NationStates Jolt Archive

France has deported a Tunisian man to his homeland despite protests that he could face torture there.

Adel Tebourski, 42, was put on an Air France flight back to Tunisia on Monday, officials said.

Tebourski had served a jail sentence in France after being convicted of helping the killers of Afghan resistance leader Ahmed Shah Masood in 2001.

The French authorities described Tebourski as a serious threat to national security.

French campaigners have said he could be tortured in Tunisia, and the UN torture committee last month called on Paris to suspend his deportation, the French news agency AFP reports.
More here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5254016.stm)

Well it's good to see that there are at least some western countries who have the guts to properly deal with threats to their national security. Of course you had the usual 'human rights' groups whining about it, but it's good to see that the French authorities just ignored them and went ahead with the deportation. I don't see why the rights of terrorists and murderers should be put before the rights of ordinary people to live in safety.

Now if this happened in Britain he would never have been deported in the first place. You'd have the human rights industry getting on its high horse as usual, but the difference is with us is that our weak government would be unwilling to get rid of these people. And you'd also get some interfering liberal judge throwing a spanner in the works. I just wish Britain had a government that's willing to do whatever necessary to protect its people.

I just wish Britain had a government that's willing to do whatever necessary to protect its people.
I'm glad it doesn't.

I'm glad it doesn't.
So you prefer the current situation which puts the rights of terrorists and murderers before the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people?

More here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5254016.stm)

Well it's good to see that there are at least some western countries who have the guts to properly deal with threats to their national security. Of course you had the usual 'human rights' groups whining about it, but it's good to see that the French authorities just ignored them and went ahead with the deportation. I don't see why the rights of terrorists and murderers should be put before the rights of ordinary people to live in safety.

Now if this happened in Britain he would never have been deported in the first place. You'd have the human rights industry getting on its high horse as usual, but the difference is with us is that our weak government would be unwilling to get rid of these people. And you'd also get some interfering liberal judge throwing a spanner in the works. I just wish Britain had a government that's willing to do whatever necessary to protect its people.


i guess you are just born yesterday

So you prefer the current situation which puts the rights of terrorists and murderers before the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people?
It doesn't.

So you prefer the current situation which puts the rights of terrorists and murderers before the rights of ordinary, law-abiding people?
or, as some of us put it, the right for everyone to a fair trial where the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Show me one instance where a known terrorist has been given one iota more rights as any other law abiding citizen.

How is he a threat to national security?

What I like about your post is your apparent belief that jailing this man in France, where he wouldn't be tortured, jeapordises the right of French people to live in safety. The French decision to deport Mr Tebourski shows their lack of dedication to freedom and human rights, and should be condemned rather than applauded.

As for your criticism of the British government, I completely agree that the government is ruling ineptly, but I think that our civil rights are already being curbed far too much to protect us against a threat that has been blown vastly out of proportion. And I sincerely hope that you were joking about interfering liberal judges preventing the government from defending the people. It is those same judges who protect the people from the government. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if it were not for some people being willing to call out the government when it tries to abuse human rights, our country would be far more oppressive. Anyone who prevents the government from removing our civil liberties should be hailed as a national hero.

Show me one instance where a known terrorist has been given one iota more rights as any other law abiding citizen.
Surely you are not suggesting that a conspiracy theorist produce evidence? :eek:

I'm glad it doesn't.
It seems to go further than the US, in terms of the deep level of surveillance. You've also kicked some bad people out.

or, as some of us put it, the right for everyone to a fair trial where the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Show me one instance where a known terrorist has been given one iota more rights as any other law abiding citizen.

I don't think it amounts to having more rights but alot of Brits are fairly annoyed about those Afgan plane hijackers who were let off the hook.

or, as some of us put it, the right for everyone to a fair trial where the accused is presumed innocent until proved guilty.

Show me one instance where a known terrorist has been given one iota more rights as any other law abiding citizen.
The guy was convicted in a fair trial. He even admitted he was a member of an islamist cell linked to the killer. The guy's a terrorist, there's no doubt about it.

As for an example, I'll put it this way - these are dangerous people. They've already been convicted of terrorist offences and the only way to properly prevent them from reoffending after release is to send them back to where they came from. If you let them stay because of fears that they may be tortured, you're putting the terrorist's rights before the rights of the public to live in peace and safety - something which I think is one of the most fundamental rights.

