Britain frees radical cleric Abu Qatada

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

Originally Posted by Aliantha

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!

Originally Posted by DanaC

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

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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?