Today I'm angry about.....

[Montreal Wanderer]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

I think it's still possible under certain terms of the mental health act, not sure if it can be applied to (alleged) terrorists though.........

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions. That could go on a long time. Obviously the Mental Health Act does not apply to alleged criminal activity, including terrorism, and being locked up in a regular prison.

[Always hopeful]

Since when did a butty become a sub?

[seanworth]

Don't mean to be anal but when did a sub become a butty?

[TANGODANCER]

Since when did a butty become a sub?

"Butty" is from "buttered-bread". Subs don't usually have butter so they can't be butties, so they're subs.

[Always hopeful]

Since when did a butty become a sub?

"Butty" is from "buttered-bread". Subs don't usually have butter so they can't be butties, so they're subs.

Hmmmmmmmm. Not convinced, but I'll take your word for it. Hell will freeze over before I ask for a sub. "I'll have one of those big butties please (with butter)".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

I know this sounds like attractively simple logic, but think about it.

The point is Qatada has committed his crimes abroad. Even when the person in question is a British citizen, if the crime is committed abroad, they can't be tried for it in the UK unless it is murder or bigamy, and we can't try foreign nationals for those two.

Now, the usual practice when someone is in a jurisdiction other than that in which they committed a crime, is for that person to be extradited to the jurisdiction in which the crime took place.

We haven't been able to do this because we have an idea of asylum of asylum that is far wider than it needs to be and because we are bound to apply European Convention norms to people from uncivilised countries in the Middle East who have blagged and lied their way into the UK.

Which does leave something of a black hole when the person in question is widely thought to have committed countless crimes associated with international terrorism, to the extent that intelligence agencies list him as a dangerous person, the UN lists him as a dangerous person and his native country wants to lock him up.

In this situation, public safety and defence of the realm dictates that the only sensible course of action is to lock him up without trial, given that we don't have jurisdiction to try him for his crimes.

I agree that carve outs from out usual habeas corpus rules should only be applied in very exceptional cases and that it is something we should be sensitive to at all times, but this chap does appear to be a particularly outstanding and unpleasant case, the likes of which we have tried to provide for in our terrorism laws over the years, always opposed by unrealistic people who apply the 'you either try him or you don't' line of thinking to the complex and murky world of international terrorism.

I think we have an arrangement that means that Qatada is not a threat, but it is a bloody expensive one.

[William the White]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

I think it's still possible under certain terms of the mental health act, not sure if it can be applied to (alleged) terrorists though.........

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions. That could go on a long time. Obviously the Mental Health Act does not apply to alleged criminal activity, including terrorism, and being locked up in a regular prison.

I'm not doubting you - but can you give me a link to this? I can find evidence that he was suspected of this but none that he was found guilty of this... and only on one occasion... what is the reality of 'keeps'? As I said, this is a rquest for info, not a challenge...

[William the White]

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

I know this sounds like attractively simple logic, but think about it.

The point is Qatada has committed his crimes abroad. Even when the person in question is a British citizen, if the crime is committed abroad, they can't be tried for it in the UK unless it is murder or bigamy.

Now, the usual practice when someone is in a jurisdiction other than that in which they committed a crime, is for that person to be extradited.

We haven't been able to do this because we have an overly wide idea of asylum and because we are bound to apply European Convention norms to people from uncivilised countries in the Middle East who have blagged and lied their way into the UK.

Which does leave something of a black hole when the person in question is widely thought to have committed countless crimes associated with international terrorism, to the extent that intelligence agencies list him as a dangerous person, the UN lists him as a dangerous person and his native country wants to lock him up.

In this situation, public safety and defence of the realm dictates that the only sensible course of action is to lock him up without trial, given that we don't have jurisdiction to try him for his crimes.

