Well said, agree with all of that.

Spot on, it’s a shame that our security services allowed the compensation situation to need to occur.

Agreed that Qatada is entitled to the compensation.

I’m inclined to trust the Law Lords on whether he faces a real risk of torture on his return to Jordan. They say he does not. He may attempt to appeal before the European Court of Human Rights on the points exhausted in our domestic courts.

Dave Osler seems to be sceptical that Qatada is a threat to national security. Qatada has been given opportunities to defend himself against these allegations yet has declined to do so.

I wouldn’t say he “deserves” the compensation.

Ukliberty: Who has exactly proven that he’s a threat to national security?

Here is where Human Rights and Human Intelligence part ways.

How can a man who comes to England on a fraudulant passport then seeks asylum from a country he claims will torture him because he holds terrorist views where torture is de rigeur. So, not only has his family and himself been kept safe from alleged harm in his own country (Belmarsh I’m sure is harsh but nothing compared to what he would get at home) but now they have a bit of pocket money for their overdue flight home.

Do me a favour the rest of the world is laughing at the European continent and this just makes it so easy for those you love eg Melanie Phillips to get it so right.

Dave

You say the case against Abu Qatada is just hearsay?

Dave – did you not do a google search for him before chipping in?
See my quick results below – it is very very bleak.
Probably best not to read if you believe in the inherent goodness of man.

It looks anyway like he’ll stay in the UK – coz he’ll maybe appeal to the European court of human rights. So the tax payer will continue to pay for him and his family in his @apparently £800K ?) council house.

* Hate preacher Omar Bakri planned to help him flee Britain (to avoid being sent to Jordan)
* Belgian terrorist cell had high-up links to Al Qaida, and visited Qatada
* was convicted in Jordan his absence of involvement in terror attacks
* Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) describe in March 2004 as a “truly dangerous individual at the centre of Al-Qaeda’s activities in the UK”
* He also is suspected of inspiring Mohammed Atta, the leader of the September 11 hijackers and the shoe bomber, Richard Reid. His name is included on an American list of “designated global terrorist individuals”
* beside him, on a mobile phone, apparently acting as a go-between, is Yasser Al-Sirri, wanted by Egypt for aiding an assassination attempt in 1993 of the then Prime Minister with a car bomb, which instead killed a young girl.
* A 1995 “fatwa” he issued justified the killing of converts from Islam, their wives and children in Algeria.
* In October 1999 a sermon in London called for the killing of Jews and praised attacks on Americans.
* Former Home Secretary David Blunkett once described him as the most significant extremist preacher in the UK.
* A Spanish judge investigating the Madrid bombings called him “Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”
* Rights groups Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch criticised the Brtitish ruling, saying there was a real risk that Qatada would be tortured.
* 2004 – Sheikh Zoud – accused of being terrorist recruiter in Australia, called Qatada for advice . On ‘divorce law’ he claims.
* he arrived in the UK and claimed asylum on grounds of religious persecution after he was expelled from Kuwait following its liberation from Iraq
* In a television interview with CNN, he said he belonged to no organisation but there was nothing to stop “anyone who belongs to al-Qaida or any other organisation to listen to me, ask my opinion or learn from me”.
* Further proof of GIA’s (Algerian islaimist terror organisation) ties to al Qaeda’s global jihad is supplied by the history of its official newsletter, al Ansar. Al Ansar’s top editors were not Algerians, but rather two of the most important al Qaeda leaders of the last decade. One of them, the Palestinian cleric Abu Qatada…
* Reda Hassaine is the man who put Abu Qatada behind bars…The story of how Hassaine became Qatada’s nemesis is among the most chilling in the undercover war against terror…Qatada preached a message of murder on the widest scale imaginable,” Hassaine said. “It was my job to relay this back to MI5.”…Hassaine, 43, fled Algeria when, as a working journalist, he became a target of Islamic insurgents. The rebel GIA movement murdered thousands of civilians who did not fall in with its ultra-fundamentalist ideals.
“They murdered anyone who they thought were non-believers,” said Hassaine.
“They killed mothers, babies – anyone.
“When I came to London, I felt here, at last, was a society where such hatred did not exist.” Hassaine came to learn that this judgment did not accord with the facts.

As a member of the Algerian refugee community Hassaine was told about a mosque in Seven Sisters Road, Finsbury Park – close to the Finsbury Park Mosque which was to become notorious – where Algerians could learn news about their own country. “This news was the worst possible,” Hassaine said. “It was news of the recently murdered. They printed a publication that came out every Friday, detailing the atrocities and the victims who had been killed in the name of Islam.”

The editor of this publication, he learned, was Qatada

* A BRITON held at Guantanamo Bay has admitted attending prayer meetings in London led by Qatada but claims he travelled to Afghanistan because he was in trouble with the British police…Richard Belmar…converted to Islam in 1999, said he had attended Friday prayer meetings hosted by Abu Qatada at a youth club near Baker Street…”I was also prompted to leave because of problems I had with my family.”…He claimed he did not realise until he had nearly completed courses in “basic weapons, war tactics and navigation” that the camp was run by Al-Qaeda.
* after a promised UK crackdown in 2005…”three years on it been revealed that only one person has been deported from Britain, in 2006, for “fomenting extremism.” Only two people have been stripped of UK citizenship as part of measures promised by Tony Blair.”

* Australia -It was the day that changed the life of accused terrorist ringleader Abdul Nacer Benbrika…country property in Victoria in the sunset of 1994…was given a sermon which many now believe gave birth to radical Islam in Australia. The speaker was Abu Qatada. “He spoke out against Arab governments for not being Islamic enough, for not adhering to pure sharia law,” recalls one senior Muslim who asked not to be named. “He was radical and politicised – we had never heard this stuff before. His impact was enormous and that is where it all began. This is how the ideology of Abu Bakr (Benbrika) entered Australia. Prior to Abu Qatada’s visit, most radicals were just normal guys.”

Whereas this journalist is really fed up with how the UK officialdom handled the whole thing:
—————-long quote———————————
In the case of Qatada, the immigration authorities, the police, the security services, the judiciary and the politicians have been almost criminal in their failure to deal with a ruthless fanatic.

Abu Qatada arrived here in 1993 on a forged passport. This did not bother the immigration service, who accepted his claim that he would be tortured if he went home to Jordan so they gave him and his wife and five children asylum.

Why? Did no one run a check on him? There was ample evidence of his extremism but no one bothered to look for it.

Supported by state benefits, Qatada began preaching in local mosques his blood-thirsty anti-Jewish and anti-Christian messages and calling for Muslims to kill non-Muslims.

Because of a toxic mixture of political correctness and ignorance that seems to pervade all our dealings with Muslim extremists, the police were ignoring the rants of even the most incendiary preachers, so Qatada spread his poison undisturbed.

If any more evidence were required as to Qatada’s evil intent, then it came in 2000.

Jordan sentenced him in his absence to life imprisonment for his part in a plot to murder tourists. They demanded his extradition but it was not until February 2001 that the antiterrorist branch even got round to raiding his house.

They found £170,000 in various currencies including £805 in an envelope labelled for ‘the Mujahedin in Chechnya’.

Incredibly, nothing happened, because the appeasement of Islamic extremists had become part of the police mindset. It took 9/11 to get the authorities to take Islamic terrorism seriously.

The German police found 19 audio cassettes of Qatada’s sermons in a flat used by the leading suicide pilot, Mohammed Atta, and Qatada was put under surveillance by MI5. Signs of action? Not really, they lost him for nine months.

