NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7896457.stm

The Law Lords have ruled that radical cleric Abu Qatada can be deported from the UK to Jordan where he faces jail for terrorism.

Abu Qatada, 48, one of Europe's most influential extremists, had alleged that his conviction in Jordan was based on evidence extracted by torture.

The home secretary said she was "delighted" at the decision, calling him "a truly dangerous individual".

Abu Qatada's lawyer said she had lodged an application to appeal.

Gareth Peirce has submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights. Her client cannot be deported until the appeal bid has been considered.

The five Law Lords who unanimously backed Abu Qatada's removal also supported the deportation of two Algerian terrorism suspects, known as RB and U, whose cases covered similar grounds.


Last year the Court of Appeal blocked Abu Qatada's deportation after accepting his argument that he had not faced a fair trial in his absence.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith: 'I signed a deportation order this morning'

He was released on bail - but then re-arrested and returned to Belmarsh high security prison because security officials said they had intelligence that he was considering fleeing the UK.

He was first arrested in the wake of the 9/11 attacks amid allegations that he was one of the most influential Islamist preachers in Europe, playing a critical ideological role. One judge described him as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe.

His convictions in Jordan relate to an alleged conspiracy to bomb hotels in the capital Amman along with allegedly providing finance and advice for other plots.

The two Algerian men, who also lost their cases, had alleged that they faced torture if returned to their home country. They have been held in jail pending deportation because the Home Office said they posed a serious threat to national security.

Ms Smith said the ruling "highlights the threat these individuals pose to our nation's security".

"I'm delighted with the Lords' decision, a decision that agrees with us that we can remove Abu Qatada, a truly dangerous individual, from the UK," she said.

"I have now signed a deportation order which will be served on him later today. My priority is the safety of this country and I want him removed as quickly as possible."

Tom Porteous: 'This judgment undermines the global ban on torture'

The home secretary said the judgement would "bring other deportations a step closer".

Tory leader David Cameron told the BBC he supported Abu Qatada's removal from Britain.

"We should be a safe haven for people fleeing persecution, but we should not be a soft touch," he said.

"People who come here and radicalise young men and encourage them to do these dreadful acts, it's just unacceptable and they should be deported."

The UK has signed a string of diplomatic agreements with Middle Eastern and African countries designed to guarantee fair treatment of anyone deported from the UK on grounds of national security.

Critics have described these deals as legally worthless - Tom Porteous, director of Human Rights Watch, told the BBC they were "flimsy and unenforceable".

The BBC's security correspondent Frank Gardner said the Jordanians were very keen to have Abu Qatada back, but some there were concerned that his fate could become a complicated political issue which until now the country has avoided dealing with.

Torture ruling

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, sitting with Lords Hoffmann, Hope, Brown and Mance, said that while evidence used against Abu Qatada may have been extracted by torturing another suspect, the issue for the British courts was whether the cleric could get a fair trial in Jordan, irrespective of how the evidence had been obtained.

Lord Phillips said: "The prohibition on receiving evidence obtained by torture is not primarily because such evidence is unreliable or because the reception of the evidence will make the trial unfair. Rather it is because 'the state must stand firm against the conduct that has produced the evidence'.

States simply cannot pick and choose which people have human rights
Nicola Duckworth, Amnesty International

"That principle applies to the state in which an attempt is made to adduce such evidence. It does not require this state, the United Kingdom, to retain in this country, to the detriment of national security, a terrorist suspect. What is relevant is the degree of risk that Mr Othman [Abu Qatada] will suffer a flagrant denial of justice if he is deported to Jordan."

In the case of the other men, the lords said, the Algerian Ministry of Justice has provided the UK with a written guarantee of fair treatment and trial, including a pledge to respect their "human dignity .. under all circumstances".

Human rights group Amnesty International said it was "gravely concerned" about the ruling's implications.

Spokesman Nicola Duckworth said: "No-one should be deported to face a risk of torture, whatever they might be alleged or suspected to have done.

"States simply cannot pick and choose which people have human rights.

"If these individuals in question are reasonably suspected of having committed a criminal offence relating to terrorism, it is always open to the UK authorities to charge them and give them a fair trial."

I think this is fair enough, and if he gets tortured, that's unfortunate but it's his own fault. What's your opinion?

I think its unfortunate he has to be deported, especially if its all based on allegations and possible false confessions. See if they actually commit a crime.

However, given Britians government, this doesnt really suprise me, and I kind of saw it coming.

Where's the CHANGE Sauron?

I think its unfortunate he has to be deported, especially if its all based on allegations and possible false confessions. See if they actually commit a crime.

He doesn't have to be, they just chose to deport him. He's also been described as Bin Laden's man in Europe, and has directly funded Islamic terrorists, that alone should be grounds for deportation.

If he gets tortured it's our fault as well. We threw him to the wolves because he was deemed less worthy of the rights which should be applicable to all

Where's the CHANGE Sauron?

Go away, Orc. What are you talking about anyway?

Meh. He won't go anywhere. It still has to go to the ECtHR - and depending on the merits of how likely it is he will be tortured, the UK will get slapped by Article 3 of the European Convention and told to keep him.

Edit: Hmm, my bad - The Law Lords based it on an Article 6 (right to fair trial) reasoning. Odd. They seem to think he will be entitled to a fair trial in Jordan. I have a feeling the appeal to the ECtHR will be an interesting read.

Such a strange coincidence that she should sign this order on the same day that it was announced that Jacqui Smith herself would be investigated for possible irregularities over her expenses claims.

I have trouble reconciling the notions of 'fair' and 'possible torture'.

As with most, I'm highly uncomfortable with an extradition based on evidence potentially extracted through torture, and suspect that due legal process and judicial rectitude has been circumvented in this case so as to secure an extradition.

Had he commited a crime in the UK that didn't fall under the aegis of New Labour's delightful "anti-terror" legislation, I'd support his extradition fully, however, since he hasn't, I feel somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that one can justifiable deport an individual on the basis that they may say something inimical to government.

He doesn't have to be, they just chose to deport him.
I know the reality of the situation. Im saying what would be the right thing to do.

He's also been described as Bin Laden's man in Europe, and has directly funded Islamic terrorists, that alone should be grounds for deportation.
Provided he's actually guilty of it.

I have trouble reconciling the notions of 'fair' and 'possible torture'.
That one is a bit of a poser, isn't it? Aren't there places in the world where, even if they have an extradition treaty with another country, and even if the detainee in question is known to be guilty, and even if their own laws say he should be deported or extradited, if they have good reason to believe he will be horribly abused, they won't send him to that other place? Why can't places like the UK and the US be more like that? *idle wondering*

Provided he's actually guilty of it.

He was found with £170,000 in 2002, with at least £805 definitely being intended to be sent to the Mujahideen in Chechnya.

If he gets tortured it's our fault as well. We threw him to the wolves because he was deemed less worthy of the rights which should be applicable to all

Couldn't care less whether he's tortured in a different country. What is likely to occur in his native country once deported should not impinge on legal procedure at all.

