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.
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.