Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

but could not be deported because he faced torture or death back home in Pakistan.

... fething diddums.

Ah yes, we'll let him go because he could be tortured. Could they let him go a few thousand feet about the ocean?

Stick him in the tower.

Bacon sarnies for breakfast,
Pork chops for dinner.
And if he wants to go on hunger strike, OK by me.

I would approve of sticking terrorists in the Tower, like. Definitely.

loki old fart wrote:
Bacon sarnies for breakfast,
Pork chops for dinner.
And if he wants to go on hunger strike, OK by me.

Actually Islam is reasonable on that point, if you have nothing to eat but unclean food it is not a sin to eat it. If this is a deliberate case of only being denied any food but unclean food the sin is on the heads of your captors.

@Orlanth Just trying to lighten the tread

No problem, you achieved that just by imagining these scum in the tower.

Though I would prefer just shooting them.

anyway I make no apologies for being informative.

Orlanth wrote:No problem, you achieved that just by imagining these scum in the tower.

Though I would prefer just shooting them.

anyway I make no apologies for being informative.

And why should you

Innocent until......bah what ever. Convict him, then roast him alive. If you can't do that, then you may just be wrong.

Clegg says that we alter the human rights act 'at our peril' i guess thats because he is a liberal idiot. The British public seems pretty happy with the idea of fething these guys back off to Pakistan though. I truly dont understand the thinking of people like that. Do they struggle to deal with the fact that the world is a nasty place and its full of nasty people? So they create a comfortable delusion that everyone is a nice guy at heart? I dont get it, or them.

mattyrm wrote:Clegg says that we alter the human rights act 'at our peril' i guess thats because he is a liberal idiot. The British public seems pretty happy with the idea of fething these guys back off to Pakistan though. I truly dont understand the thinking of people like that. Do they struggle to deal with the fact that the world is a nasty place and its full of nasty people? So they create a comfortable delusion that everyone is a nice guy at heart? I dont get it, or them.

No, it's that they aren't operating under simplistic notions of police and government power.

If the guy is guilty of something, convict him and put him in prison. If you can't form a case for conviction, sending him to another country to be tortured opens up a really, really dangerous precedent.

Having a suspected AQ members on the streets is a lot less scary than having a government that can deport people based on secret evidence.

[/qTen of them were from Pakistan, who were all either close friends or loosely known to each other.
Mr Quick told the BBC that at the time officials feared an imminent attack.
But no explosives were found and all of the men were released without charge after two weeks.
They were immediately detained again under immigration laws after the then home secretary sought their deportation, saying they were still a threat to national security.

So they didn't have enough to actually charge them with anything, but they apparently have enough to try and deport them anyway.

Isn't that not how justice actually works?

Whats our excuse? We have a whole passel of Chinese terrorists luxuriating in Somoa or someplace because China might not take kindly to them

Weren't the uighurs never actually convicted or even accused of anything once they were brought in and the only reason they were never returned to china is because china doesn't particularly care for minority religions and didn't want them back?




So this is just a case of a poorly run police operation fething up, failing to actually accomplish anything, and then the strong arm of the law wanting to simply deport people never convicted of a crime because they can't? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

CCTV. Also, moon bounce.

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Clegg says that we alter the human rights act 'at our peril' i guess thats because he is a liberal idiot. The British public seems pretty happy with the idea of fething these guys back off to Pakistan though. I truly dont understand the thinking of people like that. Do they struggle to deal with the fact that the world is a nasty place and its full of nasty people? So they create a comfortable delusion that everyone is a nice guy at heart? I dont get it, or them.

No, it's that they aren't operating under simplistic notions of police and government power.

If the guy is guilty of something, convict him and put him in prison. If you can't form a case for conviction, sending him to another country to be tortured opens up a really, really dangerous precedent.

Having a suspected AQ members on the streets is a lot less scary than having a government that can deport people based on secret evidence.