What I like about your post is your apparent belief that jailing this man in France, where he wouldn't be tortured, jeapordises the right of French people to live in safety. The French decision to deport Mr Tebourski shows their lack of dedication to freedom and human rights, and should be condemned rather than applauded.
Hate to rain on your parade, but he served his jail sentence in a french prison. After he had done his time, he was deported. It seems that France doesn't like people coming in and breaking the law. I wonder why?

And I sincerely hope that you were joking about interfering liberal judges preventing the government from defending the people. It is those same judges who protect the people from the government. In fact, I would go so far as to say that, if it were not for some people being willing to call out the government when it tries to abuse human rights, our country would be far more oppressive. Anyone who prevents the government from removing our civil liberties should be hailed as a national hero.
I fail to see how a judge preventing a terrorist from being deported is defending the rights of ordinary citizens. The only person who he's defending is the terrorist.

The guy was convicted in a fair trial. He even admitted he was a member of an islamist cell linked to the killer. The guy's a terrorist, there's no doubt about it.

As for an example, I'll put it this way - these are dangerous people. They've already been convicted of terrorist offences and the only way to properly prevent them from reoffending after release is to send them back to where they came from. If you let them stay because of fears that they may be tortured, you're putting the terrorist's rights before the rights of the public to live in peace and safety - something which I think is one of the most fundamental rights.
Right...

You do know that the guy served a jail sentence for his crime. It says so in your own article. He paid his debt to society. one guy gets convicted of terrorism. He does the time. He gets reinstated in society. That's how it works. He did the crime and the time, he's free to do as he pleases. That's called rehabilitation.

If we went by your nonsensical notions, we would jail for life people who shoplift in the teen or those who break the speed limit. I don't know about you, but I find this solution lacking in many ways.

I don't think it amounts to having more rights but alot of Brits are fairly annoyed about those Afgan plane hijackers who were let off the hook.
And I would too. But them's the break. There wasn't enough evidence. It seems they didn't do it in the eye the law. Of course it will upset people who judged them guilty by way of the news, but that's not how it works thankfully.

Right...

You do know that the guy served a jail sentence for his crime. It says so in your own article. He paid his debt to society. one guy gets convicted of terrorism. He does the time. He gets reinstated in society. That's how it works. He did the crime and the time, he's free to do as he pleases. That's called rehabilitation.

If we went by your nonsensical notions, we would jail for life people who shoplift in the teen or those who break the speed limit. I don't know about you, but I find this solution lacking in many ways.


I would have found the story more appealing if, when they deported the convict, they took him via military air transport, and dropped him without a parachute over Tunisia.

Right...

You do know that the guy served a jail sentence for his crime. It says so in your own article. He paid his debt to society. one guy gets convicted of terrorism. He does the time. He gets reinstated in society. That's how it works. He did the crime and the time, he's free to do as he pleases. That's called rehabilitation.

If we went by your nonsensical notions, we would jail for life people who shoplift in the teen or those who break the speed limit. I don't know about you, but I find this solution lacking in many ways.
It's different when it's non-citizens we're talking about. When non-citizens commit crimes, particularly terrorist offences, they're abusing the hospitality of the country that has let them stay. When they do that, they shouldn't be entitled to stay in the country, and they should forfeit the protection that comes with it. If I was staying in somebody's house free of charge and started stealing from them, I'd expect them to throw me out. Same thing applies here.

It's different when it's non-citizens we're talking about. When non-citizens commit crimes, particularly terrorist offences, they're abusing the hospitality of the country that has let them stay. When they do that, they shouldn't be entitled to stay in the country, and they should forfeit the protection that comes with it.
And that's where we disagree. It seems the law is on my side in this instance, fortunately.

if they could deport the mexican, they will ;)

And I would too. But them's the break. There wasn't enough evidence. It seems they didn't do it in the eye the law. Of course it will upset people who judged them guilty by way of the news, but that's not how it works thankfully.

No, they were found guilty. The Appeal court reversed the decision not because of a lack of evidence but because it found that they were acting under duress.

I would have found the story more appealing if, when they deported the convict, they took him via military air transport, and dropped him without a parachute over Tunisia.
but we all know you want to kill all Muslims. You said it already. So anything else to share or do you just want to discuss killing people?

And that's where we disagree. It seems the law is on my side in this instance, fortunately.
Not completely. Foreign convicts are often deported back to their countries of origin after serving their sentences. All I want is for this country to ignore the old "BOO HOO I'LL BE PERSECUTED" excuse. I don't see why the situation back home should be a blank cheque to stay here whatever happens.