When he was found and arrested under new anti-terrorist laws in October 2002 he still wasn’t charged with anything. At least this time he was held in prison.

Over the next few years, an immigration appeals committee ruled that he could be kept in jail, but the Law Lords ordered his release. By now the Government wanted to deport him, but Qatada’s lawyers (paid for by the taxpayer, of course) used New Labour’s own Human Rights legislation to challenge the Government.

The judiciary refuses to send anyone to a country where there is a possibility of torture or a death penalty – no matter what danger they pose to the innocent people of this country.

So when in February 2007 Qatada lost his appeal at the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Court of Appeal blocked his deportation on the grounds that he might face a trial in which evidence against him could have been extracted by torture.

The fact that Qatada advocates the utmost brutality against non-Muslims appears to have had no influence on the courts.

Not content with their decision that such a man should be allowed to stay into this country, Qatada was even given bail. The conditions included a ban on having a mobile phone, on communicating with a long list of people including Osama Bin Laden and on having any unapproved visitors during the 22 hours he has to spend at home.

So he got round that by having a friend with a phone relaying messages for him. And what a friend! Why was Yasser Al-Sirri not on the banned list?

He, after all, was a leading figure in Islamic Jihad, a group that tried to overthrow Egypt’s government by force and replace it with an Islamic state.

Having lived in Yemen and visited Sudan, where he allegedly met Bin Laden’s number two, he decided to go to London, by now the foreign terrorist capital of the world.

In 1994, the year in which he was sentenced to death in Egypt, he arrived in the UK with a false passport and was granted asylum.

The authorities have been equally hopeless in Al-Sirri’s case, although he has worked closely with known Islamist extremists, including the appalling Abu Hamza, who was allowed to preach his filth for years until pressure from the United States led to his arrest and conviction for incitement to murder and stirring up racial hatred.

Islamic extremists are not noted for their sense of humour, but they must hoot with laughter at the idiocy of the United Kingdom.

The system does not just allow people in who hate the country, but it subsidises them, turns a blind eye to their activities until forced to act, foots the bill for lawyers to find loopholes in laws that were designed to keep the public safe, and has judges who take such lofty absolutist positions that it is almost impossible to deport even the vilest of the vile.

If Islamic terrorists and their supporters were looking for a safe haven during the so-called ‘war against terror’, why on earth would they bother with some dusty cave in Afghanistan, a squalid street in Iran or a dangerous suburb of Baghdad?

Britain is far more comfortable and generous towards them. And – even more attractive – they run no risk. They are allowed to carry on with their plans for our destruction unfettered by the rule of law or fears of justice.

Lee, I’m not sure if “proved” is an appropriate word, but certainly the courts seem to be satisfied that he is a threat. See for example paras 18 to 89 of this SIAC ruling.

Again, note that he hasn’t appealed on the grounds of national security.

Cheers UKLiberty, was good to see that.

it is pointless to recommend policies to a nation bent on self-destruction.

Dare you go there.
Read—————Takuan Seiyo
From Meccania to Atlantis
Parts 1 to 7
Brussels Journal
it won,t kill ya
Best Wishes
Journeyman.

.But if the concept is to have any meaning at all – as I am convinced it must – then the human right not to be tortured must be upheld, even for the irredeemably reprobate.

False dichotomy – it matters not whether he is a reprobate or a thoroughly nice guy.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 3: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 8: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

When he unlawfully killed the Jordanians, that deprived them of their fundamental rights. The Jordanian courts are the competent national tribunal, and they have found him guilty (noone ever seems to mention that – it is like the story would be an more interesting dilemma if he was only a suspect, so they discuss that instead).

Deportation with assurance under article 5 is clearly the solution that violates the fewest rights. If the Jordanians subsequently break their promise, a case can be brought against them, but you can’t pre-emptively guarantee safety worldwide from every possible rights violation.

12. Soru . Well said. When the case of refugees were considered post WW2 and their needs were incoporated into laws I cannot believe that the lawmakers considered that they would then threaten violence against their host nation.The Jews which fled Germany pre 1939, the refugees in the various camps at the end of the war and those people which fled communism in the 40s,50s 60s and 70s did not threaten violence against their host nations- they were grateful for safety. What we have had in the UK and western Europe are Muslim radicals who have been accused or implicated in their home country of acts of violence who have fled to this country , sometimes entering illegally. These Muslim radicals have then been implicated in furthering and encouraging acts of crminal ctivity including violence in this country or against it’s interest.

Would anyone who supports Abu Qatada’s right to remain in this country please quote where the authors of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights considered that a country has to accept an immigrant who enters the country illegally, is wanted for criminals acts and then threatens or incites acts of violence against their host nation. When those people who rose up against the communism in The Hungarian Uprising of 1956 sought refuge in this country, even though they would have suffered torture and execution if we had sent them back, they did not try to commit or support acts of violence in this country. We have fed, clothed, house and funded Abu Quatada and he is perfectly free to leave this country. To take someone into one’s home who is threatened with acts of violence in order to offer them sactuary, feed, clothe and fund them is an act of charity – but when they threaten acts of violence; one allow’s them them to leave but they refuse to do so ; then one betrays one’s first duty, which is to protect one’s family.

The concept of offering sanctuary , particularly in a church is an ancient and honourable tradition but it does not include allowing people to kill those who also within it or allowing an act of destruction against it’s fabric. There is point at which tolerance becomes weakness. By supporting Abu Qatada then we make it far more difficult for those who fleeing persecution and only want to live in peace in ths country and respect our customs..

Thanks Guys, this seems to be a case of liberals being so open minded their brains fall out.

No I know why we need the Neo Cons!

Dave O – I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading your item.
Would you be making such asinine claims had you lost a leg because of the tube bombings ?

The case in question involves an illegal immigrant who has already been found guilty of terror offences elsewhere (after judicial process) yet has been milking the welfare state, as well as other services in a society that he allegedly despises.

It goes without saying that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of pounds spent on housing benefit, income support, court costs, etc are being diverted away from others who are also in need.

I have noticed how many LC commentators are the first to suggest that additional resources would improve an array of public services – but obviously the pot is not bottomless and Abu Qatada has already had far more than his fair share.
The public may be willing to stump up more in taxes but not if vast sums are being squandered on badly handled cases like this one.

I assume the argument against deportation rests on allegations that Jordan may treat Abu Qatada badly ?
Soru [12] outlines how this claim should be dealt with.

Anyway, why lose sleep over another £2,500 after the large amount of tax payers money already been pocketed by this unpleasant, and violent man ?

“Dave O – I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry after reading your item.
Would you be making such asinine claims had you lost a leg because of the tube bombings ?”

Who knows, such occurrences tend to make you subjective.

Lee Griffin talks about ‘subjectivity’ while Dave Osler invokes ‘an inviolable line’, whatever that is.

Sometimes I can’t help thinking that you guys would STILL have doubts even if a terrorist was apprehended with a bag loaded down explosives ?

The point is that victims aren’t best placed to make sound judgements.

Qatada’s is an interesting case for a number of reasons. One reason is that this guy is such a threat and has apparently incited hatred and violence and whatever, yet he hasn’t been prosecuted for a related offence.

(I’m not claiming that he hasn’t committed any offences – I’m wondering why he hasn’t been prosecuted.)

The point being that there are people moaning about the £2,500, and how silly the law is, and how awful judges are, and so on… yet the law is being applied because of things that the authorities did and didn’t do.

