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.