Britain frees radical cleric Abu Qatada

[ZenGum]

Too much wrist action, eh?

Well, I wouldn't sentence a guy to having his legs blown off, but when it happens as a result of his own crimes...

A suspected Iranian bomber had his legs blown off as he hurled a grenade at Thai police in the capital Bangkok, with Israel accusing Tehran of being behind the third attack in world capitals this week.

... I LMAO.

Then I give him a fair trial.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

Habeus Corpus, magna carta, due process.

If he's done something under the law (like sedition, inciting violence) then by all means come down on him hard. Due process must be followed, otherwise we're no better than thugs, and then there's no point fighting, because we've become the enemy.

Motherfucking WORD.

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

You sound like a philosophy professor. Or a liberal.

Originally Posted by Lamplighter

or Pogo

Originally Posted by classicman

or both.

Look a hat trick of compliments.

[Sundae]

Hoist by his own petard indeed.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Sundae

Hoist by his own petard indeed.

Or lowered, depending on your perspective.

[ZenGum]

Down with Tito!

[footfootfoot]

and Toto! This ain't Kansas.

[infinite monkey]

And down with GIGO.

Rubbish.

[Sundae]

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Sundae

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.

A few things.

First of all, Dani says for herself "most of us" that she'd like him to leave.

Originally Posted by Dani

I think most of us would like him to fuck off back to Jordon if our culture is so goddamned objectionable to him.

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.

[Aliantha]

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.

[Rhianne]

I know he has claim to Jordanian nationality but I'm not sure how Jordanian he actually is.

[DanaC]

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.

[BigV]

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.

[BigV]

This is your bullshit, straight out of your own mouth. You own it, no one put it there.

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.

Now, tell me how that show faith in the UK's legal system.

[xoxoxoBruce]

If they keep him in England, they can keep him in a cone of silence.