He was found with £170,000 in 2002, with at least £805 definitely being intended to be sent to the Mujahideen in Chechnya.

I know the principle, not the quantity, is the issue, but all the same, £805 really is bugger all in military terms.

That one is a bit of a poser, isn't it? Aren't there places in the world where, even if they have an extradition treaty with another country, and even if the detainee in question is known to be guilty, and even if their own laws say he should be deported or extradited, if they have good reason to believe he will be horribly abused, they won't send him to that other place?

I was under the impression the UK was one of them.

Its sad. My opinion of the Kingdom's government and system gets lower on a weekly basis.

EDIT: People are still awesome, though:D

I know the principle, not the quantity, is the issue, but all the same, £805 really is bugger all in military terms.

But that's "at least". For all we know the rest was to be sent to them as well.

Its sad. My opinion of the Kingdom's government and system gets lower on a weekly basis.

Same. On Monday they introduced a new law that says if you take a photo of a policeman or soldier, and he asks you to stop, and you don't, you can get 10 years in prison.

But that's "at least". For all we know the rest was to be sent to them as well.

But you don't know. That's really the point; you cannot subvert judicial necessity for proof when convenient.

But you don't know.

What else what you have 170,000 quid in cash for?

What else what you have 170,000 quid in cash for?

Is having cash a crime?

I have trouble reconciling the notions of 'fair' and 'possible torture'.

What's hard to reconcile? He will be fairly tortured.

He doesn't have to be, they just chose to deport him. He's also been described as Bin Laden's man in Europe, and has directly funded Islamic terrorists, that alone should be grounds for deportation.
If proven.

What else what you have 170,000 quid in cash for?

Any number of things, none of which, frankly, is any concern of the state, or you.

As has already been said, he's not going anywhere. Hellfire I bet Cherie Blair herself is watering at the mouth at the thought of the fat fees she'll make "defending" this chap.

Couldn't care less whether he's tortured in a different country. What is likely to occur in his native country once deported should not impinge on legal procedure at all.

Human rights

(1) If the judge is required to proceed under this section (by virtue of section 11 or
20) he must decide whether the person’s extradition would be compatible with
the Convention rights within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998
(c. 42).



• Article 3: freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment. Article 3 rights would apply where, for example, police interrogation
techniques were so harsh as to be designed to be inhuman or degrading. A person's
right to freedom from inhuman and degrading treatment might also be breached
where he or she was held in extremely inadequate or unsanitary prison conditions.
Corporal punishment of children may also breach Article 3. Extreme forms of
discrimination may also amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, and breach
Article 3. There will be a breach of Article 3 rights where someone is deported or
extradited to a country where they will face torture or be subjected to inhuman or
degrading treatment.

Extradition Act 2003 (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/extradition-act-2003) and Human Rights Act 1998 (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF)

If proven.

He had money in an envelope titled: "For the Mujahideen of Chechnya." That's proof enough for me.

Extradition Act 2003 (http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/operational-policing/extradition-act-2003)

Immaterial. I concern myself with what is right, not what the government deems right; I wouldn't genuflect so, and afford a government I didn't vote for, and wouldn't vote for, such undue respect.

Same. On Monday they introduced a new law that says if you take a photo of a policeman or soldier, and he asks you to stop, and you don't, you can get 10 years in prison.

Only if the photograph MIGHT be USEFUL to a terrorist.

So photographing the sentries at buck house, and the policemen at the railings than now bar the public from walking to 10 Downing Street (which you could do when I were a lad, eh (!!!) ) are two activities very poopular with tourists which are quite likely to get you 10 years in the slammer (!)

Immaterial. I concern myself with what is right, not what the government deems right; I wouldn't genuflect so, and afford a government I didn't vote for, and wouldn't vote for, such undue respect.

Oh god......

Immaterial. I concern myself with what is right, not what the government deems right; I wouldn't genuflect so, and afford a government I didn't vote for, and wouldn't vote for, such undue respect.

Ah I thought you would have more to offer than replying to my opinion (which obviously i'm pleased is backed by law) with your own

I do not like the idea of abetting torture at all. There is enough torture out there. Just look at some of the posts we have been reading lately by the liberal trolls running in thick herds here on NSG.

I do not like the idea of abetting torture at all. There is enough torture out there. Just look at some of the posts we have been reading lately by the liberal trolls running in thick herds here on NSG.

Liberal trolls?

Ah I thought you would have more to offer than replying to my opinion (which obviously i'm pleased is backed by law) with your own

You're pleased that New Labour, with their congery of morons and appeasement of the masses, agree with you? Congratulations. Personally, I'll take my own opinion over that of politicians elected by the commonality.

Personally, I'll take my own opinion over that of politicians elected by the commonality.

You do that.

The rest of us will just stick to the Human Rights Act.

You do that.

The rest of us will just stick to the Human Rights Act.

Why genuflect yourself in thought to legislation, simply because it's legislation?

You're pleased that New Labour, with their congery of morons and appeasement of the masses, agree with you? Congratulations. Personally, I'll take my own opinion over that of politicians elected by the commonality.

You seem to be confusing things slightly. I'm pleased that my opinion on this is backed up by law no matter who the politicians involved in the legislation are. T'is a simple concept

You seem to be confusing things slightly. I'm pleased that my opinion on this is backed up by law no matter who the politicians involved in the legislation are. T'is a simple concept

No it isn't, because I believe you are profoundly mistaken in taking satisfaction from the support of law, simply because it is law, irrespective of its provenance or motivation.

Liberal trolls?

He's one of those trolls where everybody else is a troll, except for him, and seeing as there are so many Liberals on NSG, you're all trolls.

No it isn't, because I believe you are profoundly mistaken in taking satisfaction from the support of law, simply because it is law, irrespective of its provenance or motivation.

Then we are back to you expressing your opinion (while assuming a lot on mine) and me expressing mine with no actual debate passing either way.

No point in continuing that really.

Somehow I'm having difficulty feeling sympathy for an Islamic extremist.

Personally, I think the decision is extremely lenient.

He's one of those trolls where everybody else is a troll, except for him, and seeing as there are so many Liberals on NSG, you're all trolls.
Nice circuitous argument, there :p

Personally, I think the decision is extremely lenient.

Can always count on you to toss the "democratic values" you always throw around and claim to believe in out the window when a muslim is involved.

He doesn't have to be, they just chose to deport him. He's also been described as Bin Laden's man in Europe, and has directly funded Islamic terrorists, that alone should be grounds for deportation.

No. It's grounds for punishment, if he is proven to have broken British law.

Extradition (which this is, deportation simply refers to making him leave, not sending him to a particular country for trial) is appropriate where he has broken some other country's law.

The question really is whether he has been shown to have broken Jordanian law while in Jordan. And deciding that should definitely take into consideration whether evidence was gained by torture.

