NationStates Jolt Archive

Wow, I thought this country couldn't get any more pathetic but here we are.

In February 2000 an airliner was hijacked by a some Afghan dissidents weilding guns and grenades. They demanded to be flown to Britain, which they were. The hostages were then freed and the situation was diffused without bloodshed. They were jailed, but the two ringleaders got pitiful sentences of 5 years while six others got 30 months.

Of course, this wasn't enough. They appealed and with the help of a judge who obviously isn't fit to be in his job, the convictions were quashed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3051259.stm) The reason given was that they acted 'under duress' because they were fleeing the Taliban. Like that's our problem.

Then in 2004 the Immigration Appellate Authority found (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3889107.stm) that while the government was right not to grant them asylum, they shouldn't be deported because of the danger they might face. Which basically means they've been granted de facto asylum. The government tried to appeal to the High Court to deport them but they lost (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4757523.stm) yesterday. The government today said they'll sppeal further, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4760873.stm) but knowing the judiciary of this country I don't see what good it's going to do.

Anybody want to stay in Britain? All you have to do is hijack a plane, play some persecution story and you're guaranteed the right to stay here! The fact the Taliban doesn't even rule the country is irrelevant of course (Not that it should have mattered anyway, they should be sent back regardless). This court decision has sent out a message that hijacking is a great idea because of the way we're so soft in them.

This is absolutely pathetic, they should have got life in prison. If they weren't going to do that the least that should have gotten was a deportation order. If the court rules against it then the government should just have the guts to change the laws, including withdrawing from things like the European Convention of Human Rights.

Withdraw from the convention on Human Rights? Okay, that happens, the first thing we should do is lock up and torture idiots who call for that kind of thing, just to show how important it is for people to have human rights.

*sigh*

So you are saying that you shouldn't try to get away from an oppressive regime that wants you dead?

Also, the Appeal judge is probably entirely correct. I haven't revised Duress yet but it's intended to cover people in fear of their lives and the like. In other words, if you are threatened by someone you are allowed to respond - kinda like self-defence but runnng away rather than fighting it out...

Isn't life in prison de facto asylum?

So you are saying that you shouldn't try to get away from an oppressive regime that wants you dead?

You shouldn't be allowed to put other people's lives at risk. They say there was no intent to harm the hostages, but there could well have been old people with heart problems on the plane. There were certainly frightened children. Did they give a toss? Did they buggery.

Withdraw from the convention on Human Rights? Okay, that happens, the first thing we should do is lock up and torture idiots who call for that kind of thing, just to show how important it is for people to have human rights.
Don't be melodramatic. We didn't go aroud torturing people before the ECHR existed so we don't need it now. All things like the ECHR and the UN Refugee Convention do is force us to do things like harbour dangerous radical clerics and terrorists because they mace face inhuman or degrading treatment back home. That sort of thing we could do without.

Isn't life in prison de facto asylum?
Fair enough, put them in front of a firing squad in that case.

How about a totally different angle on this.

The govt. announces the names and addresses of these blokes. The UK contains enough idiots to ensure this would put their lives in danger. They would then have to leave and claim asylum in another country as they would be in danger of physical harms if they stayed here

Problem solved and it wouldn't cost the British govt. anything. ;)

Good. This is exactly the kind of innovative thinking we need in this country.

(semi-joking)

Could lead to a whole new string of Lord Kitchener style posters;

Your country neeeds YOU to terrorise ethnic families into believing their lives are in dangers so they will go away.

:D

Could lead to a whole new string of Lord Kitchener style posters;

Your country neeeds YOU to terrorise ethnic families into believing their lives are in dangers so they will go away.

:D
You mean the BNP don't have that already? Someone needs to phone them up - it might not have occured to them.

-Somewhere-: You're a twofold idiot. It's not our problem? You realise that the UK has signed up to Geneva Refugee Convention? That makes it our problem. Furthermore we invaded Afghanistan a year later and further destablised the country.

Secondly I suggest you look up the difference between what the UK government defines a refugee to be and what it defines an asylum seeker to be. There is a big difference.

I seriously can't believe that the UK has managed to deport people back to Iraq and Afghanistan. The government's in those countries are a mess and barely deserve the title of government.

The only reason to case for not granting these men asylum is that they did not claim asylum in the countries that the plane landed in prior to its arrival in the UK.

I think this whole thing is full of hypocrisy. This was the same year that the UK joined US coalition forces to depose the Taliban in Afghanistan. Who the UK government claimed to be harbouring terrorists, yet thinks its alright to send these people back into hands of these terrorists by association.

Don't be melodramatic. We didn't go aroud torturing people before the ECHR existed so we don't need it now.

So the history of the British Empire is squeaky clean? :rolleyes:

-Somewhere-: You're a twofold idiot. It's not our problem? You realise that the UK has signed up to Geneva Refugee Convention? That makes it our problem. Furthermore we invaded Afghanistan a year later and further destablised the country.
Fair enough, then we should never have bothered with Afghanistan and should get out now. Then it isn't our problem. Anyway, as for the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, we can always withdraw our country from it. Or we can do what a hell of a lot of countries to that are already signed up to it and ignore it.

