Legal Half Wits strike again!

[Hoboh]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/radical-cleri ... freedom-10" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For goodness sake it's about time we did something about these self opinionated cuckoo land twits!!!
If this guy is found to be responsable for any terrorist action from here on in Mr Justice Mitting and Abu Qatada's legal team should be put on trail for conspiricy to pervert the course of justice!

[thebish]

LOL! I thought hoboh might be on to this yesterday!!!

[BWFC_Insane]

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/radical-cleri ... freedom-10

For goodness sake it's about time we did something about these self opinionated cuckoo land twits!!!
If this guy is found to be responsable for any terrorist action from here on in Mr Justice Mitting and Abu Qatada's legal team should be put on trail for conspiricy to pervert the course of justice!

Hoboh, I think you could potentially be a threat to society. Cos I have that opinion, and I'm sure I could find others to corroborate it, should you be locked up indefinitely without committing a criminal act?

[Hoboh]

Strange how every court in this country approved his deportation till the human rights slobs put it before the Euro courts to block it!
Outsiders putting the UK citizen at risk is that right? I await your mind blowing reply!

[Hoboh]

Still waiting.....................................

[thebish]

Strange how every court in this country approved his deportation till the human rights slobs put it before the Euro courts to block it!
Outsiders putting the UK citizen at risk is that right? I await your mind blowing reply!

maybe he's waiting for you to clarify just how Abu Qatada puts the UK citizen at risk?

[Hoboh]

Mr. Justice Collins, chairman of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission that rejected his appeal against detention in 2004, said that Abu Qatada was "heavily involved, indeed was at the centre in the United Kingdom of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaeda. He is a truly dangerous individual ...".

According to the indictment of the Madrid al-Qaeda cell, Abu Qatada was the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda in Europe, and the spiritual leader of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), and the Tunisian Combat Group.

The Middle East Media Research Institute claimed that, in 1997, Abu Qatada called upon Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers.
Abu Qatada is reported by the British press to have been a preacher or advisor to al-Qaeda terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid.

When questioned in the UK in February 2001, Abu Qatada was in possession of £170,000 cash, including £805 in an envelope labelled "For the Mujahedin in Chechnya".

Nineteen audio cassettes of Abu Qatada's sermons were found in the apartment of Mohamed Atta when it was searched after the September 11, 2001 attacks, which Atta led.

[thebish]

hmmm...

you seem to be suggesting that terrorist cells looking to blow up parts of the UK would associate themselves with Abu Qatada - knowing him to the the most marked man in the UK??

terrorists might be baddies - but it doesn't make them totally stupid!

[BWFC_Insane]

Still waiting.....................................

So you're saying we lock someone up before they do anything wrong "because someone thinks....."?

[Hoboh]

Still waiting.....................................

So you're saying we lock someone up before they do anything wrong "because someone thinks....."?

Welcome back Alan I thought you'd gone on holiday or had a heart attck when you realised who's tweet you were replying too

Awww get lost, should we put a suspected pedo in charge of a nursery class because he ain't done nothing wrong........yet?

[The Axman]

Just to add. This bloke (Abu-Quatada is actually a pseudonym, it's not his name, no strike that, it's his nom-de-guerre) has actually done wrong. He's a convicted terrorist: convicted by a court of law. Admittedly, that court of law was Jordanian, so what are you saying? Is Jordanian law somehow inferior to British Law. Get a grip on yourselves, I'm not saying lock somebody up before they do anything wrong... I'm saying DEPORT THE F**KER because he's been convicted of MURDER. Whereas what the naysayers are saying is basically summed up as: let him do what he wants because we are superior to a bunch of backward Arabs and we can't possibly send him abroad because the authorities abroad don't know how to behave.

[thebish]

Just to add. This bloke (Abu-Quatada is actually a pseudonym, it's not his name, no strike that, it's his nom-de-guerre) has actually done wrong. He's a convicted terrorist: convicted by a court of law. Admittedly, that court of law was Jordanian, so what are you saying? Is Jordanian law somehow inferior to British Law. Get a grip on yourselves, I'm not saying lock somebody up before they do anything wrong... I'm saying DEPORT THE F**KER because he's been convicted of MURDER. Whereas what the naysayers are saying is basically summed up as: let him do what he wants because we are superior to a bunch of backward Arabs and we can't possibly send him abroad because the authorities abroad don't know how to behave.

it's slightly subtler than that I think! We're not sending him back because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...

law stand or falls on hard cases.. - the proper use of the expression "the exception proves (ie. tests) the rule."

[The Axman]

Just to add. This bloke (Abu-Quatada is actually a pseudonym, it's not his name, no strike that, it's his nom-de-guerre) has actually done wrong. He's a convicted terrorist: convicted by a court of law. Admittedly, that court of law was Jordanian, so what are you saying? Is Jordanian law somehow inferior to British Law. Get a grip on yourselves, I'm not saying lock somebody up before they do anything wrong... I'm saying DEPORT THE F**KER because he's been convicted of MURDER. Whereas what the naysayers are saying is basically summed up as: let him do what he wants because we are superior to a bunch of backward Arabs and we can't possibly send him abroad because the authorities abroad don't know how to behave.

it's slightly subtler than that I think! We're not sending him back because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...

law stand or falls on hard cases.. - the proper use of the expression "the exception proves (ie. tests) the rule."

