Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:27 pm  

I read that it wasn't but i'm happy to stand corrected.

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:28 pm  

Don't we, as a country, aspire to be better than countries that, say, consider torture acceptable?

If we do, we can't be selective about it.

Some years ago, the former Conservative Speaker, Lord Hailsham, wrote a book, The Dilemma of Democracy. In it, he tried to consider how you deal, in a democracy, with people who aim to end that democracy.

Yes: it is a dilemma. But if you resort to the very things that you purport to be against, then what are you defending?

These are big, difficult, philosophical questions.

I could weep sometimes that we seem to have such a poor level of public discourse – of philosophical debate, indeed – that so many people seem to think that such questions are so simple.

Take capital punishment.

If the removal of someone's life, unwillingly, by another is bad, then how it can it be good, if the person doing it is different?

Why does something unacceptable done by an individual become acceptable if done by and in the name of the state?

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:32 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

... We have assurances that he won't be tortured, ok other people have been but he is not these other people, i'm against torture, i'm sure i'd admit to being the nice bloke child of Elton John and wearing my sisters underwear under torture. But at the end of the day he won't be tortured so i'm happy with that, get rid...

And the point in this case was that he would be tried using evidence that was gained by torture.

Horatio Yed wrote:

The Americans have the death penalty yet they still see fit to send British nationals to trial over there, which is an absolute disgrace.

I would suggest that the US is not an example that we want to hold up and try to imitate, for vast numbers of reasons. But my understanding is that the agreement that we have with the US is that, if we do extradite someone, they will not be subject to the death penalty.

As I touched on above, the question is not whether Qatada himself would be tortured, but that he could only be tried on the basis of 'evidence' gained by torture. That's what they have on him that they could/would use in a trial – 'evidence' gained by torture.

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:33 pm  

So what's the difference between the US and their death penalty and Iran/Saudi/Jordan/China etc etc?

The only difference is they get to vote for who pulls the trigger.

The part i'm happy with is the part in which one government signs an agreement saying send him over and we won't torture him. King Abdullah seems to be one of slightly more workable leaders of the Middle East, can't we just accept this and move on?

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:36 pm  

If we're on the subject of the Yanks and 'justice', try this. They are absolute nutters.

If we're on the subject of the Yanks and 'justice', try this. They are absolute nutters.

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:38 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

So what's the difference between the US and their death penalty and Iran/Saudi/Jordan/China etc etc?

The only difference is they get to vote for who pulls the trigger.

The part i'm happy with is the part in which one government signs an agreement saying send him over and we won't torture him. King Abdullah seems to be one of slightly more workable leaders of the Middle East, can't we just accept this and move on?

But what I've tried to explain is that the case was not based on a promise not to torture Qatada – but on the reason that the claim to for him to be extradited is itself based on torture.

Either torture is bad and we're against it, or it's not and we're not.

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:44 pm  

We are against it, but what's done is done and this case should be taken on its own, not based on the fact someone else was tortured, i read the BBC link and i know where you are coming from, i do, but to me its simply about this one man who is not a British national who hates the West being sent back under assurances he'll be fine on the torture stakes, to me it's just that black and white.

[tb]

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:52 pm  

iirc, British courts will refuse to extradite anyone to the US of they face the feath penalty (fwiw)

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Thu Jan 19, 2012 7:49 am  

Horatio Yed wrote:

I was using EU as a lazy catchall.

any who

We have assurances that he won't be tortured, ok other people have been but he is not these other people, i'm against torture, i'm sure i'd admit to being the nice bloke child of Elton John and wearing my sisters underwear under torture. But at the end of the day he won't be tortured so i'm happy with that, get rid.

The Americans have the death penalty yet they still see fit to send British nationals to trial over there, which is an absolute disgrace.

The judges accepted that HE would not be tortured, they were concerned that the evidence against him may have been obtained through torture.

Re: Abu Qatada can't be deported - ECHR overrules UK courts : Thu Jan 19, 2012 8:52 am  

Mintball wrote:

Don't we, as a country, aspire to be better than countries that, say, consider torture acceptable?

If we do, we can't be selective about it.

Some years ago, the former Conservative Speaker, Lord Hailsham, wrote a book, The Dilemma of Democracy. In it, he tried to consider how you deal, in a democracy, with people who aim to end that democracy.

Yes: it is a dilemma. But if you resort to the very things that you purport to be against, then what are you defending?

These are big, difficult, philosophical questions.

I could weep sometimes that we seem to have such a poor level of public discourse – of philosophical debate, indeed – that so many people seem to think that such questions are so simple.

Take capital punishment.

If the removal of someone's life, unwillingly, by another is bad, then how it can it be good, if the person doing it is different?

Why does something unacceptable done by an individual become acceptable if done by and in the name of the state?

So how do you stand on war - You appear to be against killing in the name of the state so if someone invaded the UK would you simply take the higher moral ground and let them take over and save the blood shed?

I am against the death penalty in 99% of cases - I would execute the likes of Qatada