So the history of the British Empire is squeaky clean? :rolleyes:
I meant in recent history, and I meant domestically. The empire thing is a moot point because we don't have an empire any more. What I'm saying is that even without the ECHR we were hardly like Nazi Germany. Besides, even if we didn't completely get rid of the ECHR, as far as I know we can get out of certain parts of it. For example, the UK hasn't ratified Protocol 4, which among other things forbids the collective expulsion of foreigners. We should never be able to be forced to harbour dangerous terrorists or radical clerics. And if it comes to it, we could simply ignore the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights as they lack the machinery to enforce their judgements.

I meant in recent history, and I meant domestically.

Oh right. So you only mean in the years between say, 1900 and 1950?

That right?

Hell, lets make it more defined. How about only examining the third Sunday in April 1961, between the hours of, say 3.00 and 5.00 am, and located only in the 4th floor apartment in Basingstoke?

Is that a well enough defined era to examine British history?

Considering we declared war on the regime in question less than two years later, it would seem that subsequent events justified their actions.

Oh right. So you only mean in the years between say, 1900 and 1950?

That right?

Hell, lets make it more defined. How about only examining the third Sunday in April 1961, between the hours of, say 3.00 and 5.00 am, and located only in the 4th floor apartment in Basingstoke?

Is that a well enough defined era to examine British history?
What happened on the third Sunday in April 1961 between 3.00 and 5.00 am in the 4th floor apartment in Basingstoke? Did the British government perpetrate some sordid murder there? :rolleyes:

On topic. Do whatever you want, but aircraft hijacking is a vile and abhorrent crime... Maybe I'm saying that as a future frequent flyer, but nevertheless it is internationally condemned.

What happened on the third Sunday in April 1961 between 3.00 and 5.00 am in the 4th floor apartment in Basingstoke? Did the British government perpetrate some sordid murder there? :rolleyes:
Maybe! :D


On topic. Do whatever you want, but aircraft hijacking is a vile and abhorrent crime... Maybe I'm saying that as a future frequent flyer, but nevertheless it is internationally condemned.
Yeah, but think of the extra frequent flyer miles you can get with a good hijack :D

...

Yeah, but think of the extra frequent flyer miles you can get with a good hijack :D
I'll die from old age still trying to obtain them from Aeroflot! ;)

Don't be melodramatic. We didn't go aroud torturing people before the ECHR existed so we don't need it now.

You did go torturing people, and you did it even after the European Convention came into power. The European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights even bitchslapped the UK over it in 1976-78 when they gave their rulings in the case of Ireland vs. the United Kingdom which was about the UK beating and using the "five techniques" (wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; deprivation of sleep; deprivation of food and drink) on prisoners.

So, not only do you have to be ashamed of supporting torture, you have to be ashamed of not knowing the history of your own country.

You did go torturing people, and you did it even after the European Convention came into power. The European Commission on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights even bitchslapped the UK over it in 1976-78 when they gave their rulings in the case of Ireland vs. the United Kingdom which was about the UK beating and using the "five techniques" (wall-standing; hooding; subjection to noise; deprivation of sleep; deprivation of food and drink) on prisoners.
Then if we're doing to commit torture and beatings anyway then what's the point in even having the European Convention on Human Rights? This sort of stuff was illegal anyway, it wasn't officially sanctioned by the British government (Even if it was ignored by them) so no amount of laws will prevent this kind of stuff from going on. If all things like the ECHR or the UN Refugee Convention do is prevent us from deporting hijackers or radical clerics then is there really any reason to keep it in that case?

Then if we're doing to commit torture and beatings anyway then what's the point in even having the European Convention on Human Rights?

"If people are going to break the law, why do we have courts and laws?"

Do you now realise how stupid your question was?

This sort of stuff was illegal anyway,

Yes, thanks to the Convention, which the Court and the Commission ruled.

it wasn't officially sanctioned by the British government (Even if it was ignored by them)

Yes, it was. The methods were adopted on the advice of senior intelligence officials in the United Kingdom Government.

so no amount of laws will prevent this kind of stuff from going on.

But they will see to it that those who commit them are punished.

If all things like the ECHR or the UN Refugee Convention do

Apparently it's not all they do, as they stopped the UK from using the Five Techniques, and stopped it from getting away with it. They have also ruled against the UK on numerous other occasions in an array of issues. Are you truly this ignorant of the Convention, the Commission and the Court and their rulings and history?

is prevent us from deporting hijackers or radical clerics then is there really any reason to keep it in that case?

All people are to be protected from being "subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" - that applies to everyone. That also means you cannot just send people to countries where they will be tortured when knowing they will be - the Court and the law are not so stupid as to let you export crimes against humanity. The same goes for executions, of course, which the Convention bans. There is more than enough reason to keep it in place - people like you are proof of that and why we need the Convention.

