PDA

View Full Version : Send the bugger back



gingerjedi
8th February 2012, 08:35
BBC News - 'Unacceptable' UK can't deport Abu Qatada - Theresa May (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16923527)

Show us your balls Theresa.

wobbegong
8th February 2012, 08:44
There's never an over-enthusiastic copper with a rifle when you really need one, is there?

Doggy Styles
8th February 2012, 09:53
BBC News - 'Unacceptable' UK can't deport Abu Qatada - Theresa May (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16923527)

Show us your balls Theresa.Hmm, deporting him would be worth a lot of votes.

What's the downside?

xoggoth
8th February 2012, 09:58
Nice if one of those "lone wolves", if they exist, could do the bastard rather than just shooting people at random as they probably will.

EternalOptimist
8th February 2012, 10:20
Hmm, deporting him would be worth a lot of votes.

What's the downside?

He might get tortured, or have his beard shaved off



:rolleyes:

Churchill
8th February 2012, 10:24
He might get tortured, or have his beard shaved off



:rolleyes:

Send him home to the Palestinians and let them know that he's sold them out.

Simples.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 12:45
Who the hell makes these decisions for us?

This country is at War. There should be two options if you come here as an enemy: Internment for the duration, or deportation.

I don't care if the Jordanians drag him from the plane at the other end and blow his head off at the foot of the aircraft steps, as long as it is a Jordanian plane, and not a British one.

Otherwise choose internment.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 12:58
After hearing the reasons why he can't be deported, (The US's "Supermax" facility was a breach of human rights and in Jordan he will be tried with evidence gained under torture) its a no win situation unless we finally ignore the ECHR, but we know that will never happen

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:02
Who the hell makes these decisions for us?

This country is at War. There should be two options if you come here as an enemy: Internment for the duration, or deportation.

I don't care if the Jordanians drag him from the plane at the other end and blow his head off at the foot of the aircraft steps, as long as it is a Jordanian plane, and not a British one.

Otherwise choose internment.

Question is who are we at war with? You can't declare war on Al-Qaeda as they are not a country, and we all know how well internment went in NI!

We are trying to portray the "war on terror" as a moral and just war, just because they don't play by the rules doesn't me we shouldn't either.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:10
Question is who are we at war with? You can't declare war on Al-Qaeda as they are not a country, and we all know how well internment went in NI!

We are trying to portray the "war on terror" as a moral and just war, just because they don't play by the rules doesn't me we shouldn't either.

We are at war with anybody who first wages war against us.

They fired the first shots, remember?



The pIRA was not a country either, but they waged war, and we engaged them.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:16
We are at war with anybody who first wages war against us.

They fired the first shots, remember?



The pIRA was not a country either, but they waged war, and we engaged them.

And again, how well did that actually turn out? Decades of violence only solved by peace negations and concessions from both sides.

d000hg
8th February 2012, 13:18
This country is at War.Nope, try again.

Spacecadet
8th February 2012, 13:18
Question is who are we at war with? You can't declare war on Al-Qaeda as they are not a country, and we all know how well internment went in NI!

We are trying to portray the "war on terror" as a moral and just war, just because they don't play by the rules doesn't me we shouldn't either.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to SimonMac again.

Dammit

Churchill
8th February 2012, 13:20
And again, how well did that actually turn out? Decades of violence only solved by peace negations and concessions from both sides.

Solved?

I think you should have a look at the News coming out of Northern Ireland.

Here, follow this for a few days and report back... BBC News - Northern Ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/northern_ireland/)

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:22
And again, how well did that actually turn out? Decades of violence only solved by peace negations and concessions from both sides.

So what concessions should we give to Al Qaeda then?

They do not want peace negotiations. To them this is part of a religious crusade, mainly fuelled by our standpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:27
Solved?

I think you should have a look at the News coming out of Northern Ireland.

Here, follow this for a few days and report back... BBC News - Northern Ireland (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/northern_ireland/)

As an Ulster man myself I know it is no where near solved, but it is better than it was with decommissioning on both sides.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:30
So what concessions should we give to Al Qaeda then?

They do not want peace negotiations. To them this is part of a religious crusade, mainly fuelled by our standpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue.

