Anyone else’s blood boil when they read about this joker and yet another ruling in his favour today?
These terrorists are very keen all of a sudden to play the human rights card when it suits them. It is kind of ironic that he hates the west yet he is fighting tooth and nail to stay here.
Send him packing on the first plane out of here. If he gets tortured then unlucky, should have thought about that pal.Posted 4 years ago
I’m in the ‘the law should apply equally to everyone’ camp; being an odious shit stirrer does not mean that you should get treated differently by the judiciary.
The key thing is whether it is acceptable to use evidence obtained by torture in a trial. My view is that it isn’t. The evidence is unreliable and why should we make physically harming someone to get them to tell a story as an acceptable thing to do under any circumstances?Posted 4 years agoclubberMember
What we need to do is have a sliding scale of rules and rights. For those of us who are in the ‘right/ok’ category, the full letter and protection of the law applies.
You then reduce those rights depending on how much you dislike the people you’re applying them to.
What could possibly go wrong?Posted 4 years ago
Paragraph 37 of the judgement actually says what Jordan would need to do to allow Britain to complete his extradition.
so it’s quite clear he *can* be extradited.Posted 4 years agobrakesMember
I would suggest that a Code of Common Sense be created and passed that supersedes all of the other “Codes of” that are designed to protect the rights of the common man but end up being flagrantly abused by terror-whores such as Abu Hooky-hand, or whatever his name is this week.
meh.Posted 4 years ago
rogerthecat, this is what Jordan need to do. Basically not use the evidence from the two tortured men in a trial.
“The Secretary of State has not satisfied us that, on a retrial, there is no real risk that the impugned statements of Abu Hawsher and Al-Hamasher would be admitted probatively against the appellant. Until and unless a change is made to the Code of Criminal Procedure and/or authoritative rulings are made by the Court of Cassation or Constitutional Court which establish that statements made to a public prosecutor by accomplices who are no longer subject to criminal proceedings cannot be admitted probatively against a returning fugitive and/or that it is for the prosecutor to prove to a high standard that the statement were not procured by torture, that real risk will remain.”Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
There is a theory that “cat flap” May is deliberatly losing this one repeatedly so as to whip up the morons into an anti Europe froth so she can do away with the Human Rights act etc in due course .To eskay what is so wrong with the prohibition on torture and the rule of law?Posted 4 years ago
‘these types of characters’ you mean people classified as ‘unlawful combatants’ assumed to be guilty, without a trial, held captive in a penal colony who live in a nightmarish world of indefinite detention without a trial.
Denial of human freedom is torture; denial of any sense of when that torture ends adds a whole new barbarous dimension of cruelty.
What an excellent world you dream of!!!Posted 4 years ago
OK, so I googled – he is accused of various crimes, nearly all to do with saying things. Some of them amount to incitement to murder and to rise up and take arms, which are illegal in an ordinary mainstream sense without specialist terrorism legislation. So – if they were true then he would be tried and convicted of those crimes. But he isn’t?
I find that the very people who are in favour of summarily imprisoning or even of just murdering him are the same ones who have the least idea about what he is accused of. Which basically means they are racists who want to kill bearded foreigners because they don’t see them as being as human as everyone else.Posted 4 years ago
I don’t want him murdered or summarily imprisoned.Posted 4 years ago
He is a foreign national who has taken the piss out the UK for long enough. I want him gone. Don’t care where, I don’t want to read about him and I definitely don’t want to pay for him, his accommodation or legal bills. Nothin to do with his colour/race/whatever or penchant for facial hair.
The topic ‘Abu Qatada’ is closed to new replies.