Britain frees radical cleric Abu Qatada
 

What about the other 2 hours? Typo? Or does he get to run Down to the internet cafe?

Yes, of course he will, he's a member of this place and after being locked away for the past three years he must be desperate to see how his entry in the Death Pool competition is doing.

Free radicals aren't as bad for you as once thought.

They weren't using those Houses of Parliament much, anyway ... modern urban renewal, right?

That's one of the best songs from The Lion King


Abu Qatada! What a wonderful phrase
Abu Qatada! Ain't no passing craze
It means no worries for the rest of your days
It's our problem-free philosophy

Hm. So detention without trial is unlawful, but house arrest with electronic tagging without trial is OK?

Well they do give him 2 hours off a day. They just need to send him back to Jordan.

I suspect that there are also about 30 MI-5 guys installed as residents and shopkeepers in his neighborhood.

We can only hope.

Then again they could just show up at his house in black hoods throw his ass in a van, drive him to the airport and send him on his way.

Then just say they don't know what happened to him.

I like that idea better.

Merc? Tolerance?
Play nice.

It stretches my liberal credentials not to want him slung onto the next plane home, torture or not.
But I have to hold true. This cannot be the thin end of the wedge.

Although I admit, a capering part of me is singing, "Didn't like Western values? Ha ha ha, off you go back home then!"

But hey.
Martin McGuinness is now the Deputy First Minister for Northern Ireland, so I guess I failed terrorist rehab 101.

I don't know what's wrong with me these days, but I'm pretty much with Merc on this one. If you deliberately go to a country with different values and then complain about it to the point of terrorism or the threat there of, then that country has every right to chuck you out. IMO

Yes I know that's very unliberal of me to say, but honestly, if you don't like the law of the land, get the fuck out!

:thumb: Oh, and don't be embarrassed to agree with me. We should really start to love each other more now that we are going station some 3000 Marines on your coast. Tell the locals to watch out for their women.

Kicking him out isn't the problem. I think most of us would like him to fuck off back to Jordon if our culture is so goddamned objectionable to him.

The very values he seems to despise are what currently sits between him and a flight home.

But they are our values. Knowingly sending him home to face torture would be a betrayal of those values. I don't think he is worth that betrayal.

Not that we as a nation dont send people back to places where they face torture and oppression. We do...as long as we don't know that's what they face.

Qatada is in the rather fortunate position of being a very public case.

@Infi: I'm glad I'm not the only one who gets that song in my head when I hear the name ;p

Why does anyone think he will be tortured. I have seen nothing to suggest that. He has already been convicted in absence in Jordan, I would suspect they would do nothing more than throw him into a dark hole for the rest of his life.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

British use imperial hours, which are about 10% bigger than US hours. It's just like the gallon thing.

Crazy, I know.

snort

Most of the chicks up there already have either soldiers or miners for husbands. They're probably smart enough to keep away from the US ones. lol

snort.

Habeus Corpus, magna carta, due process.

If he's done something under the law (like sedition, inciting violence) then by all means come down on him hard. Due process must be followed, otherwise we're no better than thugs, and then there's no point fighting, because we've become the enemy.

You sound like a philosophy professor. Or a liberal.

or Pogo

or both.

Too much wrist action, eh? :D

Well, I wouldn't sentence a guy to having his legs blown off, but when it happens as a result of his own crimes...

... I LMAO.

Then I give him a fair trial.

Hoist by his own petard indeed.

or Tojo, why you hate us?

Anybody have a new bad guys scorecard? This perpetual war thing gets confusing.

Down with Tito!

and Toto! This ain't Kansas.

And down with GIGO.

Rubbish.

Or lowered, depending on your perspective.

Motherfucking WORD.

Look a hat trick of compliments.

Doesn't like our values, so kick him out. Not committing any crimes, right? Just ugly? Ugly thoughts, ugly words? This is justification for GTFO? Love it or leave it?

I'm straining here to avoid prejudging such comments...