I must concur with that, but even our wishy washy justice system dances to the tune from time to time. I beleive in some cases scum are deliberately freed and allowed to stay because its better to watch them here than elsewhere, and liberal dogma is used as an excuse.

Known terrorist sympathisers in our midst are honeypots to dangle to find others who think the same, it may well be better long term to allow them to fester here than go to Pakistan and fester there.

Orlanth wrote:

sebster wrote:

mattyrm wrote:Clegg says that we alter the human rights act 'at our peril' i guess thats because he is a liberal idiot. The British public seems pretty happy with the idea of fething these guys back off to Pakistan though. I truly dont understand the thinking of people like that. Do they struggle to deal with the fact that the world is a nasty place and its full of nasty people? So they create a comfortable delusion that everyone is a nice guy at heart? I dont get it, or them.

No, it's that they aren't operating under simplistic notions of police and government power.

If the guy is guilty of something, convict him and put him in prison. If you can't form a case for conviction, sending him to another country to be tortured opens up a really, really dangerous precedent.

Having a suspected AQ members on the streets is a lot less scary than having a government that can deport people based on secret evidence.

I must concur with that, but even our wishy washy justice system dances to the tune from time to time. I beleive in some cases scum are deliberately freed and allowed to stay because its better to watch them here than elsewhere, and liberal dogma is used as an excuse.

Known terrorist sympathisers in our midst are honeypots to dangle to find others who think the same, it may well be better long term to allow them to fester here than go to Pakistan and fester there.

Concurred, easy to maintain surveillance on him here. Now that he's going to be staying, he'll be getting phone calls, emails and letters to congratulate him and talk about how they 'stuck it to the infidel!' from sympathetic parties, who can also go on the list...

If he'd been sent to Pakistan, he'd have vanished off the radar sooner or later.

And am I witnessing your new trend, Mattyrm, will be seeing you crowing about every tory victory in the years to come and every time they do something a bit gak, will it be due to being chained to bastard liberals? How disappointingly predictable...

mattyrm wrote:Nobody said the government should be able to ship people away without revealing evidence, the court said he WAS a member of AQ and he WAS a danger to the British people.

If a crime has been committed they need to prosecute, convict and then see about punishing them. I agree that guilty people will abuse the system and escape punishment, but I'd prefer that to increasing the number of innocent people being targeted and having their lives destroyed. I strongly disagree with putting trust in the 'people in charge' in the government, MI5 or whatever, to act 'on our behalf' without due process and without being accountable for their actions when they make mistakes which they do tragically frequently.

EDIT: If anyone has the opportunity to see Four Lions you really should. It's obviously not to be taken too seriously, but it is very very funny.

MeanGreenStompa wrote: And am I witnessing your new trend, Mattyrm, will be seeing you crowing about every tory victory in the years to come and every time they do something a bit gak, will it be due to being chained to bastard liberals? How disappointingly predictable...

Mate, he in glass houses.. I fully admit i am a partisan, as i am right of centre, and as such i vote Tory, although, the modern tories are a bit pansy for my tastes, but better the devil.

You on the other hand, are a pleasant, intelligent chap, not given into making rash conclusions, until someone mentions Thatcher, and then you turn into some sort of foaming lunatic who cannot listen to reason or see another side of a coin, so lets just say we both have formed our own political alligiences and leave it at that eh?

And regards that issue, the Tories did say they wanted to replace the human rights act with a British one, and the liberal democrats did say they didnt. So.. what have i said or done here that makes you laugh? Im not being predictable, im following the facts that have been presented to me. I have no great love of the Tories, im a scruffy ex soldier from Middlesbrough, but common sense dictates that i am a Tory, because i am very right wing with regards issues such as defence, immigration, crime.. etc

Basically im the least "progressive" person alive. I want flogging brought back.

