes beyond the scope of the ECHR in many respects, giving extra weight to 'rights' beyond what's in the ECHR.

Reply 7

prog2djent

Our immigration policy is a farce, we will happily let in criminals, extremists, warlords and terrorists and defend their right to stay but when it comes to letting in people who genuinely need asylum we send the elsewhere, maybe because the former are used to the lingo and persuasion.

Reply 8

Skip_Snip

What I wonder on a similar note is why Abu Hamza was allowed to stay for so long and at so much expense, while a man who was simply accused of rape, who also happened to be the founder of WikiLeaks was gonna possibly have the embassy invaded ...

Reply 9

The_Internet

Original post by Skip_Snip

Not to mention the hypocrisy. I remember politicians having a cry (cry probably isn't the best word) about how civilians managed to damage or destroy British embassies somewhere in the ME, and then Britain wanted to send the army in to the Ecuadorian embassy. Theirs a huge difference between civilians damaging a building and a country actually wanting to send an army to break in

Reply 10

x_Natalie_x

Original post by lulubel

he also said that he came to britain because he heard it was ''a good place to claim asylum''.

There is your answer. We are seen as a soft touch. Soon he will be earning £25,000 a year in benefits and we will be funding his 6-bedroom council home in West London. Not his fault our politicians betrayed us in this way.