He was released on bail - but then re-arrested and returned to Belmarsh high security prison because security officials said they had intelligence that he was considering fleeing the UK.

If all you wanted was deportation, it would have made sense to just let him go. If he leaves Britain at his own expense and without a legal fight which will cost the British government millions of pounds, couldn't you just say "good riddance" and forget an envelope with £850 in it?

I think it would be more fair to take him by helicopter to a life raft 200km offshore (say, north of the Orkneys), and let him find his own way to whatever he wants to call "home".

I'm sorry, is there a law we have to give asylum to people who hate our way of life an seek the violent overthrow of our government?

I'm sorry, is there a law we have to give asylum to people who hate our way of life an seek the violent overthrow of our government?

We could give him asylum in Guantanamo, but I hear it's closing soon.

I'm sorry, is there a law we have to give asylum to people who hate our way of life an seek the violent overthrow of our government?

Depends where you are.

In the UK, there's a law that we can't send them back to a country that would torture and/or kill them, via signature to a treaty on human rights.

Which can make them hard to get rid of, as no-one else wants them.

Depends where you are.

In the UK, there's a law that we can't send them back to a country that would torture and/or kill them, via signature to a treaty on human rights.

Which can make them hard to get rid of, as no-one else wants them.

Funny, the rest of the world knows he's a flaming dick-head...

I have a question for all those in favor of extradition. What specific problem do you have with his simply being locked up in a British prison for a period of time?

I have a question for all those in favor of extradition. What specific problem do you have with his simply being locked up in a British prison for a period of time?

Apart from the cost.... you mean detain him without charge?

Apart from the cost.... you mean detain him without charge?

They couldn't find something to charge him with?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7896457.stm



I think this is fair enough, and if he gets tortured, that's unfortunate but it's his own fault. What's your opinion?

I believe in human rights, so I have problems with your attitude. But I'm funny that way.

Depends where you are.
In the UK, there's a law that we can't send them back to a country that would torture and/or kill them, via signature to a treaty on human rights.


And just WHOSE signature is that, pray tell.

If all you wanted was deportation, it would have made sense to just let him go.

If he leaves Britain at his own expense and without a legal fight .....


First up, does HE want to go anywhere ? (I do not know, I merely ask the question)

I forsee a problem with your suggestion if immigration control at his chosen destination refuse him entry. Guess where they'll send him back to ?

If all you wanted was deportation, it would have made sense to just let him go.
But he'd end up in Somalia or Waziristan. The government also wants him sent somewhere that he will be kept track of.

He was found with £170,000 in 2002, with at least £805 definitely being intended to be sent to the Mujahideen in Chechnya.

And this is a bad thing? Reagan called the Mujahideen in Nicaragua "Freedom Fighters," and sent them a lot of money (obtained illegally from Iran, of course). It's all the same thing, regardless of titles used.

But he'd end up in Somalia or Waziristan. The government also wants him sent somewhere that he will be kept track of.

He'll end up somewhere where there are far worse criminals / terrorists than him.

Relative to stirring up extremists from within Europe, that's an improvement. And quite legal, a compromise without coercion.

It seems he hasn't broken British law so I question why they have any power at all over where he goes. Only legal extradition should factor in his being sent or not sent to Jordan -- if he won't get a fair trial (which I would consider proven if he can demonstrate that evidence against him was obtained by torture) then they're going to look pretty stupid for not letting him leave when they assert that he tried to. He probably won't!

They're trying to kill two birds with one stone, and achieve an illigitimate aim (keeping an eye on him) on the back of a possibly legitimate one (a legal extradition.) Lousy foreign policy, at the very least.

And if Jordan's courts set him free, they've lost track of him anyway. They might end up killing no birds with one stone.

It's sad to see groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International quickly making/proving themselves irrelevant with senseless, obtuse arguments on issues such as this.

First up, does HE want to go anywhere ? (I do not know, I merely ask the question)

I have no idea. But if that's the reason given for arresting him, it's perfectly fine to ask "why not let him go?" whether it is true or not.

I forsee a problem with your suggestion if immigration control at his chosen destination refuse him entry. Guess where they'll send him back to ?

And what harm done, from the British government's point of view? It's just two more days that they don't have him in their face and don't have to keep him in custody.

Presumably he'd get a visa before buying a ticket. Most people do that. Or he could just drive through the tunnel and cross the porous borders of Europe. All the British secret police have to do is not watch ...

It's sad to see groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International quickly making/proving themselves irrelevant with senseless, obtuse arguments on issues such as this.

Weren't they irrelevant to you anyway? Your "sadness" is feigned I suspect.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7896457.stm



I think this is fair enough, and if he gets tortured, that's unfortunate but it's his own fault. What's your opinion?

Why cant he get a trial in the UK and go to jail if hes guilty?

It's sad to see groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International quickly making/proving themselves irrelevant with senseless, obtuse arguments on issues such as this.

That was an excellent example of an obtuse argument.

As with most, I'm highly uncomfortable with an extradition based on evidence potentially extracted through torture, and suspect that due legal process and judicial rectitude has been circumvented in this case so as to secure an extradition.

Had he commited a crime in the UK that didn't fall under the aegis of New Labour's delightful "anti-terror" legislation, I'd support his extradition fully, however, since he hasn't, I feel somewhat uncomfortable with the notion that one can justifiable deport an individual on the basis that they may say something inimical to government.

Couldn't care less whether he's tortured in a different country. What is likely to occur in his native country once deported should not impinge on legal procedure at all.

So let me get this straight. You have concern that he might be extradited based on confessions elicited by torture, but no concerns about whether he is tortured himself? Forgive me, but this seems to denote a conflict of viewpoints.

You then later in the thread take issue with the law, but state here that legal procedure should be followed regardless of the "rightness" of it. I'm very confused about your point of view. Since you don't seem to have a consistent one.

Depends where you are.

In the UK, there's a law that we can't send them back to a country that would torture and/or kill them, via signature to a treaty on human rights.

Which can make them hard to get rid of, as no-one else wants them.

That's right, you guys don't have "processing and detainment centres" located conveniently outside of Australian jurisdiction so we can deport people without ever having technically accepted them

What else what you have 170,000 quid in cash for?

I like to lie it out on the floor and roll in it. Who with that much money wouldn't do that at least once?

I like to lie it out on the floor and roll in it. Who with that much money wouldn't do that at least once?

It tends to get my money muddy. *nod*

I think this is fair enough, and if he gets tortured, that's unfortunate but it's his own fault. What's your opinion?

I think it's one of the worst rulings ever.

1.If someone is guilty and very dangerous, you don't hand him over to someone else. You keep him in your most secure jail and throw away the key. If he isn't guilty, you don't touch him.

2.You don't send people in places where they're likely to be subjected to a treatment incompatible with your own local moral standards. This would be quite Pilate-style.

I think it's one of the worst rulings ever.

