'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Who really cares? As long as he's no longer on British soil, where he's a potential danger, I really don't care what the Pakistani's do with him. But considering his co-conspirators have gone back happily and as far as we know are alive and well, it's fairly safe to assume he will be well treated too.

But frankly, considering he intended to kill British citizens, I would hardly shed a tear if the Pakistani's decided to punish this terrorist. And I really don't know why others here care so much for his well being.

 

I mean, nobody ever plotted terrorism from inside Pakistan.

 

Seriously, RM - you wanna sit down, take your pills, stop foaming and think about what people are saying to you here. You don't protect freedom and denocracy or save lives by arbritrarily calling people terrorists and doling out severe punishments.

[Stu Monty]

Fantastic idea. Let's waste more money, police hours and resources from the intelligence services to keep tabs on one would-be terrorist. And still there's no guarantee he won't either personally conduct terrorist activity or conspire with others to do so.

It's far simpler to send him home where his own country's authorities can keep an eye on him. This man plotted terrorist attacks against this country. And you want him to remain here, where he will be an enormous risk to the safety of this country. Where is the logic or common sense in your thinking?

 

We could save money by getting rid of trials altogether, then the police wouldn't have to bother watching anyone or building a case that might actually convict someone. By jove! I think you've hit on something.

 

I love the idea that you think he might be really sneaky and not commit any crimes in future. If people break laws then the police have to get a case together and convict, that's how this shit works; if they fail to do so then them's the breaks. It's why you have a justice system.

 

I also love the fact you're so committed to this cause without actually seeing any evidence or him being convicted of anything by a trial.

[Bellflower]

If it's bleeding heart liberalism or the greater good , I know which barricade I prefer to be behind.

Kurtz was right.............................

[Stu Monty]

If it's bleeding heart liberalism or the greater good , I know which barricade I prefer to be behind.

Kurtz was right.............................

 

Until it's you on a plane to Egypt, bag on head, hands tied.

 

Then you'd probably click.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

"People willing to trade freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both".

 

Benny to the mother fuckin' F.

[Bellflower]

Until it's you on a plane to Egypt, bag on head, hands tied.

 

Then you'd probably click.

Now we're off to Egypt ? Make your mind up Stu, I was just coming to terms with Pakistan. No you're right they're all the same.................

[Travis Bickle]

Who really cares? As long as he's no longer on British soil, where he's a potential danger, I really don't care what the Pakistani's do with him. But considering his co-conspirators have gone back happily and as far as we know are alive and well, it's fairly safe to assume he will be well treated too.

But frankly, considering he intended to kill British citizens, I would hardly shed a tear if the Pakistani's decided to punish this terrorist. And I really don't know why others here care so much for his well being.

 

Ok,so we send him back and he doesnt get tortured to death,how can you guarantee,100%, that he wont get back into the country.

[Red Mist]

Ok,so we send him back and he doesnt get tortured to death,how can you guarantee,100%, that he wont get back into the country.

Obviously if we improved our lax border controls, we should easily be able to prevent a known terrorist from re-entering the country. Besides, I doubt he'd be free to leave Pakistan if the authorities there get hold of him. They take a far dimmer view of terrorism than we do.

[Red Mist]

We could save money by getting rid of trials altogether, then the police wouldn't have to bother watching anyone or building a case that might actually convict someone. By jove! I think you've hit on something.

 

I love the idea that you think he might be really sneaky and not commit any crimes in future. If people break laws then the police have to get a case together and convict, that's how this shit works; if they fail to do so then them's the breaks. It's why you have a justice system.

 

I also love the fact you're so committed to this cause without actually seeing any evidence or him being convicted of anything by a trial.

The intelligence agencies and police say he's affiliated with a terrorist group and was planning in carrying out attacks. That's good enough for me.

I guess you would have preferred him to have carried out his attacks before putting him on trial. Fortunately there are some agencies in this country who have more foresight than you and believe in the radical concept of preventing crime before it actually happens.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

The intelligence agencies and police say he's affiliated with a terrorist group and was planning in carrying out attacks. That's good enough for me.

 

Well, using this logic I can only assume that you supported the war in Iraq? That was terrorism ergo you support terrorists. I want you deported.

[Red Mist]

Well, using this logic I can only assume that you supported the war in Iraq? That was terrorism ergo you support terrorists. I want you deported.

Everybody knows the 'intelligence' provided to Blair against Iraq was dreamed up by Alastair Campbell. All other actual intelligence, fabricated or otherwise was provided by the CIA. Blair being Dubya's lapdog would have followed him into battle regardless of any actual evidence.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Everybody now knows that it was a pack of lies. It deceived a lot people at the time. Did you support the Iraq war at the time? I'd be shocked if you didn't, even if you say you didn't.

 

I know you're not a fan of due process, but I'd like to see it proven that this man has done something wrong in the eyes of the law. I'm sorry for being a soppy lefty and wanting proof before we send somebody back to a place where it is likely that he'll be killed, or worse, but that's just the way it is.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Obviously if we improved our lax border controls, we should easily be able to prevent a known terrorist from re-entering the country. Besides, I doubt he'd be free to leave Pakistan if the authorities there get hold of him. They take a far dimmer view of terrorism than we do.