Ukliberty – he was found guilty in Jordan wasn’t he?

We are moaning here because the law wasn’t followed in the first place ie he was here illegally claiming asylum for not wanting to face a punishment for something he was found guilty for and over a decade he has managed to make us in Europe look like idiots.

Does that make it simple enough for you?

What are you talking about ukliberty, Abu Qatada HAS already been prosecuted and found guilty, meanwhile a tolerant society has to pay a kings ransom to PREVENT justice being done in Jordan.

These convictions make any further court proceedings redundant.

For one thing, he was convicted in absentia in Jordan of terrorism related charges four years after he allegedly incited the murder of apostates, their wives and children.

The fairness of the trials has been questioned, particularly in regard to evidence claimed to have been obtained by the use of torture. The authorities in Jordan claim he would be retried and have assured us the trial would be fair.

And no, Lilliput, I don’t see it as a simple case at all, but maybe that’s because I’m wading through our domestic rulings rather than base everything I read on the Daily Mail.

So, ukliberty, do you advocate that Abu Qatada should be deported to Jordan providing:
*he is re-tried.
*the Jordanian authorities gave assurances that ALL human rights articles would be observed

The best thing for Qatada is a stick of Dynamite up his rear end and I would willingly light the fuse,
And I hope he will be deported along with his tribe of wives and hoards of kids so we the british tax payers won’t have to keep them when he’s gone, Its about time britan started to rule its self rather than be dictated too my Europe

“For one thing, he was convicted in absentia in Jordan of terrorism related charges four years after he allegedly incited the murder of apostates, their wives and children.”

And pray tell us please why he felt the need to run in the first place?

If Qatada finds the UK so unpleasant why does’n he move elsewhere -perhaps Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Yemen? What is a not being addressed is the issue of whether a country has the right to decide whether a foreigner lives within it’s borders. If we are saying a democratically elected government does not have the right to decide whether a foreigner lives within it’s borders then it has lost sovereignty over it’s borders.

“If Qatada finds the UK so unpleasant”

Who said he does?

the a&e charge nurse,

So, ukliberty, do you advocate that Abu Qatada should be deported to Jordan providing:
*he is re-tried.
*the Jordanian authorities gave assurances that ALL human rights articles would be observed

Yes, indeed I do. Unfortunately he has one avenue of appeal left on the issue of deportation, the European Court of Human Rights, having exhausted our domestic courts. Hopefully they will swiftly determine that there was no error by our courts and we can be rid of him.

Lilliput,

And pray tell us please why he felt the need to run in the first place?

According to a SIAC ruling, “[Qatada] arrived in the UK on 16th September 1993 on a forged UAE passport. He claimed asylum on arrival for himself, his wife and his then three children. He had been living in Peshawar in Pakistan teaching Afghan children, he said, for two years but was forced to leave Pakistan and travelled via the Maldives and Singapore to London. The basis of his claim, from his application and interview, was that he feared that he would be tortured if returned to Jordan, as he had been tortured in the past by the Jordanian intelligence services. They had objected to his Islamist political activities, his ideological leadership of an Islamist reform group which, as he put it, looked to return Jordan to Islamic government, controlled by Islamic law and with no King, and they had objected in particular to his publicly expressed views against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and against Jordan’s support for him. He would be tortured on return because he had left Jordan illegally and in breach of the terms of his house arrest.”

Charlie,

What is a not being addressed is the issue of whether a country has the right to decide whether a foreigner lives within it’s borders. If we are saying a democratically elected government does not have the right to decide whether a foreigner lives within it’s borders then it has lost sovereignty over it’s borders.

Well, we have lost sovereignty over our borders, to an extent.

I suggest the executive should be allowed to deport undesirables, but there must be due process – I don’t believe the executive should simply be allowed to point a finger and have someone bundled on to a boat or aircraft. It is interesting (and a little concerning) that people are criticising Abu Qatada’s entitlement to due process rather than the handling of this case by the authorities.

Lee Griffin – do you think Abu Qatada wants a society that accepts;
*same sex marriages,
*female equality in education and the job market,
*certain recreational freedoms (alcohol, etc)
*freedom from capital/corporal punishment.

Most of us do, but I doubt if he does.

In fact, the only thing he finds pleasant is the large sum of money handed to him, gratis, courtesy of the British tax payer.
Oh, and the inconvenience of facing justice for acts of terror in Jordan.

Dave Osler’s claim that Abu Qatada ‘DESERVES’ compo is beyond parody – I suspect that deep down, not even you or he believes such arrant nonsense.
The Bill of Human Rights is being discredited yet again by exactly this sort of embarrassing case, I’m afraid.

Remember Learco Chindamo who murdered head teacher, Philip Lawrence.

We couldn’t return him to Italy after the High Court ruled he could challenge deportation on the grounds it would breach his ‘human rights’.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5212300.stm

The article you linked to is about the challenge against his move from open to regular prison.

The success of his appeal against deportation was not as a result of the human rights act but a European directive.

Yes, you’re right ukliberty, thanks for the correction.

“They had objected to his Islamist political activities, his ideological leadership of an Islamist reform group which, as he put it, looked to return Jordan to Islamic government, controlled by Islamic law and with no King,…….”

Yes Ukliberty, and since his arrival he has been campaigning to do the same here in the UK. Do you agree with him? How could you possibly want that here?

Why on earth do you assume I “want that here”?

It is interesting that you snipped “and they had objected in particular to his publicly expressed views against Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait and against Jordan’s support for him.”

I seem to recall that the UK wasn’t keen on Hussein or the invasion of Kuwait.

“Most of us do, but I doubt if he does.”

Cool, let’s throw everyone like him out the country and move on to the next list of “things that are acceptable or not to believe in”

Once we get down to preference of colour for post boxes and opinion on the music of Lily Allen determining whether you can be in this country or not, let me know.

“I suspect that deep down, not even you or he believes such arrant nonsense.”

I do believe it, deep deep down. He was wronged by the system, as too many people are. Compensation for me is as much about punishing those that abuse their power and responsibilities as it is about the actual compensation. I find it actually quite sickening that people like you continue to believe Human Rights is something we can be subjective about, and cookie cut on an individual basis.

Human rights must be universal and without question, with caveats where there are any (imprisoned people, etc) properly written in as they are…not this hotch potch of populism you wish for.

He should have been deported back to the last country he came from before arriving in the UK: Singapore. They processed his departure to the UK using his false documents.

Hang on , Lee Griffin [36] that wasn’t my point at all…………..and well you know it.

You felt it necessary to challenge a commentator [26 & 27] about his assertion that AQ found this country ‘unpleasant’.
I simply highlighted aspects of our culture that AQ might find objectionable, based on his affinity for an extreme, and oppressive interpretation of Islamic scripture, an interpretation, incidentally, that has little support amongst most followers of this particular faith.
I have no idea how you then made the leap from this to me wanting to throw people out of the country because of their beliefs – perhaps you were just feeling even more self righteous than usual (if that is possible) ?

All along I have been talking specifically about a particular case but since you seem to have difficulty understanding my position let me re-iterate it for you.
I think we should deport AQ because he is a convicted terrorist who arrived in the UK illegally – I understand that assurances have been given that his human rights will be respected in Jordan.

One or two have noticed the irony of how AQ has obtained hundred of thousands, if not millions of pounds (gratis) thanks to the very value system he is doing his level best to undermine (preferring a radical theocracy to the open and democratic state that we have worked so hard to develop).