All people are to be protected from being "subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" - that applies to everyone.
Then we need to do what's necessary to amend then law so that it doesn't apply to everyone. I don't see why we should have to protect those who want to destroy us.

Then we need to do what's necessary to amend then law so that it doesn't apply to everyone. I don't see why we should have to protect those who want to destroy us.

Because we're a democracy and theoretically supposed to be better than those attacking us. Take away those acts and we lose even the vaguest notion of being better and become just like them.

Then we need to do what's necessary to amend then law so that it doesn't apply to everyone.

We need to do no such thing as the law is working as intended. Its intent has always been that torture is a no-no, period. No exceptions.

I don't see why we should have to protect those who want to destroy us.

Because we are better than they are. Well, most of us are. Not so sure about people like you.

"If people are going to break the law, why do we have courts and laws?"

Do you now realise how stupid your question was?



Yes, thanks to the Convention, which the Court and the Commission ruled.



Yes, it was. The methods were adopted on the advice of senior intelligence officials in the United Kingdom Government.



But they will see to it that those who commit them are punished.



Apparently it's not all they do, as they stopped the UK from using the Five Techniques, and stopped it from getting away with it. They have also ruled against the UK on numerous other occasions in an array of issues. Are you truly this ignorant of the Convention, the Commission and the Court and their rulings and history?



All people are to be protected from being "subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" - that applies to everyone. That also means you cannot just send people to countries where they will be tortured when knowing they will be - the Court and the law are not so stupid as to let you export crimes against humanity. The same goes for executions, of course, which the Convention bans. There is more than enough reason to keep it in place - people like you are proof of that and why we need the Convention.

I'm not trying to argue that Britain has never tortured in its history, but I can't help feeling that you are being a bit disingenuous in this case, in ascribing the dropping of the 5 techniques to the actions of the European Court. The British had already made the decision that the 5 techniques should not be used against prisoners and that they would not in future be reintroduced.

We need to do no such thing as the law is working as intended. Its intent has always been that torture is a no-no, period. No exceptions.
But we wouldn't be torturing them, we would simply be refusing to protect them because they want us dead. We'd also be giving greater protection to our own people in the process.

Because we are better than they are. Well, most of us are. Not so sure about people like you.
You can still be better than them without acting like a doormat.

I'm not trying to argue that Britain has never tortured in its history, but I can't help feeling that you are being a bit disingenuous in this case, in ascribing the dropping of the 5 techniques to the actions of the European Court. The British had already made the decision that the 5 techniques should not be used against prisoners and that they would not in future be reintroduced.

What they did was agreed that they would follow the ruling of the Commission. The ECHR case came afterwards, because the court itself found the case to be important to rule on, as it would expand the Convention's jurisprudence. Before the Court, the UK Attorney-General even stated that the Convention played a large part as to why their use was discontinued: "The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the 'five techniques' with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the 'five techniques' will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation."

But we wouldn't be torturing them, we would simply be refusing to protect them because they want us dead. We'd also be giving greater protection to our own people in the process.

That is being complicit in the torture. And torture is a no-no. No exception. Not even allowed by proxy.

You can still be better than them without acting like a doormat.

One does not remain better than they are by acting like they do, or being complicit in what they do, which is what you are suggesting.

What they did was agreed that they would follow the ruling of the Commission. The ECHR case came afterwards, because the court itself found the case to be important to rule on, as it would expand the Convention's jurisprudence. Before the Court, the UK Attorney-General even stated that the Convention played a large part as to why their use was discontinued: "The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the 'five techniques' with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the 'five techniques' will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation."
That was when they were definitively ruled out in '77, and if you're being definitive you're always going to quote compliance with the highest authority, which in this case is the ECHR, but they'd already been dropped in '72 because of what English Law said.

That is being complicit in the torture. And torture is a no-no. No exception. Not even allowed by proxy.
But when dealing with dangerous people like these, there are only 2 choices for us - protect the dangerous terrorists or protect our own people. It's either one or the other, there are no half-way comprimises. We have to put our own people first.

One does not remain better than they are by acting like they do, or being complicit in what they do, which is what you are suggesting.
Well our opinions obviously differ on this one. I don't see it as being complicit, I see it as being neutral - their lives, their problem.

But when dealing with dangerous people like these, there are only 2 choices for us - protect the dangerous terrorists or protect our own people.

Those are not the only choices we have. We have a choice to punish them for their crimes within the law and in keeping with our principles. This is what happened. That you would lament it makes you the sort of person whose lamentations we should ignore.

It's either one or the other, there are no half-way comprimises. We have to put our own people first.

Nope. We have to put our way of life first. And our way of life is better than theirs, or yours.

Well our opinions obviously differ on this one. I don't see it as being complicit, I see it as being neutral - their lives, their problem.

One does not remain neutral on crimes against humanity and human rights violations, especially when sending people to be subjected to them. If WWII should have taught us anything, it should have been that.