You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Abu Qatada to be sprung?
2005-03-10
A notorious London-based imam—described by U.S. officials as Osama bin Laden's principal "ambassador" in Europe—may soon be back on the streets because Britain's highest court has struck down an anti-terror law allowing him to be detained without trial. The preacher, known as Abu Qatada, has been held in a British prison for more than two years.

Abu Qatada, whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman, was arrested and detained by British police in October 2002 under an antiterror law enacted by Tony Blair's government in the wake of the September 11 attacks. The new law, which was strongly backed by Bush administration officials, enabled British authorities to detain—without formal criminal charges—foreign citizens suspected of using the United Kingdom as a base to foment or plot terrorism.

But late last year, in a development that got little attention in the United States, Britain's highest court, the House of Lords appeals committee, struck down the law, declaring that it violated the European Human Rights Convention by discriminating against foreigners.
Posted by:Dan Darling

#5  I believe that in the UK (and most parliamentary systems), judges can be fired. I wonder if Blair will use his political clout to put these leeches on the public purse back in the private sector.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-03-10 7:32:02 PM  

#4  Australia locks them all up - anyone who enters illegally or significantly violates their conditions of entry and claims asylum in order to stay. Works really well as illegal entry and asylum seeking is now almost zero. In Australia you can get asylum but you will spend a couple of years behind bars waiting for your claim to be processed. It has the added benefit of driving the Lefties crazy.
Posted by: phil_b   2005-03-10 6:43:48 PM  

#3  When I say 'such people', I'm referring to mouthy bearded wankers like Abu Shitforbrains, not everyone who claims asylum...
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-03-10 11:39:24 AM  

#2  Wetworks.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-10 11:34:34 AM  

#1  "...it violated the European Human Rights Convention by discriminating against foreigners."

Which is why we should no longer be bound by the European Human Rights Convention. It's insanity that the protections provided to British citizens by British law should be extended to every Tom, Dick or Omar who turns up in this country demanding asylum. The only rational response to such people is to KICK THEM OUT, and not waste another penny of taxpayers' money protecting them from the consequences of their criminal activities overseas! It's nothing short of an extortion racket perpetuated by our Government in order to protect the sort of scum who want our very civilisation destroyed.

So what's the Government's response to finding itself unable to keep foreign terrorist suspects behind bars due to inflexible international laws which prevent it from protecting its own citizens from imported jihadi arseholes? Take centuries of British legal traditions and protections, lay them out on the floor, and shit all over them...
Posted by: Bulldog   2005-03-10 11:31:26 AM  

00:00