1.If someone is guilty and very dangerous, you don't hand him over to someone else. You keep him in your most secure jail and throw away the key. If he isn't guilty, you don't touch him.

2.You don't send people in places where they're likely to be subjected to a treatment incompatible with your own local moral standards. This would be quite Pilate-style.

And what if they're guilty of a crime but not guilty of a crime committed in the UK?

And what if they're guilty of a crime but not guilty of a crime committed in the UK?

Which crime? How was the evidence obtained?

Guilty of murder is different than guilty of not bowing to the king (as I understand not showing proper respect to the countries leader can still carry HARSH punishment in some countries).

So is "found guilty by a fair trial" and "he confessed after we pulled out five of his fingernails so he must be guilty".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7896457.stm



I think this is fair enough, and if he gets tortured, that's unfortunate but it's his own fault. What's your opinion?

He's a Radical Muslim Extremist, he'll be greeted warmly and protected in Jordan, so long as he openly doesn't do something to embarass the government there.

Why cant he get a trial in the UK and go to jail if hes guilty?

He can, but we don't want to.

He can, but we don't want to.

Why should Britain have to take care of Jordan's trash?

And what if they're guilty of a crime but not guilty of a crime committed in the UK?

I don't know specifically about UK laws, but I think that, if it's similar to what happens in most of Europe, it would happen as follows:

1.the country who sentenced him guilty of a crime (or accuses him of a crime) sends an extradation request to the local UK embassy
2.the ambassador sends the request to the UK cabinet
3.the UK government checks if: is that a crime in the UK, too? is that allegation (or sentence) compatible with UK judiciary standards? do we have an extradation treaty with that country? are the possible penalties for that crime compatible with the UK standards? are we sure the allegation/sentence is not grounded on political persecution or on gender/ethnical/religious discrimination?
4.if, and only if, the answers to the questions above are all "yes", then the UK cabinet issues a warrant of arrest and extradates the guy.

Why should Britain have to take care of Jordan's trash?

Because Britain allowed him in in first instance. So now it's Britains problem, too.

Human and judiciary rights apply to all people on a country's territory, both citizens and foreigners.

Because Britain allowed him in in first instance. So now it's Britains problem, too.

Human and judiciary rights apply to all people on a country's territory, both citizens and foreigners.

Nuh-uh.

That would imply that human rights represent a limitation on the governments power, and recognize fundamental value in human life and the way it should be respected.

That's fag talk.

That one is a bit of a poser, isn't it? Aren't there places in the world where, even if they have an extradition treaty with another country, and even if the detainee in question is known to be guilty, and even if their own laws say he should be deported or extradited, if they have good reason to believe he will be horribly abused, they won't send him to that other place? Why can't places like the UK and the US be more like that? *idle wondering*

I was under the impression the UK was one of them.

Its sad. My opinion of the Kingdom's government and system gets lower on a weekly basis.

EDIT: People are still awesome, though:D


We are iirc. It's just that we've been given a completely unenforceable "we promise" agreement that he won't be tortured.

Nuh-uh.

That would imply that human rights represent a limitation on the governments power, and recognize fundamental value in human life and the way it should be respected.

That's fag talk.

And then, there's the people who screw it up. I assume that's tongue-in-cheek, but it's probably a bad assumption.

I do find it interesting that people who bleat about the human-rights of violent radicals are the same folks who want to grow and extend governmental power in every other concievable way, silence their opposition with "Fairness Doctrines", seize the controls of all economic activity, and spend their way out of debt.

funny that... These are also the same folks who have more concern for the perpetrators of violence against innocent bystanders than they do against the innocent bystanders themselves.

The only reason anyone gives a shit about this guy is that he cloaks his crimes in political and religious anti-western rhetoric. If we were talking about an accused Drug Smuggler, Pimp, or contract-murderer, nobody would look twice.

And then, there's the people who screw it up. I assume that's tongue-in-cheek, but it's probably a bad assumption.

That's okay. When you make a bad assumption, you make a bad ass out of you and me.


I do find it interesting that people who bleat about the human-rights of violent radicals are the same folks who want to grow and extend governmental power in every other concievable way, silence their opposition with "Fairness Doctrines", seize the controls of all economic activity, and spend their way out of debt.

Well, who else would bleat about human rights, other than a bunch of tax and spend bastards?


funny that... These are also the same folks who have more concern for the perpetrators of violence against innocent bystanders than they do against the innocent bystanders themselves.

Exactly! Its not like those facets of human rights regarding captives and the accused but would naturally be more discussed in regards to captives and the accused.


The only reason anyone gives a shit about this guy is that he cloaks his crimes in political and religious anti-western rhetoric. If we were talking about an accused Drug Smuggler, Pimp, or contract-murderer, nobody would look twice.

That's a wardrobe issue. Real religious anti-western fanatics should go from this:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/osama-bin-laden-1998-thumb.jpg

To this:

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/10/JAMES%20LIPTON%20PIMP.JPG

That's okay. When you make a bad assumption, you make a bad ass out of you and me.



Well, who else would bleat about human rights, other than a bunch of tax and spend bastards?

I'm again assuming you're not serious, but the argument is there so it should be run amusingly...

"Human Rights" are something everyone should, at minimum, have an opinion about if not a concern for preserving-but it might also pay to show some concern over how, and why, someone should fear being returned to the sort of system they advocate in favour of imposing on others. Jordan is an islamic state, this gentleman is a radical muslim, obviously then, he should have no fear of being returned to face trial and/or punishment in a state that is closer to his ideal than the nation he sought to hide out in...unless, perhaps, his fear has less to do with politics and more to do with making enemies in that state (in which case, well...that's not grounds in most places for Asylum-a Gangster hiding from another Gangster and all that.) After all, do you think Great Britain should give Political Asylum to a convicted member of the Los Angeles Crips who killed members of the Bloods (that's two long-term rival gangs on the American west Coast), based on the chance that he might be murdered in a California Prison by his rivals, or that he might be tried for capital murder in California? The same sort of assurances (that is, meaningless ones) would be given by Californian extradition agents (though, truth be told, they have real teeth in the U.S.-our defense attorneys are deeply entrenched and have lots of press support that a Jordanian equivalent does not have...) If a Promise from the U.S. not to put down a muderer is good enough for whitehall, shouldn't Jordan's equally founded promise have equal standing?


Exactly! Its not like those facets of human rights regarding captives and the accused but would naturally be more discussed in regards to captives and the accused.



That's a wardrobe issue. Real religious anti-western fanatics should go from this:

http://www.seraphicpress.com/images/osama-bin-laden-1998-thumb.jpg

To this:

http://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/10/JAMES%20LIPTON%20PIMP.JPG

Amusing...

"Human Rights" are something everyone should, at minimum, have an opinion about if not a concern for preserving-but it might also pay to show some concern over how, and why, someone should fear being returned to the sort of system they advocate in favour of imposing on others.

Great concern! Superlative concern!

