Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Abu Qatada may be a horrible person he may he giving all muslims a bad name, he may be the worst person on the little rock that we all live on, but I can't believe that people want to break the international treaties we have signed, find a loophole in the laws that we have helped to establish internationally just for one person.

    A person who has not been charged of anything in Britain, a person the evidence against whom in Jordan has by many peoples reckoning been obtained via torture( which you know kind of puts the legitimacy of the evidence into doubt never mind the whole torture issue), a person who does not really want to live here but does not want to go to Jordan to face a sham of a trial and I love how we can doubt claims of people when it suits us ( Iraq and WMDs come to mind) but then believe every word they say when we just want to get rid of an annoying problem such as international law

    do you really believe the Jordanian government when it says it won't use the evidence even though it has very little other evidence, a person who we must PRESUME INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, a person who is being used by the Daily mail among others as a scapegoat for their anti benefits agenda ( I love how exaggerated the benefit claims are then people are like why doesn't he get a job, yes it would be such a fun application process wouldn't it, a person who the UK government is endlessly wasting tax payer money on out of the same pot that is paying for the "mansions" of Abu Qatada just to satisfy their ego show they are fighting "terrorism" after 2 failed wars, a person who we want to deport because we do not like him; do you guys really think governments should have that much power that just because some of Daily Mail readers whose votes the government want demand something illegal we should allow our leaders to break the law...

    does this kind of not have alarm bells ringing in your head at what direction some people on this thread want the country to head towards. Do people not realize Abu Qatada is just a PAWN in numerous political/media games one of is by the government trying to exaggerate this to pander to the far right of the party gather support for leaving the EU thus allowing them to hold off UKIP .

    WAKE UP! Of course this does not apply to everyone, many of you can probably see the stupidity of thinking the government should just deport this guy even though the courts have rejected the appeal. Cue the negs...
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Er, yes he does need to have committed a crime to be deported. The government can't just deport people because they want to.

    The state hasn't said he's no longer welcome, the government has, there's a difference. The state includes the courts, and since he hasn't been brought to trial yet, he's innocent until proven guilty and can't be deported. Unless the government passes a deportation law pertaining only to Abu Qatada and no-one else, he can't be deported until convicted of a crime.
    Erroneous, the state has full right (yes the government) to remove a non-citizen from it's territory as it sees fit. It's why asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are arrested and detained before expulsion, it is why an otherwise perfectly on the level foreign visitor can be expelled for overstaying a visa and the likes.

    Just by virtue of being here without the state's permission and desire is a crime to an extent (immigration law, etc).

    The state could remove Abu Qatada today if they wanted, but as someone said (and the apparent statement of his own family) there is clearly some desire to keep him around for whatever purpose. I don't buy into conspiracy theories as a rule so I won't try and guess as to if or why.

    The UK has been quite friendly and soft on the application of it's rights to expel non-citizens, but it still possess that right.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Studentus-anonymous)
    Erroneous, the state has full right (yes the government) to remove a non-citizen from it's territory as it sees fit. It's why asylum seekers and illegal immigrants are arrested and detained before expulsion, it is why an otherwise perfectly on the level foreign visitor can be expelled for overstaying a visa and the likes.

    Just by virtue of being here without the state's permission and desire is a crime to an extent (immigration law, etc).

    The state could remove Abu Qatada today if they wanted, but as someone said (and the apparent statement of his own family) there is clearly some desire to keep him around for whatever purpose. I don't buy into conspiracy theories as a rule so I won't try and guess as to if or why.

    The UK has been quite friendly and soft on the application of it's rights to expel non-citizens, but it still possess that right.
    That's because illegal immigration and people overstaying their visas are illegal.

    Abu Qatada did enter the UK in 1993 illegally, but between then and this whole saga starting in 2002, he'd been given both implicit and explicit permission to stay here. It seems that this was because the Major and Blair governments thought they could use him as an informer, but if so they were obviously wrong.

    Now, there are several ways in which he could be deported, but the government isn't pursuing them. For whatever reason, they're trying to use this extradition (not deportation) case to avoid that. Given it's been going on for over 10 years now it's obviously not any easier to do that.

    But the law doesn't work on the principle of the end justifying the means. If someone is undeniably a murderer, they still have to be convicted for that specific murder; we can't convict them for a different murder on the basis that the sentence will be the same. And it's the same with Abu Qatada - we can't use a case of extradition to deport someone.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Contrary to the other posts here, this makes me feel proud that even in this case, we stick to our principles and support human rights. Probably just me though :dontknow:
    Surely general public safety must come ahead of the safety of one man who outwardly wants to destroy Western society and it's people. There is a risk of him being harmed if he goes back to Jordan but it's not an absolute risk, and even if it were, in my eyes his mitigated his rights by wanting to maim and kill innocent people.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    Surely general public safety must come ahead of the safety of one man who outwardly wants to destroy Western society and it's people. There is a risk of him being harmed if he goes back to Jordan but it's not an absolute risk, and even if it were, in my eyes his mitigated his rights by wanting to maim and kill innocent people.
    Big slippery slope though - you can't just have your government deporting people it doesn't like.

    If what he does is so offensive to everyone, should 't it be illegal? And if it isn't illegal, then how can we justify deporting him?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttime)
    Big slippery slope though - you can't just have your government deporting people it doesn't like.

    If what he does is so offensive to everyone, should 't it be illegal? And if it isn't illegal, then how can we justify deporting him?
    I'm not sure it's quite that clear cut -- what he has done is illegal and several courts have said he should be deported.

    The problem is that in our complex legal system more than one court has authority on the matter, and if one rules it illegal then the rest cannot pass that motion. That's what's happened, two out of several (can't remember how many) have accepted what he did was illegal but have ruled out deporting him based on his human rights.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I'm not sure it's quite that clear cut -- what he has done is illegal and several courts have said he should be deported.

    The problem is that in our complex legal system more than one court has authority on the matter, and if one rules it illegal then the rest cannot pass that motion. That's what's happened, two out of several (can't remember how many) have accepted what he did was illegal but have ruled out deporting him based on his human rights.
    It is that simple though. If its illegal, then he can be put in prison/community service/fined. The problem is, he has never even had a trial. His previous prison sentences have been without trial under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act.

    I repeat: if what he has done is so despicable, it should be illegal. Allowing him to be deported anyway would set a worrying precedent.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Source?
    The courts have made a finding of fact that this is the case. If you read the judgment, you will see that there is a summary of the events so far.

    Paras 11-12 seem to suggest that Mr Qatada's case is quite exceptional.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    Maybe he'll just get hit by a bus and solve the problem for us
    Sadly he wouldn't do us that favour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    The courts have made a finding of fact that this is the case. If you read the judgment, you will see that there is a summary of the events so far.

    Paras 11-12 seem to suggest that Mr Qatada's case is quite exceptional.
    Media reports seem to quote the rulings as saying 'part of the evidence' etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    could've paid all our student loans off with the legal fees :rant:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Why even try and get rid of him, keeping him here under house arrest and you've got 24/7 knowledge of what he is doing, while in the country he's the least threat to us he could possibly be... Keep your friends close and your enemies closer, all that jazz.

    He'd be more of a danger with the whole extremist **** if we were to deport him and no longer have him under incredibly tight surveillance.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 1, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.