You then invent a second fantasy – namely, that I do not subscribe to human rights, or only a watered down, populist version of it.
Again you have applied your OWN esoteric (and invented) agenda rather than addressing the actual point being made.

I merely objected to the word ‘DESERVING’ since to my mind this phrase should be reserved for somebody, or something that is beneficial or worthwhile (like the role played by the rescue services after the Madrid bombings), but certainly not for intolerant theocrats with a penchant for violence – common sense dictates that men like AQ are simply playing the legal card for all it’s worth.

You might see the £2,500 as a legal triumph, perhaps one of the high points of EU and English law ?
Needless to say, it’s not a view I subscribe to.

Hang on , Lee Griffin [36] that wasn’t my point at all…………..and well you know it.

Yet it’s exactly the same point. Someone said “if he finds this country so unpleasant” and as yet no-one has shown me any kind of knowledge here that he actually dislikes the country, just that he has a different set of views. The fact he is seemingly willing to promote others to violence over it does indeed make him dangerous and needs to be treated as such, but saying he hates this country because of his views on women or such like is exactly like suggesting people that dislike any other aspect of our society hates this country too.

Which is interesting, because that’s pretty much what our Home Secretary is moving towards, labeling anyone with “different views” as extremist. Let’s all pat each other on the back until our views don’t reside in the majority accepted and government endorsed norm.

All along I have been talking specifically about a particular case but since you seem to have difficulty understanding my position let me re-iterate it for you.
I think we should deport AQ because he is a convicted terrorist who arrived in the UK illegally – I understand that assurances have been given that his human rights will be respected in Jordan.

I’ve never said I am against him being deported, but simply shouting “convicted terrorist” is lazy, as UKLiberty details above. The problem here is how this has all been handled by our authorities (and indeed how it is being handled in the case of people such as Hicham Yezza), nothing else.

You then invent a second fantasy – namely, that I do not subscribe to human rights, or only a watered down, populist version of it.

It’s clear from all of your other posts on here, including this one I’m replying to now, you don’t subscribe to universal human rights, I don’t know why you wish to contend this point.

You might see the £2,500 as a legal triumph, perhaps one of the high points of EU and English law ?

No, I just see it as necessary for justice. Just as I’d celebrate compensation if you were locked up without charge for long periods of time, or a child had been locked up in that manner, or even a serial rapist. If we abandon the process of justice then we are not worthy of that we’re seeking to achieve.

Needless to say, it’s not a view I subscribe to.

Obviously, we’ve already ascertained your desire for one rule for everyone else.

Ahh, so admit you admit that AQ is ‘dangerous’ and ‘should be treated as such’ perhaps you would care to elaborate ?

Still, you seem insistent on pursuing your PhD in ‘NOT getting the point’, so yet again a commentator has to remind you of what was actually said.

AQ is an illegal immigrant.
He has been convicted of terror offenses.
Why is it ‘lazy’ to highlight these points -I suspect that victims of terrorist activity (which I have seen, up close and personal) might have a slightly different perspective.

May I just raise one final point ?
To my mind you fail to distinguish between the INTENTIONS of human rights legislation and the risk that these good intentions might be abused.
It might amaze you, Lee, that such things can happen so law must evolve to deal with a significant paradigm shift (otherwise law would remain the same forever, who knows, perhaps this is what you are actually advocating).

For some this is a reasonable and important question – the public need to feel reasonably confident that laws designed to protect individuals will not come at a much greater cost to the wider community.
Can you see the difference between ‘law’ and ‘justice’, Lee ?

Anyway, your sanctimonious pronouncements consistently fly in the face of facts – and since you cannot refute the substantive elements of this case you tediously switch to ad hominem mode.

Here’s a little test for you, Lee – let’s see if you find ONE comment of mine (only one, mind) renouncing the articles of the HRA.

“He has been convicted of terror offenses.”

…based on evidence obtained from torture, in a country with a ropey legal system. On the Christian account of events, Jesus Christ was convicted of terror offences; that doesn’t mean he did them.

“-I suspect that victims of terrorist activity (which I have seen, up close and personal) might have a slightly different perspective.”

Indeed they might, which is why we shouldn’t pay any particular attention to victims of particular crimes when deciding what to do about them (see also: Sara Payne), because they’re likely to be completely incapable of objectively judging how resources should be allocated.

“Can you see the difference between ‘law’ and ‘justice’, Lee ?”

The law is a set of factual statements on how particular actions will be treated. Justice is a philosophical concept that you don’t understand. The word ‘justice’ as used by people who don’t understand philosophy is synonymous with ‘them bastards ought to of been strung up, never mind wot them clever lawyers fink’.

Still, you seem insistent on pursuing your PhD in ‘NOT getting the point’, so yet again a commentator has to remind you of what was actually said.

What was said was that Qatada supposedly hates this country, what was said was a bunch of apologia for various commentators own supposition that his religious views mean he hates this country and thus reason for him to not be here. What was said, in no uncertain terms, is that you believe there to be a basic standard of what is acceptable to think before you become a “hater” of this country, and therefore someone that shouldn’t even be here. That is dangerous thinking, but you probably won’t accept that you’re doing it.

Why is it ‘lazy’ to highlight these points

It’s not lazy to highlight them, and that’s not what I accused you of. I said it’s lazy to state that this person is definitely a convicted terrorist given the methods alleged to be used by Jordan in getting convictions, and other political reasons he may be targeted. I’ve no doubt this person has extremely dangerous thoughts and feelings. But as far as I’m aware (perfectly happy to be proved wrong) he has never actually committed a terrorist atrocity in this country, nor has he aided the physical occurrence of one. It is solely on the fact that he is too influential (alegedly) that I agree with deportation, not on the whole “is a terrorist” angle that may or may not be fully the truth of the matter.

To my mind you fail to distinguish between the INTENTIONS of human rights legislation and the risk that these good intentions might be abused.

I don’t know what you’re on about, my only reference to human rights in this thread is his right to not be locked up unfairly. You clearly disagree that it is unfair otherwise you too would agree with the compensation, thus it’s clear you don’t agree that everyone has the same rights on these basic levels.

Here’s a little test for you, Lee – let’s see if you find ONE comment of mine (only one, mind) renouncing the articles of the HRA.

I will gladly, as soon as you bring me the comment where I’ve said you’ve renounced them. Renouncing universality and renouncing the whole lot are two different kettles of fish. Both of them stink though.

john B – so AQ was tortured was he, I assume you have good evidence to support this claim, perhaps you would like to share it with us ?

At any rate you seem to be advocating that the UK should deal with the fall out from sub-optimum legal systems around over the world, or is it just escapees from Jordan that you are talking about ?

Incidentally, do we only deal with such cases once they have illegally entered the UK, or should we be more active, and fly lawyers into various lawless states ?

You then suggest we should NOT pay any particular attention to the victims of crime, very good, john B, you’ve obviously given the matter a lot of thought.

Finally you announce (triumphally) that the law is a set of “factual statements” – yes, factual statements plucked out somebody’s arse apparently, rather than devised after moral, philosophical and technical discourse (stimulated by important social values such as balancing rights of the individual against the wider community).

“Incidentally, do we only deal with such cases once they have illegally entered the UK, or should we be more active, and fly lawyers into various lawless states ?”

AQ illegally entered this county, then he claimed asylum. Asylum was granted, so the “illegally entered” part is fairly moot.