I mean, the fact that he may be a hypocrite, a murderer, the foulest of the accused, certainly they shouldn't have human rights. They shouldn't even be called human rights, because they shouldn't apply to hypocrites and killers, who are sometimes human.


Jordan is an islamic state, this gentleman is a radical muslim, obviously then, he should have no fear of being returned to face trial and/or punishment in a state that is closer to his ideal than the nation he sought to hide out in...


Exactly! Once somebody shows political inconsistency and disingenuous self-interest, they should have no human rights. And those who do anything worse than that should naturally not have human rights, either...


unless, perhaps, his fear has less to do with politics and more to do with making enemies in that state (in which case, well...that's not grounds in most places for Asylum-a Gangster hiding from another Gangster and all that.)

Got it in one, you did. If the death that's he's really afraid of isn't the death that he's put on his paperwork, he should be sent back to die.


After all, do you think Great Britain should give Political Asylum to a convicted member of the Los Angeles Crips who killed members of the Bloods (that's two long-term rival gangs on the American west Coast), based on the chance that he might be murdered in a California Prison by his rivals, or that he might be tried for capital murder in California?

Not at all! Send them all back! Human rights should depend on the crime the person is accused of, and where the risk of that violation comes from! It has nothing to do with the rest of us, and how we choose to treat the accused, or even the convicted.


The same sort of assurances (that is, meaningless ones) would be given by Californian extradition agents (though, truth be told, they have real teeth in the U.S.-our defense attorneys are deeply entrenched and have lots of press support that a Jordanian equivalent does not have...) If a Promise from the U.S. not to put down a muderer is good enough for whitehall, shouldn't Jordan's equally founded promise have equal standing?

I wouldn't know anything about the US legal system, so I'll take you at your word. And Jordan is surely trustable. Their Prince appeared on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, 3rd most credible of all the Star Trek serieseseses.

human rights, we preach them as paramount to the middle east, yet we happily throw them out the window in the name of counter terrorism

Great concern! Superlative concern!

I mean, the fact that he may be a hypocrite, a murderer, the foulest of the accused, certainly they shouldn't have human rights. They shouldn't even be called human rights, because they shouldn't apply to hypocrites and killers, who are sometimes human.[quote]

Huh? Obviously we truly are of two nations made separate by a common language, or this truly is running along amusingly.

[quote]
Exactly! Once somebody shows political inconsistency and disingenuous self-interest, they should have no human rights. And those who do anything worse than that should naturally not have human rights, either...

Article 6-he has a right to a fair trial. He apparently got one from the british, who decided he had the right to go face his accusers in Jordan. I don't see how that's denying him human rights...


Got it in one, you did. If the death that's he's really afraid of isn't the death that he's put on his paperwork, he should be sent back to die.

"deserves"? what's this "Deserves" thing? here's the deal (because someone might make the mistake of assuming you're serious! people on NSG are weird that way) He's facing the same extradition process he would face if he WERE an ordinary thug (or accused of being an ordinary thug). The press hullabaloo, however, is extra-ordinary. The reason is because he's made himself a political figure. The only reason (and it's the ONLY reason) that anyone on NSG has an opinion about THIS case, is because of THAT.
Human rights is human rights-being famous doesn't grant you an additional stay if Human Rights are, in fact, important. It does if Celebrity Rights are important-and that's kind of the point underlying my argument.
If he wasn't a self-made "Political Figure", nobody in Britain would give a shit except his Lawyer.


Not at all! Send them all back! Human rights should depend on the crime the person is accused of, and where the risk of that violation comes from! It has nothing to do with the rest of us, and how we choose to treat the accused, or even the convicted.

No, if your society claims to value "Human Rights", then they should be applied EVENLY-therefore, if it's okay to send the Gangster to die in Folsom Prison in the U.S. at the hands of his fellow inmates, it's okay to send the Radical Cleric to die at the hands of someone whose Clan was harmed by his activities.


I wouldn't know anything about the US legal system, so I'll take you at your word. And Jordan is surely trustable. Their Prince appeared on an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, 3rd most credible of all the Star Trek serieseseses.
Most Americans don't know our legal system that well-the only ones who really do, are the Lawyers, and the Career Criminals who have had lots of time to study it in...prison. The "Legal System" in the U.S. is byzantine beyond rational belief.

human rights, we preach them as paramount to the middle east, yet we happily throw them out the window in the name of counter terrorism

Peh, People throw out Human Rights whenever they become inconvenient, including people that scream about GitMo and other questionable activities. The only time they really care about "Human Rights" is Election Time.

Peh, People throw out Human Rights whenever they become inconvenient, including people that scream about GitMo and other questionable activities. The only time they really care about "Human Rights" is Election Time.

isnt that a pretty pathetic state of affairs? surely human rights should allways apply? where does this leave the role of law?

isnt that a pretty pathetic state of affairs? surely human rights should allways apply? where does this leave the role of law?

The tool by which those with connections take from those who have none?

I know what it ought to be, but it isn't what it ought to be-it's a weapon to be turned on whatever segment of society happens to be unfashionable at the moment, and it serves only the most ruthless and corrupt. Luckily, the ruthless and corrupt don't always get along, and the rest of us can usually escape the worst of it by letting or encouraging them to fight for more power among themselves. Those charged with upholding the "Rule of Law" have turned out to be among the worst violators-and why not? "Some Animals are More Equal than Others."

The tool by which those with connections take from those who have none?

I know what it ought to be, but it isn't what it ought to be-it's a weapon to be turned on whatever segment of society happens to be unfashionable at the moment, and it serves only the most ruthless and corrupt. Luckily, the ruthless and corrupt don't always get along, and the rest of us can usually escape the worst of it by letting or encouraging them to fight for more power among themselves. Those charged with upholding the "Rule of Law" have turned out to be among the worst violators-and why not? "Some Animals are More Equal than Others."

that is not equality

He's a Radical Muslim Extremist, he'll be greeted warmly and protected in Jordan, so long as he openly doesn't do something to embarass the government there.

This is a sensible point. Well, an interesting suggestion anyway. Jordan is asking for his legal extradition ... so they can protect him from British oppression?

Interesting I say.

Why should Britain have to take care of Jordan's trash?

Well, that's the opposite possibility I guess. We should definitely consider that Jordan perhaps doesn't want him, ie he is their trash.

And then, there's the people who screw it up. I assume that's tongue-in-cheek, but it's probably a bad assumption.

I do find it interesting that people who bleat about the human-rights of violent radicals are the same folks who want to grow and extend governmental power in every other concievable way, silence their opposition with "Fairness Doctrines", seize the controls of all economic activity, and spend their way out of debt.

funny that... These are also the same folks who have more concern for the perpetrators of violence against innocent bystanders than they do against the innocent bystanders themselves.

The only reason anyone gives a shit about this guy is that he cloaks his crimes in political and religious anti-western rhetoric. If we were talking about an accused Drug Smuggler, Pimp, or contract-murderer, nobody would look twice.

