Abu

[rabbit]

Abu Thingy has got away with it again, making our Legal System confirm its excellence in the pursuit of justice.

If our government cannot find the means to deport him to Jordan, I wonder if there is another country who would like to have him?

Perhaps if somehow he was illegally extracted to Jordan (kidnapped), would our government try too hard to get him extradited back to this country?

[mk1]

Perhaps we should reflect that despite every arm of the state  being involved in efforts catch him out for over 15 years out not a single  piece of evidence has emerged to show he has committed a criminal act.

It is nice to see the posturing May with egg on her face again.

Note:
Knobheads replying in capitals or with dog whistle words like 'Mowslem'. 'Yuman rites', 'sons Of Stalin' etc will be ignored. 

[mk1]

Perhaps if somehow he was illegally extracted to Jordan (kidnapped), would our government try too hard to get him extradited back to this country?

Under Blair we did that for years.
Entirely innocent people were deported so they could be  kidnapped and tortured by repressive regimes (regimes we have now turned on) on behalf  of the USA with the active support of our government and security services.
That is why the  Courts won't allow him to be deported today. The previous  example of our Government colluding in the torturing of prisoners shows that any promises they make are worthless because Jordan was one of the willing torturers in the past.

For Years Jack Straw flat out denied he had ever sanctioned such actions but once the proof emerged he suddenly no longer wants to talk about it. He hints  it was all Blair's doing and nothing to do with him but once a liar always a liar..

[Ryehill]

            Whether or not there is no evidence of criminal acts by Abu Qatar is debatable, but we seem to be lumbered with him for the foreseeable future. This is despite the fact that he is wanted by the authorities in at least 4 countries, France and Belguim being 2 of them. Surely he could be handed over to the authorities in either of those countries for questioning.
         It should also be remembered that he arrived in this country on a forged passport but was, inexplicably, granted asylum. I think asylum is the right word because surely this country is a madhouse.

[rabbit]

It`s a pity that the USA authorities don`t seem to want him. Our government wouldn`t have too much objection there, despite what we know about Guantanamo Bay,

The Court of Appeal (basically hamstrung), three judges unanimously rejected the government's argument.

"The court recognizes that (Abu Qatada) is regarded as a very dangerous person but emphasizes that this is not a relevant consideration under the applicable Convention law," the court said, referring to the European Convention on Human Rights.

"SIAC was entitled to conclude that there is a real risk that the impugned statements will be admitted in evidence at a retrial and that, in consequence, there is a real risk of a flagrant denial of justice," the court added.








     
     
   


 

[steveL]

Like many people, this issue really gets my goat but you have to be careful, haven't you? In spite of several routes having been taken, the courts have still not been convinced about the Government case. We're in dodgy territory if we start allowing Governments to change the law on an ad hoc basis whenever they don't like the result - that's one step away from allowing such issues to be determined by a spot poll of Daily Mail readers.

[rabbit]

Does not our Government already change the Law on an ad hoc basis? Or does it apply reasoned judgement based upon advice and opinions from many quarters, academics and experts from many professions (and the public)?

The attitudes of government change over the years, and together with the laws of Europe create legislation which they consider right and fitting at any one time.

The Judges then have to abide by those rules, and as I pointed, appeal court judges may have their own personal views of a situation but are bound to uphold the law as they interpret it.

O.K., so we cannot deport Abu to Jordan, even though the Jordanian Courts want him there as does our government.

A little lateral thinking is required.

[whatabouthisthen]

Who is pay rolling him?
If it is the Government then why can't his legal aid and benefits be stopped? I seem to remember reading that he and family received £26k in housing benefit alone.
How do these people manipulate the systems so easily? But then again our own Council has spent at least £100k  on translating documents into numerous languages telling non-English how to claim. Guess I have answered my own question re manipulation. All in the name of diversity and multi-culturism.