Now, on to the matter at hand, (reply to Shuma and Dogma mainly)

I understand fully what has happened here, and ive read both my and reds stories. The point i am making is, yes, you cant have governments doing what they like. And yes, you have to have due process. Even one man out of ten thousand being jailed or whatever when they are innocent due to a lack of investigation is one too many.

But as i understand it. This guy is NOT a British citizen. He is a foreign national on a student visa.

Regardless. We can and should deport him.

If this guy was not allowed entry into the UK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/06/michael-savage-sue-jacqui-smith

Then sure as gak this fether should be deported.

The way i understand it, Savage has no case (with regards suing) as any nation can deny foreign nationals entrance.

If i turn up in the USA on vaction or to see my missus parents, the guy can block me getting in as easy as that. He can just deem it is not in the public good to allow me in, for example, if you have a criminal record, or if you outstayed a prior visa. This being the case, why is this fether not being deported?

Ill retort with, surely we are opening an even bigger can of worms, if ANY foreign national can simply say "Oh if i go home, i might get hurt by someone or badly treated" and they can stay, no matter the crime? They can be rapists/murderers/terrorists whatever, and they can stay if they can prove that the nation of their birth is a little bit more harsh than the UK with its namby pampy system?

Sure the guy shoulda been brought to trial, but feth em. Ive said it before and ill say it again.

Boot this fether out.

Albatross wrote:I don't understand why the fact that he is from a crappy country is OUR problem all of a sudden. He's not from here, he hates the UK and was apparently conspiring to do British people harm. That Pakistan is a total gak-hole is no reason to keep him here - no-one who wasn't born here has no inherent right to stay here, in my opinion. It is a privilege to be granted, and to be withdrawn as the government sees fit - whenever and for whatever reason.

We don't want him, and we don't want people like him. Seriously, why do they come here if they hate us so much? Oh yeah, it's because the infidels have a quality of life which is beyond the imagination of most Pakistanis, that's why. fething hypocrites. They use our country, our health-service, our universities - then they plan our downfall.

If the Pakistani authorities want to pull his fingernails out, that's their business. It shouldn't be ours, and it shouldn't stop us from kicking this arsehole out.


Rant over.

Albatross, I agree with this line of thinking on many subjects. Im glad we see eye to eye on some things

Ill retort with, surely we are opening an even bigger can of worms, if ANY foreign national can simply say "Oh if i go home, i might get hurt by someone or badly treated" and they can stay, no matter the crime? They can be rapists/murderers/terrorists whatever, and they can stay if they can prove that the nation of their birth is a little bit more harsh than the UK with its namby pampy system?

What about the can of worms involved with deporting every person you can't actually jail? Whatever happened to the magna carta?

Yeah I see what your saying Shuma, but my point is, countries have the right to deport people that arent nationals regardless of legality. End of story isnt it?

I mean, in the USA the border guy who asks you the questions at the airport can simply decide he doesnt want to let you in, no questions asked right?

If he thinks i am "dodgy" then i dont get in for my vacation or whatever.

That slapper Amy Winehouse got knocked back because she had a drug problem, they simply said "come back in a year when you are better" and that was the end of it.

If you are a citizen, then we have to keep you. But if your just visiting, then legally we have no responsibility, and if the guy in customs thinks you could turn out to be a pain in the arse, then sorry bud. Go home.

Remember Snoop Doggy Dogg got refused entry too right? And the DJ i told you about, both were a bit harsh, but it shows that we can and do not allow people in, without a trail per se, we just think "this bloke MIGHT be a bit of bother"

So why not this guy, who the intel guys have said is an AQ operative?!

OT i went to see the copy of the Magna Carta in Salisbury Cathedral. No wonder John didnt want to sign that fether! Funny thing is, they just found their copy in the basement when they were cleaning up in the 60s!

Completely forgotten about it..

I hope this terrorist 'man' has an 'accident' in the showers in prison/5 star hotel.

Can't beat a good toilet interview.