I'm trying, really I am. I really would argue with you, if I had any clue what your position actually is.

But in this and subsequent posts your point has ballooned into such a large and vulnerable target that attacking any part of it would amount to vandalism.

I'll just leave it there, wafting like a blimp. Stately, just a bit ridiculous, rather impressive in size, a bit supernatural in the way it seems to defy gravity by not falling down. Hell, there's something almost comical about its optimistic expansiveness. One almost expects it to make a pantomime farting noise, perform a series of narrowing loops while shrinking rapidly, then land suddenly and ploppingly in the most grandiose cleavage available.

I wouldn't want to spoil the show, so I'll just wait and watch.

Really wish I could have worked the word "lolloping" in there somewhere. Ah well.

Nuh-uh.

That would imply that human rights represent a limitation on the governments power, and recognize fundamental value in human life and the way it should be respected.

That's fag talk.

Then I'm proudly fag. ;)

I do find it interesting that people who bleat about the human-rights of violent radicals are the same folks who want to grow and extend governmental power in every other concievable way, silence their opposition with "Fairness Doctrines", seize the controls of all economic activity, and spend their way out of debt.

You forgot "eat babies-on-a-stick".


funny that... These are also the same folks who have more concern for the perpetrators of violence against innocent bystanders than they do against the innocent bystanders themselves.

The only reason anyone gives a shit about this guy is that he cloaks his crimes in political and religious anti-western rhetoric. If we were talking about an accused Drug Smuggler, Pimp, or contract-murderer, nobody would look twice.

Don't assume what I would do, because I don't dare to assume that what you would do. No one is a criminal BEFORE he's been sentenced guilty by a competent tribunal in a fair trial.

Also, democracy and rule-of-law cannot be defended by smashing them into tiny pieces whenever it's more comfy to do so. I'm afraid that you have a poor understanding of both concepts, indeed.

Abu Quatada is a convicted terrorist. He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria, the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan. He advocates killing unbelievers, adulterers and homosexuals. He entered this country on a forged passport. He is NOT a British citizen but in addition to other benefits, he draws £8,000 pa disability allowance because he has a bad back. His (non-British) wife has been claiming £45,000 a year in child benefit, income support, housing benefit and council tax credit for the past four years.
I'm not making any judgement, just stating a few facts.

Abu Quatada is a convicted terrorist. He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria, the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan.
Then the UK can follow the correct procedure.

He advocates killing unbelievers, adulterers and homosexuals.
Does this constitute a crime in the UK? I'm just asking. In Italy, it would, but in the UK the laws about opinion crimes are quite different, iirc.


He entered this country on a forged passport.

This is a crime, I think. So the UK government can follow the correct procedure.


He is NOT a British citizen but in addition to other benefits, he draws £8,000 pa disability allowance because he has a bad back.
So what? Afaik, people on UK territory are entitled social benefits independently from their citizenship.

Nuh-uh.

That would imply that human rights represent a limitation on the governments power, and recognize fundamental value in human life and the way it should be respected.

That's fag talk.

That's realist talk, is what you meant to say. Personally, I agree with their position.

Abu Quatada is a convicted terrorist. He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria, the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan. He advocates killing unbelievers, adulterers and homosexuals. He entered this country on a forged passport. He is NOT a British citizen but in addition to other benefits, he draws £8,000 pa disability allowance because he has a bad back. His (non-British) wife has been claiming £45,000 a year in child benefit, income support, housing benefit and council tax credit for the past four years.
I'm not making any judgement, just stating a few facts.

I thought everyone here knew this already?!? If not... :|

In a related issue, but not related to his potential deportation - shock of shocks, he was detained without trial in good ol' Belmarsh.

The home secretary has said she is "very disappointed" the European Court of Human Rights has given compensation to radical Islamic preacher Abu Qatada.

Judges ruled his detention without trial under anti-terrorism powers in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the US breached his human rights.
Jacqui Smith said the court ruled the now-repealed measures had been devised in "good faith" to protect the public.

Abu Qatada - awarded £2,500 - is in prison fighting extradition to Jordan.
On Wednesday, Law Lords found he could be deported despite fears he could be tortured.
Abu Qatada has been described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe.
He been held both in Belmarsh high security prison and under 22-hour home curfew. His lawyers have already submitted an application to the European Court appealing against the deportation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7899942.stm

Does this constitute a crime in the UK? I'm just asking. In Italy, it would, but in the UK the laws about opinion crimes are quite different, iirc.

Incitement to violence and incitement to religious hatred.

So what's the likelyhood that this guy will be tortured if he's put in a jordanian jail?

That one is a bit of a poser, isn't it? Aren't there places in the world where, even if they have an extradition treaty with another country, and even if the detainee in question is known to be guilty, and even if their own laws say he should be deported or extradited, if they have good reason to believe he will be horribly abused, they won't send him to that other place? Why can't places like the UK and the US be more like that? *idle wondering*

Like Norway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krekar)?

So what's the likelyhood that this guy will be tortured if he's put in a jordanian jail?

I'm guessing that's the what they're wrangling over in the courts.

Incitement to violence and incitement to religious hatred.

Thanks. Exactly the same as in Italy, then.

See if they actually commit a crime.

By which time it is too late and thousands of people have seen their lives cut short.

I'm not very tolerant of those that claim asylum and then start shit-stirring in their adoptive country. In Australia, we have this guy called Benbrika who was just given 15 years prison (minimum of 12) for basically creating a terroist group. He dragged in about half a dozen co-defendants who also copped jail terms for being stupid enough to conspire with him. While the Islamists didn't actually get around to doing anything, they may well have.
I don't think he should have been jailed though. He should have been kicked out of the country (stripped of visa rights.)
I don't care whether he was actually deported back to Algeria or not (where he also claimed that he feared for his life), if you beg for asylum and then exploit your hosts, you're a bad 'un and should be kicked out. Zero tolerance! Why fill up our jails with these wankers? He justified 9/11 and threatened the community that protected his rights.
Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Personally, I don't understand all of the fuss about sending Abu Qatada to Jordan.

Alright, so she's been a bit overexposed recently, especially since she married Peter Andre, but if living with a former glamour model helps teach Qatada to treat women as real people, then I'm all for it.

While some might argue that being sent to live with Jordan and Peter might constitute some sort of cruel and unusual mental punishment, it's not as if he'd be sent to some Middle Eastern country with a flexible view of human rights, is it?

As to why Britain should have to deal with Jordan's trash, presumably Ms. Price's waste disposal is a matter for the local district or county council, not the national parliament in Westminster.

Jordan's a real person too, you know. Stop doing Katie down!

No, of course I'm not serious, silly.

Personally, I don't understand all of the fuss about sending Abu Qatada to Jordan.

Alright, so she's been a bit overexposed recently, especially since she married Peter Andre, but if living with a former glamour model helps teach Qatada to treat women as real people, then I'm all for it.