If we ignore our own rules of law how much better are we than they are? The moral high ground is not much but its all we have at times.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:33
If we ignore our own rules of law how much better are we than they are? The moral high ground is not much but its all we have at times.

It is a War.
We only need to stay within the Geneva Convention when fighting back. That is the only 'law' that applies here.

gingerjedi
8th February 2012, 13:36
If we ignore our own rules of law how much better are we than they are? The moral high ground is not much but its all we have at times.

Our own rule of law said he should be deported.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:39
Our own rule of law said he should be deported.

True, however our rule of law also states that he can appeal to the ECHR which can over rule out law.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:42
It is a War.
We only need to stay within the Geneva Convention when fighting back. That is the only 'law' that applies here.

The Geneva Convention is irrelevant in your argument as it states that a war is between two nations, you cannot be at war with a organisation like Al-Qeada, so again we are back to the fact we are NOT at war.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:44
Here are the rules. In this case they would be our ONLY moral obligation to a member of a foreign force who refused repatriation/deportation.

The third Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War") covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. They are in the power of the enemy State, not of the individuals or troops who have captured them


Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor's troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

gingerjedi
8th February 2012, 13:45
True, however our rule of law also states that he can appeal to the ECHR which can over rule out law.

Which our law makers are getting increasingly frustrated about, it's not just this case.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:48
Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:50
Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

gingerjedi
8th February 2012, 13:51
In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

Oh come on, they don't use the term to describe getting a sofa up some stairs. :rolleyes:

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:52
In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

True. It can refer to anything from an inner moral struggle upwards.

In this case, Jihad means bombs and civilian airliners being flown into skyscrapers.

Doggy Styles
8th February 2012, 13:53
Our own rule of law said he should be deported.Indeed it did.

And as for the ECHR, what about my human rights with this bleeder on the loose?

d000hg
8th February 2012, 13:53
The third Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War") covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands.Even if we were at war (it's not capitalised), terrorists are not members of the armed forces.


Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.But we use the definition we use, not the one they use. They're not a nation, they don't have an armed force, ergo they are criminals.

SimonMac
8th February 2012, 13:56
True. It can refer to anything from an inner moral struggle upwards.

In this case, Jihad means bombs and civilian airliners being flown into skyscrapers.

So its open to interpretation? Just like our laws and those laid down by the ECHR, shirley a better use of your time would be to try and change the views of those who make the decision rather than spout nonsense on an internet forum. You don't like the law, what are you doing about it? You have a choice, a political approach or a campaign of (keyboard) terrorism against anyone who will listen.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 13:59
So its open to interpretation? Just like our laws and those laid down by the ECHR, shirley a better use of your time would be to try and change the views of those who make the decision rather than spout nonsense on an internet forum. You don't like the law, what are you doing about it? You have a choice, a political approach or a campaign of (keyboard) terrorism against anyone who will listen.

1. Don't call me Shirley.

2. Pot...Kettle...Black.

doomage
8th February 2012, 13:59
Can he not just be deported to Brussels? The EC to like him more than we do. win-win.

KimberleyChris
8th February 2012, 14:12
The definition of war is not limited to nations only. For example 'civil war'.

Regardless of motive; if any organised body or group take up arms against another, then that is Warfare.

In this case it is a mixture of Terrorism and 'Asymmetric Warfare'.

'Armed Jihad' is their term, not ours.

Churchill
8th February 2012, 15:12
So what concessions should we give to Al Qaeda then?

They do not want peace negotiations. To them this is part of a religious crusade, mainly fuelled by our standpoint on the Israel/Palestine issue.

FFS, don't mention the word "Crusade", it has all sorts of connotations :facepalm:

Ignis Fatuus
10th February 2012, 13:57
Let's not deport Abu Qatada to Jordan. He was born in Bethlehem, which is now in Israel. Maybe we could send him there, and see how the Israelis look after him.

Old Greg
10th February 2012, 14:12
This jihad business reminds me of Bush's comment about 'this crusade, this war against terrorism'. Funny how 'crusade' can mean anything from campaigning for moor lollipop ladies to bombing the hell out of a country. Maybe 'jihad' is similar.

As for this guy. He should obviously be put on trial for whatever crimes he has committed.