Do none of you realize the only kind of speech that really needs protection is unpopular speech? I'm not condoning violence or incitement to violence. But popular speech, however valuable or vacuous doesn't need protection, everybody loves it already and there are no objections. UNPOPULAR speech, unpleasant ideas, non criminal words and ideas need and deserve protection.

If he's done *wrong*, charge him, prosecute him, convict him and sentence him. If he hasn't done wrong, then stop being a pussy or incompetent or both and leave him alone. Just disliking or fearing someone's attitude isn't enough to justify such detention and I hope to FSM it never is.

I'm not sure Dani's post belongs in that round up, given that she was expressing the very reason why he should not be extradited. She can respond far more eloquently than me in her own defense.

I'm the only other Brit in this thread (I think, not going back to check) and I am also saying we can't let this change our laws.

We don't have freedom of speech here. In that it is not enshrined in law.
But we do have laws that prevent people going back to countries where torture is legal. Not just that the evictee might be tortured, but that they might be convicted using statements obtained under torture.

Dani and I object to his departure despite our best interests. The man gets more state help than I do and costs the country far more in terms of security and surveillence. In prison he cost more than I would if I lived in a 3* hotel. We're trying our hardest to be fair. And liberal.

If I lived in another country I would have the same opinion as other Dwellars, with no shame. GTFO.
But like I said, we can't do that without compromising ourselves.

And in my own defence, I do believe he has a right to say what he wants, but I think there's an issue with the kind of speech some of these clerics are associated with. The problem as I see it is they're recruiting people to their cause, which is the destruction of western values, and through their very lives they're encouraging the ending of others.

I think it's a difficult situation, but remember that the only reason he's still there is because his own country was happy to condemn him in absentia rather than have him extradited to stand trial in his own country because his own country doesn't want him (or so it would appear). That's not the sort of person I want my child walking down the street with.

I know he has claim to Jordanian nationality but I'm not sure how Jordanian he actually is.

A few things.

First of all, Dani says for herself "most of us" that she'd like him to leave.
Next, I haven't heard anything about extradition. Only deportation. In the US, we deport people all the time, and it's on our terms. For extradition, that requires a two way agreement between us and a specific country that has requested to have a person delivered to them.

As for freedom of speech and its enshrinement in law, I am an American, and we here have freedom of speech at the very cornerstone of our laws. I do see that the freedom of speech in the UK is why Qatada wanted to be there. I do feel it is impossible to overstate the importance of such freedom and he also craves it, clearly.

As for the cost... I'm acutely aware of the seemingly extravagant expense of our criminal justice system. I don't think all the money spent this way is well spent, or even properly spent. I do know that the rule of law is *precious* and requires money to maintain, not just the blood of patriots as some would oversimplify.

I might not like the opinions of some of the people I share this country with, indeed I do not. But I love this country so much, and specifically the freedom of expression that we do have here, that I'll stand and fight to protect such freedom. That is much more important than my transient discomfort.

How about if one of them was preaching jihad in American mosques and actively recruiting and training jihadist fighters from amongst American muslim youth?

I don't care really what he thinks of western or British culture. I do care that he preaches violence and hatred of my culture and actively promotes values that are in my opinion antithetical to freedom.

There are plenty of people in the uk who hold and publicly espouse vile and ugly views. That is their right. That's not in and of itself a reason to throw someone out the country. The right to freedom of speech is fine until the expression of that right tramples on someone else's rights. Hence we do not allow speech designed to incite racial violence.

Preaching violence and hatred is not protected speech. I regard that as criminal activity, incitement to violence. If that happens, then there's a chargeable cause, something to prosecute, and a person who acts like that should be arrested, charged, and prosecuted on the facts of the case.

So why not send him home and let his home country make such determination? Or are you afraid the their legal process is flawed? Can you provide concrete evidence that their legal process failed and he was wrongly convicted? Why are you shielding a terrorist sympathizer?

Quite and assload of assumptions you have there mercy. Why not send him home? Heck if I know. Why isn't he being sent "home"? There must be a reason, no one is his current neighborhood seems to want him to stay, yet he stays, and at considerable expense. You tell me why not send him home.