“yes, factual statements plucked out somebody’s arse apparently, rather than devised after moral, philosophical and technical discourse”

Now you’re just getting ridiculous.

Of course AQ claimed asylum – not only that, he has claimed every other benefit that he (and his family) could get his hands on.

The millions spent already spent on AQ would have been put to better use providing legal support in Jordan.

“Of course AQ claimed asylum – not only that, he has claimed every other benefit that he (and his family) could get his hands on.”

As he is entitled to do, note that most benefit has been awarded since the government put him under such a curfew that he couldn’t possibly work. I take it that while he’s here going through our legal processes we should let him just rot and sleep rough too? What was that you were saying again about me misreading you on your views on human rights….?

AQ was tortured was he, I assume you have good evidence to support this claim, perhaps you would like to share it with us ?

Sure thing:

As the Law Lords themselves admitted, when Abu Qatada applied for asylum in the UK in 1993, he did so “on the ground that he had been tortured by the Jordanian authorities, a claim that SIAC [the Special Immigration Appeals Court, the secret court that deals with much of the government’s “War on Terror” detention policies] accepted may well be true.” Moreover, the claim that he could receive a fair trial in Jordan has to be weighed against the fact that he was sentenced in absentia in Jordan in 1999 and 2000 for his alleged involvement with terrorist attacks, even though the defendants who had claimed that he was involved “sought, unsuccessfully, to have reliance on their statements excluded on the ground that they had been obtained by torture.”

In other words:
1) the UK government accepts that he ‘may well’ have been tortured
2) irrespective of the truth of 1, there is reason to believe that the evidence against him was obtained by torturing others.

At any rate you seem to be advocating that the UK should deal with the fall out from sub-optimum legal systems around over the world, or is it just escapees from Jordan that you are talking about ?

No. While it’d be nice if we could go around to countries with appalling legal systems and replace them with ones that worked, it’s pretty clear from the last 10 years that that’s not a very good approach. However, if someone is in the UK, and we’re in a position either to send them off to become the victim of an appalling legal system, or to not do that, then it’s pretty damn obvious we should do the latter.

You then suggest we should NOT pay any particular attention to the victims of crime, very good, john B, you’ve obviously given the matter a lot of thought.

Yes, actually, I have. Excluding people with significant direct personal interests in the outcome of a decisionmaking process is considered a Jolly Good Idea across all areas of government and business alike. This is no exception.

Maybe he was tortured maybe he wasn’t, john B.

The judge in Madrid also speculated about the AQ contribution to terror activities in Europe.

Ultimately both views are CONJECTURE and should not deter the case being worked out by the Jordanian authorities after appropriate assurances.

In my mind we have to balance an infringement of an IDEAL legal standard for AQ verses the potential risk to the wider community from terrorism.
On balance a trial in Jordan seems to be the most prudent option.

Excluding people with significant direct personal interests in the outcome of a decisionmaking process is considered a Jolly Good Idea across all areas of government and business alike.

Quite.

No Lee I do not think we should let him rot.

I think we should deport him to Jordan with safeguards – I’m not sure which part of this you are not getting.

The publicity surrounding this case will make it very difficult for the international community to ignore how AQ is treated once he is returned.

On balance a trial in Jordan seems to be the most prudent option. … I think we should deport him to Jordan with safeguards – I’m not sure which part of this you are not getting.

He is being returned (pending an appeal). What exactly are you arguing against, if you support human rights and due process? Your opposition seems a bit incoherent to say the least. No-one here is arguing that he shouldn’t be returned. What your opponents in this argument are arguing is that he is entitled (a more appropriate word than ‘deserving’, I think) to compensation for being unlawfully imprisoned. Do you think people should not be entitled to compensation for being unlawfully imprisoned? Again, what are you actually arguing with here?

And of course he will attempt to exhaust legal processes in order to fight against being returned. But then so would someone who is innocent. Note that it is these very legal processes that help us determine if the executive is being fair in excluding someone from the country.

And in the scheme of things the cost of the legal battles and the compensation seems a small price to pay.

Finally you announce (triumphally) that the law is a set of “factual statements” – yes, factual statements plucked out somebody’s arse apparently, rather than devised after moral, philosophical and technical discourse (stimulated by important social values such as balancing rights of the individual against the wider community).

Thus demonstrating you have no idea of the provenance of the European Convention on Human Rights.

“No Lee I do not think we should let him rot.”

Then stop bitching about him having got benefits while going through our legal process, and being refused the ability to work, before sending him to go through Jordan’s legal process. Simple stuff really.

The benefits issue is an important one Lee, I don’t think we can quietly sweep under the carpet in the manner you suggest.

Perhaps you believe that welfare cheques are limitless and each time a new claim arises we simply shake the money tree for a bit more cash – I prefer to think that the substantial sum of money already handed over to AQ is depriving somebody (somewhere) of a service they really need (because the purse is finite, I’m afraid).

Even so, ukliberty claims that it is a price worth paying although not even he/she knows what the final bill will be – but in any case this is irrelevant, AQ can claim in perpetuity and I dare say he will, as might various members of his family.
In this respect ukiberty believes we should all act like a drunken trader ordering more bottles of champagne during a riotous night out because it is the firm (rather than the individual) who must pick up the tab.

Anyway, from what I hear there is not much work for Islamic extremists who call for the death of Jews and Americans, as well as the payers of his regular welfare cheques of course (i.e. the Brits)…………. except in certain bomb making circles.

Ukliberty then has the gall to pipe up about the “provenance of the European Convention on Human Rights ” as if this were a simple matter of jurisprudence.
It’s not, here is an extract from the Telegraph highlighting the sort of mind games that are presently being played, as well as the tensions that arise in using the act to obtain justice (sorry for using that awkward word again)

“The British Government cannot deport Abu Qatada until the European Court has heard and decided upon his appeal. And that will take several years, because the court has a backlog of tens of thousands of cases. So, thanks to judges in Strasboug, we’re stuck with him for the foreseeable future – a man who has said he would like to see the violent destruction of our government and its replacement by an Islamic theocracy.

Or are we? Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has to authorise the payment of £2,500 to Abu Qatada and to each of the eight others that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled must be compensated. She could simply refuse to proceed with it, on the grounds that we have already paid him thousands of pounds in benefits, and it is outrageous to compensate someone who wishes to destroy British society.

Then what would happen? The short answer is: nothing. The European Court cannot enforce its own rulings. It has no army or police force with which to arrest the members of a government that thumbs its nose at the court’s decisions. It depends wholly on the good will of the states that accept its jurisdiction for its decisions to be enforced. The court could issue a declaration saying it was very cross with Britain for failing to pay Abu Qatada compensation. But it has been issuing that kind of disapproving declaration to Russia for years. Mr Putin has responded with the Russian equivalent of “Oh dear, how sad”. He has done nothing at all. And there have been no further consequences whatever, any more than there have been for the French, whose shrug at the court’s decisions has been perhaps more respectful, but just as indifferent to Strasbourg’s demands.

David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, expressed a widely felt sentiment when he said last week that: “It makes a mockery of human rights if we can’t protect ourselves against people who are out to destroy them for everyone else.” Mr Cameron has pledged that the Conservatives, if elected, will “tear up the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, so we can deal with human rights issues more sensibly”.