The Pakistan/Afghan border has long been considered a hotbed for terrorist activity. If you send the bloke to Pakistan - assuming (as you are so keen to do, without any evidence) that the man is a terrorist - he wouldn't need to head back to the UK. He could simply pass on some information to people, who know people, who know people, until...... KABLOOEYY!

 

Or, we could keep him under surveillance in the UK. No kablooey.

 

It doesn't take a "bleeding heart liberal" to decide which of these scenarios is preferable.

[SammyAftershave]

I'm wringing my hands in desperation. Who'll think of the children?

 

Just kill the fucker or don't.

[Bellflower]

Seeing as most of you are local and are concerned about this poor lost soul's wellbeing, why don't you pop round to Ken Bigleys family and explain to them about this guys rights.................................

[G Richards]

Trial, then if found guilty, deportation. The trial and conviction must come first, or else what is the point of the rule of law?

 

If convicted, what may or may not happen upon deportation back to Pakistan should not be a determining factor in deportation. At that point the rights of the law abiding people in this country take precedence.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Seeing as most of you are local and are concerned about this poor lost soul's wellbeing, why don't you pop round to Ken Bigleys family and explain to them about this guys rights.................................

Go fuck yourself.

[Nelly-Szoboszlai]

Seeing as most of you are local and are concerned about this poor lost soul's wellbeing, why don't you pop round to Ken Bigleys family and explain to them about this guys rights.................................

 

With all due respect, Ken Bigley contributed to his own death. People were warned that Iraq was not a safe place for Westerners to live and work in. He failed to heed these warnings in pursuit of a quick buck. Sad what happened to him, but he should have listened to what he was told.

 

Like it or not, the UK are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and have we are simply not allowed to deport individuals to a country where their article 2 and 3 rights will be breached, irrespective of their criminal conduct or, in this case, suspected but unproven criminal conduct.

 

As some have said, I'd prefer our intelligence to be watching this person like a hawk to prevent any terrorist attacks and think that this would be easier if he remained in the UK with his liberty in effect removed from him by way of control order.

[Strontium]

If convicted, what may or may not happen upon deportation back to Pakistan should not be a determining factor in deportation.

 

 

Why not? Do the human rights of criminals not matter?

[Travis Bickle]

Lock him up. Send Pakistan the bill for his upkeep and HMP Belmarsh.

[Bellflower]

Go fuck yourself.

Touched a nerve there did we ?..................

[AngryOfTuebrook]

Touched a nerve there did we ?..................

 

I wasn't sure if I could be arsed pointing out the many flaws in your logic, your refusal to acknowledge the moral stance taken by so many posters on here, the complete disrepect you've shown to the Bigley family and your sheer rank contempt for humanity.

 

But then I thought - nah, he's a prick.

 

Go fuck yourself.

[Bellflower]

With all due respect, Ken Bigley contributed to his own death. People were warned that Iraq was not a safe place for Westerners to live and work in. He failed to heed these warnings in pursuit of a quick buck. Sad what happened to him, but he should have listened to what he was told.

 

Like it or not, the UK are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and have we are simply not allowed to deport individuals to a country where their article 2 and 3 rights will be breached, irrespective of their criminal conduct or, in this case, suspected but unproven criminal conduct.

 

As some have said, I'd prefer our intelligence to be watching this person like a hawk to prevent any terrorist attacks and think that this would be easier if he remained in the UK with his liberty in effect removed from him by way of control order.

Signatories or not, terrorism places itself outside the law , and its very essence is to ignore human rights in order to flourish. What we have here is an assumption that his human rights will be breached by returning him to Pakistan. Because of the publicity I would imagine that it would have the opposite effect.....................

[Bellflower]

I wasn't sure if I could be arsed pointing out the many flaws in your logic, your refusal to acknowledge the moral stance taken by so many posters on here, the complete disrepect you've shown to the Bigley family and your sheer rank contempt for humanity.

 

But then I thought - nah, he's a prick.

 

Go fuck yourself.

That's the whole point if you weren't so blinkered to see it. The moral stance may well be an admirable one , but you are dealing with a concept that has no regard for morals, human rights, or anything else that gets in the way of what they are trying to achieve. They aren't playing by the rules because they don't have any. Now if you want to roll over and let them subject your way of life to how they see it fine, but I don't. As I said before, Kurtz was right....................

[AngryOfTuebrook]

That's the whole point if you weren't so blinkered to see it. The moral stance may well be an admirable one , but you are dealing with a concept that has no regard for morals, human rights, or anything else that gets in the way of what they are trying to achieve. They aren't playing by the rules because they don't have any. Now if you want to roll over and let them subject your way of life to how they see it fine, but I don't. As I said before, Kurtz was right....................

"They".... "Them"....

 

I thought this was a thread about a bloke who hasn't been charged with any offence.