Britain frees radical cleric Abu Qatada

[BigV]

Originally Posted by me

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

Originally Posted by you

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

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.

Originally Posted by me

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?

Originally Posted by you

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

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.

[classicman]

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that Qatada should be bailed on highly prescriptive terms for three months while the British government sought further reassurances from Jordan.

Sounds like the situation is moving forward through the system.

The European Court of Human Rights blocked Britain from deporting the 51-year-old Islamist cleric to Jordan after ruling that he might not receive a fair trial.

David Cameron is under mounting pressure to find a way of deporting Qatada, even if it means defying the European court.

Jordan said on Monday it would “very soon” approach the court with new guarantees that Qatada would be treated fairly if he was deported. “[The law] mentions very expressly that any evidence obtained from torture or a threat of torture should not be admissible before the courts in Jordan,” said Ayman Odeh, the justice minister.

“We are confident that once we have the chance to make this statement through the diplomatic channels … [it] will be taken into consideration.”

Jordan passed an amendment banning evidence obtained from torture last September.

Home Office sources said Jordan’s new efforts should not be considered a “quick fix”, meaning Qatada could remain free in Britain for months.

The taxpayer will have to fund up to 60 police officers at a cost of about £10,000 a week to protect the extremist preacher from vigilante attacks.
Peter Bone, a senior Conservative backbencher, called for the Government to deport Qatada and “worry about the consequences of the European Court later”.

“Other countries have done this in the past: Italy did it, they put their national interests first,” he said. “They put the interests of saving the lives of men, women and children in Italy before the so-called rights of an extremist terrorist and nothing really happened to Italy. We should act in that way. Send him home.”

On Monday, a Downing Street spokesman did not rule out the possibility of a deportation in defiance of the European Court. “We are committed to removing him from the country,” he said. “We want to see him deported. We are looking at all the options for doing that.”

Link

[DanaC]

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.

In October 2002, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, detained Qatada indefinitely without trial under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (ATCSA), which at that time provided for such detention.[19] The Special Immigrations Appeals Commission subsequently rejected an appeal by Qatada to be released from detention without trial.[15] In 2005, Part 4 of ATCSA was replaced by the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, which replaced detentions with control orders, and Qatada was released under such a control order. On August 12, 2005, Qatada was detained again pending deportation to Jordan.[20]

On April 9, 2008, the Court of Appeal ruled that Qatada could not be returned to Jordan as he would face a further trial where there was a strong probability that evidence obtained by torture might be used that would amount to a breach of the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.[21] He was released on bail by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on May 8, 2008, subject to a 22-hour home curfew and other restrictions. His bail security was provided by former terrorist hostage Norman Kember, whose release Qatada had requested before Kember's rescue by the SAS in 2006.[22]

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:

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.[12]

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.[13]

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".[14]

Videos of Abu Qatada's sermons were found in the Hamburg apartment of Mohamed Atta when it was searched after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which Atta led.[14]

Mr. Justice Collins, then chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that rejected his appeal against detention in 2004, said that Abu Qatada was "heavily involved, indeed was at the centre in the United Kingdom of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaeda. He is a truly dangerous individual ...".[15][14]

Abu Qatada is reported by the British press to have been a preacher or advisor to al-Qaeda terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid.[16][17]

Abu Qatada's name is included in the UN al-Qaeda sanction list pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1267.[1]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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

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.

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.