No, they were found guilty. The Appeal court reversed the decision not because of a lack of evidence but because it found that they were acting under duress.
therefore not guilty. I would not be surprised it this gets appealed higher up. (If possible, that is). But nevertheles, there weren't afforded more rights than any other citizen or resident of the UK.

Not completely. Foreign convicts are often deported back to their countries of origin after serving their sentences. All I want is for this country to ignore the old "BOO HOO I'LL BE PERSECUTED" excuse. I don't see why the situation back home should be a blank cheque to stay here whatever happens.
and most countries have clauses that stipulate that anyone will not be deported if they face torture or other cruel and inhumane punishment if deported. I know Canada does and I'm glad we have it. What good is it to follow human rights when you can ship people around where they will be tortured. Either you disagree with inhumane treatment or you don't.

but we all know you want to kill all Muslims. You said it already. So anything else to share or do you just want to discuss killing people?
We didn't kill him. He was alive when last in our custody.

therefore not guilty. I would not be surprised it this gets appealed higher up. (If possible, that is). But nevertheles, there weren't afforded more rights than any other citizen or resident of the UK.

It was appealled higher up, to the House of Lords, the govt. lost.

My quibble with this isn't whether of not these individual afghans got more rights of not, its that the court has set a very dangerous precedent that the govt. need to remove immediatly. As of right now you can hijack a passenger aircraft and have it land in the UK and as long as you don't kill anybody and can prove that you are at real risk of death or torture in your country of origin then you will not face prison for it.

As of right now you can hijack a passenger aircraft and have it land in the UK and as long as you don't kill anybody and can prove that you are at real risk of death or torture in your country of origin then you will not face prison for it.

Ah, so if an American commits first degree murder in a state with the death penalty, and then boards a plane, hijacks it (without killing anyone during the hijacking), the UK won't send him back and won't prosecute him?

Will wonders never cease...

It was appealled higher up, to the House of Lords, the govt. lost.

My quibble with this isn't whether of not these individual afghans got more rights of not, its that the court has set a very dangerous precedent that the govt. need to remove immediatly. As of right now you can hijack a passenger aircraft and have it land in the UK and as long as you don't kill anybody and can prove that you are at real risk of death or torture in your country of origin then you will not face prison for it.
agreed. But if immigration laws were more lax for those who are under duress in their countries, there wouldn't be a need for them to highjack a plane. But I'm with you that this is a stupid way to go about immigrating.

all for the fun of it.
I'm french
and really i am associated with arsholes :headbang:
beeing dutch or what ever :p

I would have found the story more appealing if, when they deported the convict, they took him via military air transport, and dropped him without a parachute over Tunisia.

Wowee, I'm glad at least you do not find the arbitrary death of people you don't like 'appealing', showing you are far above the terrorists.

Wowee, I'm glad at least you do not find the arbitrary death of people you don't like 'appealing', showing you are far above the terrorists.
What's arbitrary about a fair trial followed by aerial deportation?

is there a feud?

I fail to see how a judge preventing a terrorist from being deported is defending the rights of ordinary citizens. The only person who he's defending is the terrorist.

But once a criminal has served their jail sentence, we don't continue to persecute them. Once we allow the government to continue to punish people who the judicial system have deemed are safe to release, it allow all kinds of abuses.

Of course, this being a somewhat out-of-the-ordinary case, I would stick him on a terrorist watchlist. But deporting him to a country with a record of horrific human rights abuses is not the act of a civilised country.

agreed. But if immigration laws were more lax for those who are under duress in their countries, there wouldn't be a need for them to highjack a plane. But I'm with you that this is a stupid way to go about immigrating.
Or you could really show potential hijackers that hijacking doesn't pay by giving them either life without parole or sending them back home.

Or you could really show potential hijackers that hijacking doesn't pay by giving them either life without parole or sending them back home.
thereby ignoring what the law states... (according to the judge who rendered the verdict in the highjackers case)

thereby ignoring what the law states... (according to the judge who rendered the verdict in the highjackers case)

Change the law.

thereby ignoring what the law states... (according to the judge who rendered the verdict in the highjackers case)
We could always just amend the law to ensure a conviction in future and to allow them to be sent back home. Or if worst comes to worst, we could always practice rendition like the Americans have.