You're having your cake, and eating it.
Abu Qatada is already convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court. We are not deporting him because ECHR has not had written assurances from Jordan that he won't be put on trial again (for different crimes) where some of the evidence may well come from tortured prisoners - prisoners, by the way, that were captured by US/British/French soldiers and handed over to Jordan and tortured in the full knowledge, and in some cases the explicit help of, US and British agencies. That is accusing Jordan of actions they have not committed yet [i.e putting Abu qatada on trial], which is exactly the 'crime' that BWFC-i is accussing Hoboh (et al.) of... Go figure.

Seems to me the easiest way out of this is to release him onto the streets and then not see him disappear, and when he makes his appearance in Jordan, throw up our hands in horror and say 'how the feck did he get there?'

[BWFC_Insane]

Still waiting.....................................

So you're saying we lock someone up before they do anything wrong "because someone thinks....."?

Welcome back Alan I thought you'd gone on holiday or had a heart attck when you realised who's tweet you were replying too

Awww get lost, should we put a suspected pedo in charge of a nursery class because he ain't done nothing wrong........yet?

How can you be suspected and not have done anything wrong yet?

[thebish]

Just to add. This bloke (Abu-Quatada is actually a pseudonym, it's not his name, no strike that, it's his nom-de-guerre) has actually done wrong. He's a convicted terrorist: convicted by a court of law. Admittedly, that court of law was Jordanian, so what are you saying? Is Jordanian law somehow inferior to British Law. Get a grip on yourselves, I'm not saying lock somebody up before they do anything wrong... I'm saying DEPORT THE F**KER because he's been convicted of MURDER. Whereas what the naysayers are saying is basically summed up as: let him do what he wants because we are superior to a bunch of backward Arabs and we can't possibly send him abroad because the authorities abroad don't know how to behave.

it's slightly subtler than that I think! We're not sending him back because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...

law stand or falls on hard cases.. - the proper use of the expression "the exception proves (ie. tests) the rule."

You're having your cake, and eating it.
Abu Qatada is already convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court. We are not deporting him because ECHR has not had written assurances from Jordan that he won't be put on trial again (for different crimes) where some of the evidence may well come from tortured prisoners -

indeed - which is pretty much what I said - because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...

(i'd like to add that Axman is not his real name - but a pseudonym )

[The Axman]

(i'd like to add that Axman is not his real name - but a pseudonym )

Actually Bish, it's a nom-de-guerre.

[thebish]

(i'd like to add that Axman is not his real name - but a pseudonym )

Actually Bish, it's a nom-de-guerre.

well - your double-axe is more impressive than my spud gun - so I withdraw!!

[The Axman]

Just to add. This bloke (Abu-Quatada is actually a pseudonym, it's not his name, no strike that, it's his nom-de-guerre) has actually done wrong. He's a convicted terrorist: convicted by a court of law. Admittedly, that court of law was Jordanian, so what are you saying? Is Jordanian law somehow inferior to British Law. Get a grip on yourselves, I'm not saying lock somebody up before they do anything wrong... I'm saying DEPORT THE F**KER because he's been convicted of MURDER. Whereas what the naysayers are saying is basically summed up as: let him do what he wants because we are superior to a bunch of backward Arabs and we can't possibly send him abroad because the authorities abroad don't know how to behave.

it's slightly subtler than that I think! We're not sending him back because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...

law stand or falls on hard cases.. - the proper use of the expression "the exception proves (ie. tests) the rule."

You're having your cake, and eating it.
Abu Qatada is already convicted in absentia by a Jordanian court. We are not deporting him because ECHR has not had written assurances from Jordan that he won't be put on trial again (for different crimes) where some of the evidence may well come from tortured prisoners -

indeed - which is pretty much what I said - because it would contravene the international conventions that we are wholeheartedly signed up to and were instrumental in designing in the first place...
(i'd like to add that Axman is not his real name - but a pseudonym )

Yes, but what I'm saying is:
1) Abu Qatada is a convicted terrorist (in Jordan - trial's happened, man convicted, man sentenced).
2) Jordan want him extradited for said convicted crime.
3) UK want him deported because they don't like the chap
4) 2+3 =
5) ECHR comes along and says, wait a minute you can't do that !
6) Jordan & UK say why not?
6) ECHR says that Jordan MIGHT do something... (i.e. put him on trial). That is pure speculation. It is not the basis on which Jordan wants him extradited and UK wants him deported. It's an entirely different and arbitrary argument.

[The Axman]

well - your double-axe is more impressive than my spud gun - so I withdraw!!

I accept your submission.

[Bruce Rioja]

Actually Bish, it's a nom-de-guerre.

well - your double-axe is more impressive than my spud gun - so I withdraw!!

Isn't it a nom-de-plume?