In fact, tearing up the Human Rights Act is not necessary. The problem is not so much the Act, as the way the European Court interprets the European Convention on Human Rights that underpins it. A better and less disruptive solution to the problem would be to opt out of the jurisdiction of the European Court. The final arbiters of the requirements of the Human Rights Act would then be the Law Lords. Their deep understanding of our legal tradition gives them a unique ability to make the fine discriminations that are necessary when balancing one right against another – the right of aliens not to be deported to countries whose legal procedures fall short of ours, for instance, against the right of British citizens to live in peace and security.

Of course the Law Lords are not perfect. But they are far more capable of making decisions appropriate for Britain than the judges in the Strasbourg court. With some notable exceptions, the European judges are, to put it mildly, lightly qualified for the job of interpreting the Convention on Human Rights in a British context. Judges from Albania, Serbia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Russia, Romania and Latvia do not come from countries with a tradition of respect for the rule of law, or even much experience of it. One British observer has said that seeing how they come to their decisions is a bit like watching the East European judges in the Eurovision Song Contest. That’s an exaggeration – but you see his point.

The most incisively intelligent of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman, has suggested opting out of the jurisdiction of the European Court now that the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into our law. Can anyone seriously maintain that the judges in Strasbourg are more likely to reach wise decisions on how to apply human rights law in Britain than our own judges? Can it even be claimed that we would lose anything at all by reverting to the age-old system of having our own judges interpret our law, rather than having, as the ultimate authority, foreign judges who know nothing of it? To pose those questions is to answer them. The sooner we extricate ourselves from Strasbourg, the better for the rule of law in Britain.

Wow, that’s a revolting screed from the Telegraph: “all foreigners are cheats. Therefore, we should ignore the ECHR”.

The point about human rights is, if you believe in them, they also need to protect the people who idiots like Cameron and yourself erroneously believe will “destroy them for everyone else“.

There simply is no conflict: sending someone off to a non-ECHR-respecting regime where they stand a decent chance, if not a certainty, of being tortured or jailed based on information extracted through torture, is what destroys human rights.

Allowing people to go through a legal process to protect their human rights, and paying them benefits so that they don’t starve while the appeal drags on, is not what destroys human rights at all. It’s what protects them.

And if that person to whom we’re applying the legal protections necessary to ensure that the innocent don’t suffer is an objectionable git, and if he hates our freedom, then the fact that we’re defending his human rights still does *absolutely nothing* to damage anyone else’s…

Oh dear, john B – so Lord Hoffman is a racist, eh ?
That accusation didn’t take very long, did it ?

As I have tried to point out (yet ukliberty singularly fails to apprehend) some degree of interpretation is necessary whenever one or other authority interprets legislation (be it the HRA or any other bill).
For this reasons the Law Lords may arrive at a different conclusion to judges in Europe even though they are faced with exactly the SAME piece of legislation.
Hasn’t this already happened, in fact, in the case in hand ?

Personally I would prefer rulings from the Law Lords rather than some distant authority who may have minimal or no direct experience of British culture.

It has been stated many times that the legal system in Jordan may be less robust than ours but this still does not absolve us of the responsibility to balance the rights of a given individual against the human rights of others in the community.
After all we all have the right NOT to be blown up on the way work, for example.

In trying to calculate the risk we have to understand a little of Abu Qatada’s intentions.
The record seems to suggest he is an extremist who would not hesitate to use terror to further his unpopular ideological objectives – in fact, hasn’t AQ already been labeled as Al-Qaeda’s representative in Europe ?

I must admit this moniker is already making me feel rather nervous about how well the human rights of others are being protected.

the a&e charge nurse,

Even so, ukliberty claims that it is a price worth paying although not even he/she knows what the final bill will be

I said in the scheme of things it won’t seem a lot. Try looking at the bigger picture. £2,500 means that each household in the UK has contributed on average £0.00001. Or let’s say the final bill is £1m – this is just shy of 5p for every household. The average income per household is about £50,000, 5p is 0.0001% of that.

No, 0.0001% doesn’t seem a lot.

And it would have been even less than 0.0001% if the Government had followed its own rules.

AQ can claim in perpetuity

Er no, he can’t. He has one avenue of appeal left. And that’s it. As I said.

Ukliberty then has the gall to pipe up about the “provenance of the European Convention on Human Rights ” as if this were a simple matter of jurisprudence.

You said “Finally you announce (triumphally) that the law is a set of “factual statements” – yes, factual statements plucked out somebody’s arse apparently, rather than devised after moral, philosophical and technical discourse (stimulated by important social values such as balancing rights of the individual against the wider community).”

Perhaps you don’t know what provenance means; whatever, claiming that the law consists of “factual statements plucked out of somebody’s arse” suggests you clearly do not understand or appreciate why and when the European Convention was written and the careful reasoning that goes into judging each case on its merits according to the law and precedent.

The rest of your post is easily dealt with by john b @ 55. I’m not capable of putting it better than he has.

But essentially, if you think due process should be dispensed with for people that we don’t like, you’re an idiot.

Wow, what a post A&E…where to start…

The benefits issue is an important one Lee, I don’t think we can quietly sweep under the carpet in the manner you suggest.

So I see you’ve skipped the last part of what we’ve said and decided to go back to square one. OK, then so shall I. Why is it you feel people that are put under curfew, unable to get a job, pending judicial procedings, should starve and be homeless? The benefit issue is only important in this case if you don’t agree with the universality of human rights.

Perhaps you believe that welfare cheques are limitless and each time a new claim arises we simply shake the money tree for a bit more cash – I prefer to think that the substantial sum of money already handed over to AQ is depriving somebody (somewhere) of a service they really need (because the purse is finite, I’m afraid).

I think in this economic climate we have to laugh quite heartily at your assertion that it is Qatada’s benefit payments that are depriving someone else. I would posit that perhaps multi-billion pound wastes of money such as the ID card system, the Olympics bill we have to now foot because private companies have pulled out…they go much, much further than the paltry amount (by comparison to the national economy) given to people on benefits awaiting deportation.

Note: We’re not even talking about benefit cheats here, simply people that deserve benefits to keep them alive while we go through our legal and democratic processes…and you wish for that to not happen. And I thought it was Qatada that was meant to hate this country and champion such brutality!

In this respect ukiberty believes we should all act like a drunken trader ordering more bottles of champagne during a riotous night out because it is the firm (rather than the individual) who must pick up the tab.

False analogy, it is more like we, our country, should act like a company that is sending their employees to conference and realise it is absolutely immoral to expect them to pay their own way to get there and partake in it.

In fact, tearing up the Human Rights Act is not necessary. The problem is not so much the Act, as the way the European Court interprets the European Convention on Human Rights that underpins it.

Ah yes, the interpretation that we all have equal rights. What a shocker that is, condemnable for sure!

Their deep understanding of our legal tradition gives them a unique ability to make the fine discriminations that are necessary when balancing one right against another – the right of aliens not to be deported to countries whose legal procedures fall short of ours, for instance, against the right of British citizens to live in peace and security.

You could work for the home office, all of this evocation of “national security” and “peace” as reasons for doing anything. It’s also saddening that you would take a road that moves us further from human rights. Indeed you must agree with Jordan’s torturous manner when it comes to law and justice. After all, they are just enacting their deep understanding of their legal traditions that give them a unique ability to make the fine discriminations that are necessary when balancing out one right against another.

The most incisively intelligent of the Law Lords, Lord Hoffman, has suggested opting out of the jurisdiction of the European Court now that the European Convention on Human Rights has been incorporated into our law.

