أبو قتادة الفلسطيني‎, Abû Qatada the Palestinian or even Omar Mahmoud Othman is in prison in the UK, soon to be released on bail. The British government wishes to send him to Jordan where he is wanted on terrorist charges and was found guilty of terrorist activities in his absence. He is also wanted in Algeria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the United States for various reasons. Apparently to send this man to Jordan will upset the European Court of Human Rights so British judges have acquiesced to that body and will let him lose on British society. Is there not a way to send this troublemaker to the US, we seem very capable of sending anyone there on the flimsiest of evidence, and what about MY human right to live my life in peace? Why is it always the person who would deny anothers human rights, by their word or deed, who has to have their rights respected before those of society in general? This may be a simplistic view but if we have a person in the country who by his or her very nature is going to cause problems why not send them somewhere where they are wanted, for whatever reason. I call on our friends in the Institute (המוסד למודיעין ולתפקידים מיוחדים, just so as you know what I mean) to deal with him once and for all. Perhaps this is the start of another non-football debate, perhaps not. Comments please. "Abû" in this case means father as an honorific term, this man deserves no honour and Qatada indicates vision, foresight and generous nature â I think not if you are preaching radical islam.
Simplistic maybe, but I'm sure you'll find many who would agree. Sod the European Court of Human Rights and sod the British judges too whilst we're at it. Isn't there a web site where petitions against this sort of thing can be created? Someone has to let the powers-that-be know that there's opposition to this.
Can't we just extradite them to another European Country if they are wanted in Germany, Italy, France and so on. Those Countries have no death penalty and there would be no problems with European rights etc. Or is that too simple ?
Those countries would have to apply for his extradition - I guess they are not too keen on having the problem either! It seems that these days the Human Rights of an individual has supremecy over the Human Rights of a nation. However I blame the government, they should ignore the ruling and extradite the terrorist to Jordan and live with the consequences...
As far as we're concerned we have a foreign prisoner, both countries want him to be repatriated, and we have assurances that he will not be tortured. So don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the European Court. But in fairness, the basis of their decision is that they believe other people will be tortured in order to obtain evidence for his trial, and that those people wouldn't be tortured if he were to stay in the UK.
Australia are about to deport a convicted rapist to the UK. If we threaten to touture him do you think the Australian courts will keep him?
Yes, but why the UK? Why was he allowed in here in the first place and why can't he sent to one of the other European countries where he is apparently wanted? It does seem odd that the Court where this decision was made sits in France, one of the countries where he is also wanted. Why can't we send him there and let them sort the problem out?
Under international law, Jordan would have to agree to that. The implications of breaking that law could actually be more serious than sending a terrorist back to a country of origin where he might be tortured. Imagine a Brit being arrested in Venezuela and being deported to Iran, or being arrested in China (not the nicest place to be in prison to start with, admittedly), and deported to North Korea.
If said Brit had been indulging in criminal and/or terrorist activity, then I wouldn't be particularly sympathetic.
It's a big if though. I'm not saying I entirely trust our own system, but there are a lot of countries out there that arrest a lot of completely innocent people. I agree with you: the least worst option would be to send him back to Jordan, and send human rights monitors to keep an eye on the trial's witnesses. Just playing devil's advocate really.
How can an unelected body decide to override the decision of the highest court in a sovereign country to extradite a person to another sovereign with which that country as a extradition treaty and a long and open relationship when that person has been charged with terrorist offences in that country? How can that body decide that a person that has not right of abode in a country, and is not claiming political asylum, cannot be removed from that country under a extradition treaty? This decision was not based on any facts but on a perception that something could happen. We do not live in a country that arrests and locks people up with no recourse, we allow people access to some of the best legal advocates in the country at the cost of the tax payer and if they have exhausted all possible recourse to appeal decisions then that must be the end of the story. Whilst the European Human Rights legislation has brought enormous good, the role of the European Court of Human Rights is now in question. It is time not to limit their authority to cases where countries are in dispute so that they can provide a judgement, but the final decision in individual cases should lie with the legislature of the sovereign country. Otherwise all of the efforts for our forbears to uphold democracy in our country is wasted - we should have the final decision and not an unelected body of judges that have no idea of the wishes and desires of the people of the countries their decisions effect. I hope the government draft a law that will allow them to decline to accept the decisions made in individual cases by the ECHR - just the same as many other European countries already do.
I don't disagree with any of that. A small point though. As far as I know he entered the UK on a forged passport and claimed asylum on the grounds of religious persecution.
Was he granted asylum OFH? Surely if someone enters under a forged passport they should be returned to their own country anyway
If he does stay here at least we know where he is and what he is up to, we would be able to keep tabs on him and prevent any unthinkables.
Or at the very least, treated as Australia treats them - kept in an island detention centre until a decision is made one way or another. St. Kilda in the Outer Hebrides would be suitable.
Lord Dyer does make a good point. What if he went to Jordan and one day walked free? Then again, we're losing roughly a prisoner a week at the moment.
it does seem incredulous...and w_y asks the right question...how can we allow the European court to dictate. The situation is ridiculous, we don't want him, but we can't dump him on anyone. i'm with you Zen, let those friends of ours deal with him!
It seems odd that he hasnt ben charged under UK law.... but yes they want him out of UK... and out of Europe it seems too... safer in prison in Jordan....