While some might argue that being sent to live with Jordan and Peter might constitute some sort of cruel and unusual mental punishment, it's not as if he'd be sent to some Middle Eastern country with a flexible view of human rights, is it?

As to why Britain should have to deal with Jordan's trash, presumably Ms. Price's waste disposal is a matter for the local district or county council, not the national parliament in Westminster.

Jordan's a real person too, you know. Stop doing Katie down!

No, of course I'm not serious, silly.

Excellent :D

In a related issue, but not related to his potential deportation - shock of shocks, he was detained without trial in good ol' Belmarsh.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7899942.stm

Was his mothers name O'Quatada? I've a feeling he's Irish. Certainly hes doing the tour.

I like to lie it out on the floor and roll in it. Who with that much money wouldn't do that at least once?
I assume you're nude while rolling?
I'd fill my bathtub with it and have a money bath.

Funny, the rest of the world knows he's a flaming dick-head...
which in your opinion is enough to be tortured for. Whatever floats your boat I s'pose.
tg that we don't live in your world where that's all it takes to be tortured, eh? There'd be just you and NM left on NS. And even he'd be worried.

c. Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment

The law prohibits such practices, but domestic and international NGOs alleged torture and mistreatment of prisoners in police and security detention facilities.

On October 9, the government amended Article 208 of the penal code, thereby redefining the statute to include psychological harm; broadening its applicability to all public officials, including prison wardens and police officers; and increasing the penalties for torture used to extract information from six months to three years’ imprisonment including hard labor if serious injury occurs. At year's end no official had been tried under the revised statute.

On January 5, Manfred Nowak, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, submitted his final report to the UN based on his July 2006 visit to the country. Nowak described police and security forces as practicing "widespread" torture based on "consistent and credible allegations," which he stated were substantiated by forensic medical evidence.

On April 11, the Arab Organization for Human Rights issued a report complaining of torture in government detention facilities.

On May 24, Amnesty International (AI) published a report alleging torture and ill-treatment in government detention centers.

Following visits to five prisons in late August, HRW cited interviews with more than 100 prisoners who claimed they were beaten with electrical cables and truncheons and hung in iron cuffs for several hours. The report also stated that "Jordanian jailers routinely subject prisoners to illegal beatings that sometimes turn into torture." Other NGOs alleged that guards kicked prisoners with boots. Several sources reported that prison guards shaved the beards of inmates, including prisoners who maintain beards for religious beliefs. According to HRW, prisoners reported that self-mutilation was a common form of protest against alleged mistreatment because in the prisoners’ view the official complaints mechanism was not adequate. For example, on August 26, according to HRW, more than 360 inmates slashed themselves with sharp implements during a surprise HRW visit to the Swaqa prison.

During the year defendants in several cases before the State Security Court claimed that they were tortured while in custody. An April 10 report covering 2006 by the National Centre for Human Rights (NCHR) reported 46 complaints of mistreatment or torture at prisons and detention centers administered by the Public Security Directorate (PSD); in 2005 there were 70 reported complaints, and in 2004 there were 250. The NCHR report recounted allegations of mistreatment and abuse in General Intelligence Directorate (GID) facilities, although it did not provide specific information on these complaints. Government officials denied many allegations of abuse or testimonies under duress, asserting that many defendants claimed abuse in order to shift the focus away from their crimes.

During the year human rights activists alleged a number of cases of abuse in police custody.

On March 1, the Jordan Times reported that five witnesses testified before the State Security Court that they saw marks of torture on two defendants' bodies. The defendants subsequently retracted confessions that they claimed were given under duress.

On May 23, Nidal Momani, Tharwat Draz, and Sattam Zawahra claimed they were beaten and psychologically pressured to confess to participating in plots to kill a foreign leader during the leader's November 2006 visit to the country. The State Security Court granted the accused two additional weeks to provide new testimony. At year's end the court had not returned a verdict.

On August 23, guards in the Swaqa prison reportedly beat several hundred inmates on the orders of new prison warden Majid al-Rawashda, resulting in the death of one prisoner. On August 27, the government-funded NCHR visited Swaqa, interviewed the prisoners, and subsequently issued a report criticizing the prison administration and documenting evidence of beatings and mistreatment. On August 27, the government removed Rawashda and launched an investigation, the results of which had not been made public at year's end.

On August 29, five individuals abducted former Islamist lawmaker Ali Utoum, threw him in a van while he was walking to a mosque outside his home in Irbid, and beat him. The Associated Press reported that Utoum was beaten because he was "outspoken against government policies." A PSD spokesperson denied government involvement and promised a full investigation, which was ongoing at year's end.

Prison and Detention Center Conditions

Prisons were overcrowded and understaffed with poor sanitary conditions and inadequate food and health care, according to the NCHR and other NGOs. The government permitted independent local and international human rights observers to conduct private interviews in prisons.

On July 16, the Arab Organization for Human Rights released a report criticizing prison conditions, citing the lack of cold drinking water, the ambient temperature, and the treatment of juveniles.

On December 24, the NCHR released its annual report on prison conditions, criticizing poor prison conditions and the government for not responding to previous recommendations. The report counted 867 prison riots throughout the year, primarily to protest poor treatment and conditions.

On April 1, the PSD relocated 700 men from the Jweideh prison in response to overcrowding.

The government generally held men, women, and juveniles in separate prison and detention facilities. The GID held some persons detained on national security grounds in separate detention facilities, and the government held other security detainees and prisoners in regular prisons. Security prisoners often were separated from common criminals in prisons but not in pretrial detention centers, and conditions for such prisoners did not differ significantly.

The government permitted local and international human rights observers to visit prisons. During the year International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) visited prisoners and detainees in all prisons, including those held by the GID and the military intelligence directorate, according to standard ICRC modalities. During the year the NCHR made 53 visits to prisons. On March 26, PSD opened two of its correctional facilities (Swaqa and Muwaqqar) to local journalists. In late August HRW, the Adaleh Center, and the Human and Environment Observatory visited five correctional centers and the GID detention facility.

US State Dep. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2007/100598.htm)




A Penal Code amendment in October 2007 made torture a criminal offense for the first time. But Jordan has no effective mechanisms to bring perpetrators of torture to justice. A deficient complaint mechanism, lacklustre investigations and prosecutions, and lenient sentences at the Police Court, which is not independent, allow torture in prisons to remain routine and widespread and to take place with near total impunity.

Riots occurred in February in Birain prison and in April in Muwaqqar and Swaqa prisons. Reasons included ill-treatment, nighttime strip searches, and a badly implemented plan to separate convicted from untried prisoners. In Muwaqqar a senior guard tortured several inmates in April by beating and suspending them from iron grates; two of those inmates died in a fire at the prison on April 14, which the authorities failed to quickly control.