Yet we’re not going to hear from you, are we, about the many innocent people that have taken their case to their extremities in the UK and have been turned down, only to finally find their salvation in the European Courts. By all means, center on when Europe allows “criminals” their rights in a civilised and humane society, but don’t forget that what you’re talking about washes over the inadequacies of our own legal system in ensuring the rights of perfectly innocent people, especially against the state.

Can it even be claimed that we would lose anything at all by reverting to the age-old system of having our own judges interpret our law, rather than having, as the ultimate authority, foreign judges who know nothing of it? To pose those questions is to answer them. The sooner we extricate ourselves from Strasbourg, the better for the rule of law in Britain.

Strasbourg is an extra layer, an objective layer, of judicial process. But then we know from your insane idea that victims should actually play a wider role in the process that objectivity and integrity in these situations isn’t something you care for.

“After all we all have the right NOT to be blown up on the way work, for example.”

How many bombings have you seen in this country since 7/7, by the way? We sure are living in a terrible and unsafe place!

…and even if there *is* another set of successful terrorist bombings, which there sadly probably will be at some point, there is absolutely no chance – and I’d be willing to stake my life on that – that it will feature any involvement from someone like Qatada, who will be monitored by the security services for the rest of his life.

If you’re planning a terrorist attack you hire people with records for petty crime and people with no records. You don’t bring in someone who’s been on the front page of all the papers as a terrorist, because you don’t want everyone in your lot to be dragged off for interrogation and probably jail months before you get to kill anyone.

You’re assuming AQ’s appeal won’t be successful, ukliberty – if it IS then, as I say, he and his family can claim benefits in perpetuity (since job opportunities for former terrorists can be a bit thin on the ground).
Anyway, with people like you cheering him along I don’t see how his appeal can fail.

You then put forward a moronic argument about how a few million is neither here, nor there (in the great scheme of things) – but try telling that to somebody who cannot afford local authority care costs, for example.
Or a school with inadequate resources to assist every child with learning difficulties.

The pot is finite, all public services must face that reality, and if the AQ is receiving regular bungs (with another £2.5k in the post) then as I say, somebody somewhere will go without, eventually – sorry, if you don’t like the concept of consequences.

Mind you AQ only arrived in 1993 we musn’t be rushing into anything, must we ?

Do you mean there is NO further risk from Al-Qaeda, Lee.

On what date did this become effective ?

Perhaps, we should put you in charge of major incident planning ?

“sorry, if you don’t like the concept of consequences.”

Coming from the person that is unwilling to accept that it had to happen that a government unlawfully detaining someone would be told to pay compensation! Consequences only happen to sick children and puppies, obviously.

“Do you mean there is NO further risk from Al-Qaeda, Lee.”

There’s always risk, in everything, it’s all about the level of that risk though. John B has already stated precisely why getting your underwear in a twist about Qatada is a complete waste of time.

“try telling that to somebody who cannot afford local authority care costs”

There is no such person in the UK. Either you can afford local authority care costs, or you get them paid by the government – that’s the whole point of the income and savings thresholds. There are people who don’t *want to pay* local authority care costs, but that’s not the same.

By comparison, if someone is barred by law from working, like Mr Q, then benefits are the only thing keeping them from starvation. That’s gotta be top of the ‘needs’ tree, no?

58 – oh please stop, you’re going to have me in tears.
I merely introduced a newspaper article to illustrate a point about the significance of INTERPRETATION when it comes to ANY legislation (a point the ukliberty is still struggling to grasp).

We can also discuss how public cash is used if this really interests you but it still does not excuse cash being wasted on AQ.

Don’t forget we’ve had 15 years to sort him out – longer than x2 world wars.

The Law Lords have already ruled on deportation.

He is an illegal immigrant convicted of terror offenses elsewhere.

He has a reputation in Spain for terrorist activity.

john B – want’s to keep him here, forever.
Unemployable and under the watchful eye of the security services.

Which operations should be cancelled to pay for it all ?

You’re assuming AQ’s appeal won’t be successful, ukliberty – if it IS then, as I say, he and his family can claim benefits in perpetuity (since job opportunities for former terrorists can be a bit thin on the ground).

Well I can’t see on what point he can appeal, can you? The judgements seem sound. Have you read them?

Anyway, with people like you cheering him along I don’t see how his appeal can fail.

I don’t mind robust argument but it seems out of order for you to lie about what I’ve written.

With regard to the money, don’t be obtuse. Of course it is a lot in certain contexts. You may as well say “try telling a starving homeless child that £2,500 isn’t a lot of money”. It makes eff all difference to the scheme of things.

I think 0.0001% is insignificant and well worth paying to ensure someone, however objectionable, sees due process. And if you had any sense and objectivity, you would too.

I merely introduced a newspaper article to illustrate a point about the significance of INTERPRETATION when it comes to ANY legislation (a point the ukliberty is still struggling to grasp).

And I introduced how what you consider to be the best inerpretation may not actually be the best, ala all those countries that choose their own interpretation over the ECHR also. You haven’t really given any case as to why the ECHR interpretation is wrong, you’ve just harped on about national security and peace.

We can also discuss how public cash is used if this really interests you but it still does not excuse cash being wasted on AQ.

Still condoning people going through their trials to be starved to death before an ultimate verdict is reached I see.

Don’t forget we’ve had 15 years to sort him out – longer than x2 world wars.

Sort out what? Some hateful speech from a guy that can’t leave his house for more than two hours a day? That has been under watch for at least 8 years and yet has never had enough evidence to actually charge him with anything?

He is an illegal immigrant convicted of terror offenses elsewhere.

He is a legally recognised asylum seeker, we’ve been over this. Running out of pointless and disgusting arguments are you?

He has a reputation in Spain for terrorist activity.

And I have a reputation for being the best lover in Iceland (the store, not the country).

Back to reality, given you’re now ignoring the main point…why is it that you think that if the government picked up a young white woman off the street and detained her for 2 years without charge that she shouldn’t get compensation?

john B – want’s to keep him here, forever. Unemployable and under the watchful eye of the security services.

I’m sure john b will defend himself, if he can be bothered to dignify that with a response, but I’d be interested to know why you keep lying about what commenters are saying.

Don’t forget we’ve had 15 years to sort him out – longer than x2 world wars.

In fact he was arrested eight years ago in February, but don’t let the facts get in the way of your sanctimonious drivel.

The judgements seem sound – surely you can’t mean judgements arrived at by our own Law Lords, ukliberty ?
Do you seriously expected me to believe that they can make a sensible pronouncement when it comes to human rights ?
No, far better to hand this power over to some distant authority – perhaps we could rope in the Bolivians, or some other South American country because they have NO vested interest at all.

By the way AQ HAS benefited from due process – and he will continue to do so for many more years, including a further £2.5k in compo which he ‘DESERVES’, of course.

Lee, your views about what constitutes the best legal process seem to be on a par with your grasp of economics and major incident planning.
Money is limitless – we face no further threats.

By the way how many ‘young white women’ can you name who have been described as Al-Qaeda representative in Europe, or posses anything like AQ’s reputation for extremism and violence ?
Yes, I didn’t think you could name many.

“Yes, I didn’t think you could name many.”

Well, that wasn’t my point…but you knew that which is why you avoided my question….again. Your prejudice and wilful neglect of human rights based on a subjective set of “balances” is a stark warning to us all. Thanks for reminding us what the true enemy of our society sounds like.