Yeah I see what your saying Shuma, but my point is, countries have the right to deport people that arent nationals regardless of legality. End of story isnt it?

Depends on the agreement between the individual and the nation. Deportation should not use used as a tool of law enforcement in liu of actual law enforcement, it sets a dangerous precedent and in many cases the attempt can violate laws itself. If his student visa has clauses pertaining to deportation based on suspicion than follow what that says, but pulling things out of a hat is no way to run a country. Losing the moral highground feels good for five minutes, than a chinese or russian guy comes along and all of a sudden you don't feel so good about your country any more.

England...you are not alone
I believe we are facing the same crisis with the Times Square Dumb Bomber because he's an American citizen. So we HAVE to mirandize him. Even though he just tried to take out hundreds of people.

I have had absolutely enough with this mentality that if we show benevolence to bombers then the radicals will like us more. They don't. It's ingrained in their goddamn mission statement to kill the infidel = everyone who doesn't agree with the radicalism. The choice should not be 'do you wish to go home and die, or do you wish to stay?'. The choice should be 'do you wish to die here or in Pakistan?'
Always raging,
Mr. Self Destruct


Automatically Appended Next Post:
England...you are not alone
I believe we are facing the same crisis with the Times Square Dumbf**k Bomber because he's an American citizen. So we HAVE to mirandize him. Even though he just tried to take out hundreds of people.

I have had absolutely enough with this mentality that if we show benevolence to bombers then the radicals will like us more. They don't. It's ingrained in their goddamn mission statement to kill the infidel = everyone who doesn't agree with the radicalism. The choice should not be 'do you wish to go home and die, or do you wish to stay?'. The choice should be 'do you wish to die here or in Pakistan?' Lets see what happens when they see their best bud get killed instead of sent home with a fiver and a slap on the wrist.
Always raging,
Mr. Self Destruct

Woah there boy...

He makes a point though Cheese.

The US has become the laughing stock of the world in the eyes of the radical Muslims because they've had a few successful attempts and attempted others and what is there punishment?

Tried in civilian court and plans for Gitmo to be closed releasing those with ties to terrorists organizations or else transferring them to a cushy (though less cushy than Gitmo) white collar resort prison.

But lets not let that get in the way of trying to protect our country from these people. I'm sad that GB is going the same route.

mattyrm wrote:Yeah I see what your saying Shuma, but my point is, countries have the right to deport people that arent nationals regardless of legality. End of story isnt it?

Sure, but when granting that visa, it should be granted with the expectation that it will only be revoked on reasonable grounds. That position should be less than a criminal conviction, but was there enough in this case to justify deportation?

I work at a uni, and part of my role involves international students. These kids are being exploited constantly by landlords and by employers and they are really hesitant to defend themselves. People know the kids are really nervous about keeping their student visas, and will use that to stop them taking legal action. The more dubious you make visas, the more exploitation like that you will see.

And considering where a person is to be deported, why wouldn’t their fate there matter? Torture is bad, therefore letting torture happen to people is bad, therefore it is bad to send people off to be tortured in other countries is bad. Now, it shouldn’t be an absolute, but if the case against someone is marginal, and it is certain that they would be tortured to death in another country, I can understand considering it as an important factor.

Mr. Self Destruct wrote:England...you are not alone
I believe we are facing the same crisis with the Times Square Dumbf**k Bomber because he's an American citizen. So we HAVE to mirandize him. Even though he just tried to take out hundreds of people.

Umm, when people try to commit crimes you follow due process. How is this even a point for debate? Who decides who should and shouldn’t get to access a lawyer, and get their day in court?

I have had absolutely enough with this mentality that if we show benevolence to bombers then the radicals will like us more.

Except that isn’t the argument. The argument is that governments are big and very powerful things, and they can turn bad very quickly. As such it becomes extremely important to place strict controls on their ability to put people in prison, and that these controls need to be maintained even when the majority of us don’t like the accused.