Thread: Not Expelled to Jordan

Originally Posted by Francis Overdere

The reason he cannot be deported is because judges now rule the world. Parliaments,whatever laws they pass and whatever they intend by those laws, are now virtually impotent.

Laws enacted by governments, designed to protect everybody at risk from criminals, now protect criminals at the risk of everybody because of the pronouncements of a few unelected men.

The ECHR has replaced patriotism as the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Judges don't rule the world but sepration of powers is an important principle in a modern democracy, even it means occasional judgements you don't like.
However there are plenty of leaders who ignore the rule of law; Mugabe, Putin, Lushenko. Not an attractive model.
As for this nasty piece of work, I suggest deporting him to another country where torture issues do not arise. Northen Greenland springs to mind.

Originally Posted by Francis Overdere

To my mind laws are made with certain intentions in mind. What goes out of the window with many judges is common sense. As Dickens says in a foreword to the Pickwick Papers, there are magistrates who should be taught to shake hands with common sense and justice every day. It's no less true of higher ranking judges.

What might be useful for people to continue this debate is for courts to be televised (within reason to not endanger witnesses and jury safety) to attain a more informative and balanced view of the level of professionalism (or lack of it).

Newspaper reporting of trials are just dismal cut and shunt sensationalism.

I've been impressed with the judge and examiners on the Leveson enquiry who haven't put up with any nonsense from weasels like Piers Morgan.

The problem here is when someone seeks asylum because they fear for their life, then preaches in favour of terrorism, we have all seen what happened in the London bombings.
Should we allow someone into the country as an asylum seeker to preach against the principles of keeping the magority safe, if we are saying we have a duty to that person, then you are also saying you have no duty to the magority of the people.
There should be something that people sign when seeking asylum, that they will not preach terrorism against anyone within the country or they will be sent back to their homeland.

i never heard of this guy before but doing a bit of reading on him, he’s been implicated of two crimes, an envelope with money labeled to Chechnya and testimony from other terrorists, which the European court had accepted were taken under torture, about being linked to al qaeda -therefore in a fair court, he was ruled not to have connections with al qaeda and the evidence against him was not reliable.

No court would award a decision unless there was credible evidence for their decision. The UK doesn’t have enough evidence to convict him for terrorism, hence they merely want to deport him, their claims of him being al qaeda are based solely on those statements, taken under torture.

He came in the US’s eyes and was expelled from Kuwait since he opposed American intervention. Since then he’s been a target. There are no proven links with him and al qaeda, only claims and statements.

What I do suspect however, he was probably one of those guys who raised and sent money to fighters in Bosnia, Chechnya, and probably extended to Iraq/Afghanistan after 9/11. These types of guys were quite open in their causes pre 9/11, ie support afghans in Russia war, the chechans vs Russia, and bosnia palestine also.

I’d seen these types of guys pre 9/11 pleading for help in mosques wielding machine guns and rocket launchers. Some of their causes were worthy, some were only interested in the humanitarian side, ie food, cloths, etc, some were battle orientated. I never once heard of anyone even suggesting attacking anything in the UK.

One thing’s for certain though, these guys had the military equipment to cause devastation here in the UK if they wanted, but attacking the UK homeland is not in their interest.

Originally Posted by alemcodon

i never heard of this guy before but doing a bit of reading on him, he’s been implicated of two crimes, an envelope with money labeled to Chechnya and testimony from other terrorists, which the European court had accepted were taken under torture, about being linked to al qaeda -therefore in a fair court, he was ruled not to have connections with al qaeda and the evidence against him was not reliable.

No court would award a decision unless there was credible evidence for their decision. The UK doesn’t have enough evidence to convict him for terrorism, hence they merely want to deport him, their claims of him being al qaeda are based solely on those statements, taken under torture.

He came in the US’s eyes and was expelled from Kuwait since he opposed American intervention. Since then he’s been a target. There are no proven links with him and al qaeda, only claims and statements.

You did some reading to give yourself a more balanced view of the proceedings and judgement?
Doesn't look like you will get that job as a Daily Mail court reporter.

Originally Posted by youngian

You did some reading to give yourself a more balanced view of the proceedings and judgement?
Doesn't look like you will get that job as a Daily Mail court reporter.

if i finished with 'yeah but hes a radical cleric, look at the size of his beard' then there's hope.