Am I afraid their (Jordan's) legal process is flawed? It seems clear that you feel the UK's legal process is flawed given your quote at the top there. To answer your question, I don't know enough about Jordan's legal system, and I doubt you know enough either, to make an informed judgment. Also, I don't feel I know enough about this particular case to say whether or not he was treated fairly by the legal processes he's been subject to.

I will say that extended detention without charge is wrong, wherever it happens. London, Guantanamo Bay, anywhere. That is wrong.

Concrete evidence?! Ok! Let's get down to it. Can you provide concrete evidence that he's committed a crime in the UK, that he's broken any of their laws and should be convicted?

Why are you tearing down the rule of law?

:lol2: thanks I needed that laugh....

bullshit, those are your words, don't put them in my mouth.

I know they have always been a friend of ours in a hornets nest of evil and that is good enough for me, if you need to use another standard then do so, but don't include me in your distrust. What you think about my assessment should not be important.

Great, so why do you continue to support Obama? He has done all of those things and MORE.

I don't need too... I would just send him to Jordan and you can ask them those questions. I don't care....

This is your bullshit, straight out of your own mouth. You own it, no one put it there.
Now, tell me how that show faith in the UK's legal system.

If they keep him in England, they can keep him in a cone of silence.

You answered your question for me, because he's done more, lots more. Extended detention without charge is wrong, but I continue to support President Obama despite the fact that I am strongly opposed to such a policy. Just as I continue to support and participate the cellar despite the fact that you hang out here.

Ignoring the law just because it's inconvenient, or uncomfortable or because you're ignorant *IS* tearing down the rule of law. I know details aren't your long suit, the fact is, saying you trust their legal system then suggest you'd prefer kidnapping and extraordinary rendition makes you a hypocrite.

Sounds like the situation is moving forward through the system.
Link

As far as the detainment without trial is concerned, I totally agree with you V.

Personally, I think he should have been tried in a court of law, with the evidence against him presented. Unfortunately in all the hysteria over terrorism the UK government passed laws allowing for such a detention.

He then broke his (ridiculously severe) bail conditions and was rearrested. The SIAC then ruled him to be a significant risk of absconding, and he was locked up again pending deportation.

In terms of why he is considered dangerous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada

I don't want tthe man in this country. I think he blew his welcome when he was granted asylum and then actively worked agains the interests of his host nation. Nobody else wants him either. But... nor do I want him to be sent somewhere where he may be tortured, or indeed where he may face conviction on the grounds of evidence obtained through the torture of anybody else.

I don't think he should have been detained wiithout trial, or any kind of a hearing in which he could a) see the evidence against him and b) make his defence against that evidence.

For once, and this is a rarity, I am inclined to believe the authorities who are telling me he is dangerous. They have, in some ways, been between a rock and a hard place. Allowing someone who is dangerous to society to roam about at will is not something any government wants to do, but nor do we want to send someone to face what we consider to be inhumane conditions. The culture of secrecy that grew up around terrorism over the past decade meant that the evidence against him was considered secret and of national importance. Therefore they couldn't (I of course would dispute this) put him on trial in the normal way.

This is how we end up with people in this country living under 'control orders'. In other words house arrest and a list of conditions (no internet, no cell phone, no travelling, no blah blah) and no proper mechanism of appeal. By which I mean, at no point in the control or appeal process is he allowed to see the evidence against him, or discuss his case with his lawyer (the appointed defence in the appeal). Everything happens behind closed dooors.

That is the scary part of this. Not that we want to deport him because he exercises his right to 'free speech'. That is not what is happening here.

Wow, Rich! Didn't know that you were that bothered by me. :heartpump

:lol:

I am completely comfortable with that. Even if it makes you uncomfortable and wants to make you drink to excess.

Not "Bullshit". But I will give it it came straight out of my computer keyboard, but not really my mouth, even though I would have no problem saying it to you in person.

I never said I had "Faith" in their system, I said I supported the fact that the Jordanians convicted him. And I am good with that. I am not asking you to agree with me. Get over yourself and off your high horse of Cellar Judge.