HRW



Torture and other ill-treatment
The authorities did not appear to have taken steps to implement most of the recommendations made by the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, following his 5 January report of a 2006 visit. The report concluded that “the practice of torture is widespread… and in some places routine”, and urged that criminal investigations be initiated against at least eight identified officials. On 31 January the head of the Foreign Ministry’s legal department rejected the report’s conclusions as “incorrect and groundless”. However, on 1 December the government amended Article 208 of the Penal Code to prohibit torture and adopt an identical definition of torture to that in the UN Convention against Torture. The amendment did not stipulate that penalties for perpetrators of torture should be in line with the Convention.

In Swaqa prison on 21 August, following a visit by Human Rights Watch, most of the more than 2,100 detainees were reportedly beaten and had their beards and heads forcibly shaved. One detainee, ‘Ala’ Abu Utair, died on 22 August, reportedly from injuries caused by beatings. The prison director was dismissed and the authorities set up an investigation into the events but its outcome was not known by the end of the year.
In at least eight cases before the SSC, defendants withdrew “confessions” they had made in pre-trial detention, saying they had been extracted under torture. The SSC was not known to have investigated these allegations adequately.

Amnesty International annual country report 2008.


Seems like it isn't improbable that he might suffer torture in prison. So why didn't the law lords take that into consideration?

Seems like it isn't improbable that he might suffer torture in prison. So why didn't the law lords take that into consideration?

It's not the Article 3 (torture) angle that the Law Lords seem to have concentrated on. Rather is the Articles 5 and 6 (right to a fair trial) they based their ruling on. I fucking HATE reading Law Lords judgements because they go on and on - this one is 266 paragraphs.

If anyone else has access to Westlaw or another legal database the case name is down as "MT (Algeria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department, 18 February 2009"

I'll try and find the applicable paragraphs in a few minutes.


195 The Court of Appeal allowed Abu Qatada's appeal on the sole ground that there was a real risk that his rights under article 6 (fair trial) would be infringed if he were returned to Jordan. SIAC had rejected this submission, but the Court of Appeal said that it would not have done so if “it had properly understood the status in Convention law of this aspect of article 6 .”

196 There was little doubt that upon his return to Jordan, Abu Qatada would be put on trial for the crimes of which he had already been convicted in his absence. The question of whether he would receive a fair trial turned upon the question of whether the court was likely to admit the evidence of witnesses which had been obtained by torture. As to this, SIAC's findings were (a) the court was likely to admit the evidence of the witnesses in question (paragraph 422) (b) it could not say that such evidence had been obtained by treatment in breach of article 3 , although there was “a very real risk” that it had been (paragraph 437); (c) it could not say whether the treatment in breach of article 3 had amounted to torture, as opposed to other inhuman or degrading treatment (paragraph 411).

197 I think there is little doubt that on these findings of fact, a trial held in the United Kingdom or another Member State would be in breach of article 6 . SIAC so found: see paragraph 431. On the other hand, Member States are not in a position to regulate the conduct of trials in the foreign countries from which aliens come and to which they may have to be deported. Accordingly, a deporting state will be in breach of article 6 only if there is a real risk that the alien will suffer a “flagrant denial of justice” in the receiving state...the adjective “flagrant” was intended to convey the notion of —
“a breach of the principles of fair trial guaranteed by Art 6 which is so fundamental as to amount to a nullification, or destruction of the very essence, of the right guaranteed by that Article.”

198 SIAC decided that this standard of unfairness had not been met. In Jordanian law, statements obtained by torture are inadmissible. The general rule is that the prosecution has to prove that evidence had been given voluntarily. But this rule does not apply to statements to the prosecutor, who is (in accordance with Continental practice) regarded as having judicial status. In the case of such statements, the burden is on the accused to show that they were the result of illegal coercion: paragraph 403.

201 In my opinion the Court of Appeal was wrong and SIAC was entitled to find that there was no breach of article 6 in its application to a trial in a foreign state. The finding was that, given the burden of proof in respect of statements to the prosecutor in Jordanian law, evidence would not be excluded only because there was a real risk that it had been obtained by torture. In my opinion it is impossible to say that the application of such a rule would be a “flagrant denial of justice”. There is in my opinion no authority for a rule that, in the context of the application of article 6 to a foreign trial, the risk of the use of evidence obtained by torture necessarily amounts to a flagrant denial of justice.

202 The effect of the decision of the House of Lords in A and Others (No 2) [2006] 2 AC 221 is that a real risk that a statement has been obtained by torture is not enough to make it inadmissible in proceedings before SIAC. The burden is upon the appellant to satisfy SIAC on a balance of probability that the statement was so obtained. Thus the effect of Court of Appeal's decision is that SIAC ought to have held that the Jordanian court would be perpetrating a flagrant denial of justice if it did not exclude evidence which would have been admissible before SIAC itself. That is too much of a paradox to form part of a rational system of jurisprudence.

203 In addition to the question of using evidence obtained by torture, Abu Qatada also submitted that his trial would be a flagrant denial of justice because it would take place before a military court, which was not for the purposes of article 6 an independent tribunal. SIAC found that although the judges were part of a military hierarchy and the court would therefore not have complied with article 6 in its application to a Member State, they would in fact act judicially and the trial would therefore not be a flagrant denial of justice. The Court of Appeal agreed and on this point I have nothing to add to the reasoning of SIAC and the Court of Appeal.

SIAC = Special Immigration Appeals Commission, as this is an immigration/deportation issue.

I fucking HATE reading Law Lords judgements because they go on and on -

....well, when you get that pickled with gin.....

It's not the Article 3 (torture) angle that the Law Lords seem to have concentrated on. Rather is the Articles 5 and 6 (right to a fair trial) they based their ruling on. I fucking HATE reading Law Lords judgements because they go on and on - this one is 266 paragraphs.

But when it comes to Article 3, that's something they'll have to take into consideration in all expulsion/deportation cases, seeing as how it's a non-derogating article (as per article 15).

Of course, it may be that they simply accept the agreements made between the Jordanian government and the UK at face value, and feel that there's no danger of torture because of said agreement. Given the reports from various NGO's as posted above, that view would strike me as somewhat naïve.

That said, I'm also a bit puzzled on how they can determine that the right to a fair trial isn't influenced by having the evidence against you be extracted by torturing another suspect.

But when it comes to Article 3, that's something they'll have to take into consideration in all expulsion/deportation cases, seeing as how it's a non-derogating article (as per article 15).
It's something they should take into account, and they normally do - which is why I'm a little puzzled by this too.

Of course, it may be that they simply accept the agreements made between the Jordanian government and the UK at face value, and feel that there's no danger of torture because of said agreement. Given the reports from various NGO's as posted above, that view would strike me as somewhat naïve.
It does seem that they have taken it at face value. It maybe that they don't like the influence that NGO's may have on such judgements.

That said, I'm also a bit puzzled on how they can determine that the right to a fair trial isn't influenced by having the evidence against you be extracted by torturing another suspect.
Me too, but I think the ECtHR will overturn this on those very grounds given their previous cases (Chahal, Saadi, etc)