Abu Qatada deportation bid fails, again.

Scroll to see replies

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.

Reply 81

Brachioradialis

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.

Reply 82

nexttime

Original post by MattKneale

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?

Reply 83

Brachioradialis

Original post by nexttime

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.

Reply 84

nexttime

Original post by MattKneale

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.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 85

InnerTemple

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.

Reply 86

thunder_chunky

Original post by Steevee

Maybe he'll just get hit by a bus and solve the problem for us :smile:

Sadly he wouldn't do us that favour.

Reply 87

pol pot noodles

Original post by InnerTemple

Media reports seem to quote the rulings as saying 'part of the evidence' etc.

Reply 88

fuze-mo25

could've paid all our student loans off with the legal fees :rant:

Reply 89

Stiff Little Fingers

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.