I (along with many others) patched up some of victims of the 7/7 bombing atrocities, yet I’m “the true enemy of our society”

Abu Qataba has been described thus (see below) yet HE is the “deserving” victim.

Abu Qatada has been described by Jamal al-Fadl, in his testimony in the Southern District Court of New York on February 6, 2001, as a member of al-Qaeda’s “Fatwa Committee”.
According to the indictment of the Madrid al-Qaeda cell, Abu Qatada was the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe, and the spiritual leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), and the Tunisian Combat Group.[8]
The Middle East Media Research Institute claimed that, in 1997, Abu Qatada called upon Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers.[9]
Abu Qatada is reported by the British press[10][11] to have been a preacher or advisor to al-Qaeda terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid.
When questioned in the UK in February 2001, Abu Qatada was in possession of £170,000 cash, including £805 in an envelope labelled “For the Mujahedin in Chechnya”.[10]
Nineteen audio cassettes of Abu Qatada’s sermons were found in the apartment of Mohamed Atta when it was searched after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which Atta led[12].
References on Wikipedia page.

The problem with people like you Lee is that your type who’d witness a mugging yet worry more about the background of the muggers rather than the victim lying on the floor.
Honestly – you need a reality check.

Hitler’s germany stood back and let Homosexuals, Jews and immigrants be taken away and subjected to inhumane conditions because of “the belief” they were bad and because the authorities said that it was for the German people’s benefit.

I’d like you to explain how you’re any different from those people that stood back and let utter disaster happen, much greater than *any* terrorist “threat” the world has seen.

I’d like you to explain why you think people should starve because of ALLEGATIONS rather than proven guilt. I’d like you to explain why people don’t deserve their rights based on ALLEGATIONS rather than proven guilt.

But you won’t, you’re going to hide behind your own version of morality as usual to apologise for your truly reprehensible stance on this issue.

Where did I say I disagreed with the judgement of the Law Lords?

Where did I say Qatada ‘deserves’ the compensation?

Try arguing with my real claims, not the ones you are imagining me to make.

And stop lying about what people have written here.

Lee – the only person that has a problem with Jews and homosexuals is AQ, in fact, his views on these groups are a matter of public record.
Perhaps we should reward again him for his despicable comments ?

If you honestly think that our treatment of AQ is in any way similar to the treatment dished out by Nazis then it simply proves (beyond all reasonable doubt) that you are as daft as a brush and have little grasp of the realities of the situation ?

ukliberty – I am addressing my responses to several commentators on this thread.
I am not certain if I have made these attributions to you personally, but if I have, and if they are incorrect then I apologise.

You may find my dissent infuriating, and you have accused me of several crimes but I would be grateful if we could at least agree that I’m not ‘lying’.
If you really believe that I am a liar then it makes further dialogue very difficult,

“If you honestly think that our treatment of AQ is in any way similar to the treatment dished out by Nazis ”

I wasn’t talking about treatment, oh ye of wily fact changing, I was talking about the essence of your views. Which you don’t deny…nor wish to explain it would seem.

And again, to clarify, we are not rewarding Qatada, as much as you wish to paint it that way, we’re compensating him for the abuse on his rights, which would be as much as an abuse if anyone else were incarcerated in such a manner. But then…back to the above, we see that you have this authoritarian apologetic attitude when it comes to those the state is telling you are a threat. What’s amusing is you can’t see that your general attitude is no better than Qatada’s alleged attitude.

Lee – you must be close to exhausting your repertoire of put downs ?

First you label me “the true enemy of society” (this has inspired the design of a personalised T-shirt with your pithy epithet emblazoned on the chest, by the way).

Now my ‘general attitude’ in no better than Qatada’s.

Does this entitle me to any compo ?

a&e charge nurse, you’ve claimed that one or more of your opponents in this thread are “cheering” for Abu Qatada, that they “want to keep him here forever”, etc – you aren’t lying if you genuinely believe that is what we’ve written or implied, but if you do genuinely believe that is what we’ve written or implied it means you have a problem with reading comprehension.

In short: none of us like or support Qatada’s objectives; despite this, and however much we dislike him or anyone else, we believe that anyone, including Abu Qatada, is entitled to due process; also anyone, including Abu Qatada, is entitled to compensation for having been unlawfully imprisoned.

Your position seems to be that particular people should not be entitled to due process. Is that fair?

ukliberty – at NO point in this discussion have I made reference to anybody other than AQ (or his family) so I am genuinely baffled as to how you arrive at a conclusion that I am advocating “that particular people should not be entitled to due process ” – you may wish to elaborate on your thinking behind this erroneous claim.

Neither have I ever claimed that AQ is NOT entitled to due process.

The disagreement between each camp is about the point at which we can say that AQ’s human rights have been reasonably served.

I have already highlighted how there are different points of view amongst the higher echelons in the legal world, while on the ground there has been much discussion about what the legal ruling means to our society in a broader sense.

My position is that AQ has ALREADY benefited from due process and for me the ruling by the Law Lords should be abided by – that’s just a personal view, of course although I don’t think it makes me “the true enemy of the state”, or a crypto-nazi as Lee G claims.
In fact I expect a bit more from him rather than that sort of histrionic rubbish.

We have also debated how others prefer to have further layers of legal appeal (ECHR) after the Law Lords, and perhaps in time we might even see the introduction of a World supa-court, although it may take as long as 20 years before any case can ever be heard.

You know my feelings about the compo – AQ may be legally entitled to yet more dosh but I don’t have to be happy about it.

As I say AQ been in the UK for 15 years and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to question why the matter has not been sorted out one way or other (even if we take the 8 year timescale that you identify above).

Maybe AQ is directly, or indirectly responsible for various murders and maybe he isn’t.
We do know that the Jordanians think he IS a terrorist – the allegations about his activities since coming to Europe suggest that there ARE questions to be answered. For these reasons I think AQ should be returned to Jordan to face trial now that they have given assurances about is human rights.

“Does this entitle me to any compo ?”

If you get locked up without charge then yes. Simple isn’t it?

“My position is that AQ has ALREADY benefited from due process ”

Benefited through restricted freedoms…what a warped world you live in.

Why do you think people being held without charge should starve to death? Why do you wish for people to be detained arbitrarily for extremely long periods without charge based on allegations?

“In fact I expect a bit more from him rather than that sort of histrionic rubbish.”

If it looks and smells like shit… Sorry if you don’t like the obvious relation between your attitudes and those that stood by willingly to see lives destroyed, nor the irony of you wishing to deprive the rights of someone that wishes to deprive others rights…you certainly don’t seem to have any capability to refute this.

Lee – I am not standing by while lives get destroyed (another possible T-shirt idea) I am PAYING for AQ’s human rights to be protected in the UK.

You don’t think convicted terrorists should be subject to ANY form of restriction, even after being found in possession of £170,000, and envelopes addressed to the Chechen rebels – perhaps AQ had simply received a particularly juicy welfare cheque but I doubt it somehow ?

Anyway, if it’s all so straightforward why don’t you run counter intelligence with Inspector Clouseau assisting you ?

Unlike the furtive activities of AQ the authorities must remain open to scrutiny – this is exactly what has happened.

AQ has had another day in court, and a further £2.5k will be tossed his way.
In fact AQ has received far more from this country than the victims of the tube bombings ever did – to me that’s just plain wrong.

And nowhere in this do express a view about the morality of AQ himself – I mean doesn’t it worry just a little bit that our dosh might be indirectly funding the next terrorist atrocity ?