I agree that carve outs from out usual habeas corpus rules should only be applied in very exceptional cases and that it is something we should be sensitive to at all times, but this chap does appear to be a particularly outstanding and unpleasant case, the likes of which we have tried to provide for in our terrorism laws over the years, always opposed by unrealistic people who apply the 'you either try him or you don't' line of thinking to the complex and murky world of international terrorism.

I think we have an arrangement that means that Qatada is not a threat, but it is a bloody expensive one.

I've made my distaste for him clear earlier - but what were the crimes and where did he commit them and which court(s) convicted him? This isn't a challenge, just a request for access to the information you have... To fill in the gaps in my knowledge...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

I know this sounds like attractively simple logic, but think about it.

The point is Qatada has committed his crimes abroad. Even when the person in question is a British citizen, if the crime is committed abroad, they can't be tried for it in the UK unless it is murder or bigamy.

Now, the usual practice when someone is in a jurisdiction other than that in which they committed a crime, is for that person to be extradited.

We haven't been able to do this because we have an overly wide idea of asylum and because we are bound to apply European Convention norms to people from uncivilised countries in the Middle East who have blagged and lied their way into the UK.

Which does leave something of a black hole when the person in question is widely thought to have committed countless crimes associated with international terrorism, to the extent that intelligence agencies list him as a dangerous person, the UN lists him as a dangerous person and his native country wants to lock him up.

In this situation, public safety and defence of the realm dictates that the only sensible course of action is to lock him up without trial, given that we don't have jurisdiction to try him for his crimes.

I agree that carve outs from out usual habeas corpus rules should only be applied in very exceptional cases and that it is something we should be sensitive to at all times, but this chap does appear to be a particularly outstanding and unpleasant case, the likes of which we have tried to provide for in our terrorism laws over the years, always opposed by unrealistic people who apply the 'you either try him or you don't' line of thinking to the complex and murky world of international terrorism.

I think we have an arrangement that means that Qatada is not a threat, but it is a bloody expensive one.

I've made my distaste for him clear earlier - but what were the crimes and where did he commit them and which court(s) convicted him? This isn't a challenge, just a request for access to the information you have... To fill in the gaps in my knowledge...

He has been convicted twice in absentia by Jordanian courts for crimes relating to terrorist activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... r-islamist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[William the White]

He has been convicted twice in absentia by Jordanian courts for crimes relating to terrorist activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... r-islamist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could I ask you, because i'm interested, and, as a law graduate you'll know, what is the status in law of verdicts of in absentia trials in general? And of those where judges conclude the evidence is highly likely to have been obtained by torture?

I have to say I'm surprised that is all you have to assert that he had committed crimes abroad... I knew about those, and, obviously, know why the UK judges rejected them as genuine trials.

Are you sure it's safe, in law, to say that he committed crimes abroad?

[Montreal Wanderer]

No point putting him on trial here, when we can lock him up anyhow. Works for me.

can we though?? indefinitely? if so - how?

I think it's still possible under certain terms of the mental health act, not sure if it can be applied to (alleged) terrorists though.........

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions. That could go on a long time. Obviously the Mental Health Act does not apply to alleged criminal activity, including terrorism, and being locked up in a regular prison.

I'm not doubting you - but can you give me a link to this? I can find evidence that he was suspected of this but none that he was found guilty of this... and only on one occasion... what is the reality of 'keeps'? As I said, this is a rquest for info, not a challenge...

Well, he wouldn't be found guilty since there has been no trial. Bail is different - if you violate the conditions you can be put back in gaol without any trial - bail is simply revoked. Whether he actually violated those conditions or the authorities made it up I couldn't say. I just get my "facts" from the BBC etc.

FWIW one such link is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21955844" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Abu Qatada was re-arrested and returned to Belmarsh prison earlier this month following an alleged breach of bail conditions, concerning the use of communications equipment at his home.

The Metropolitan Police said his breach was linked to an investigation into extremist internet material.

If the police arrested and charged him with an offence in relation to that investigation, or another accusation, they could ask a judge to remand him in prison before trial.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

He has been convicted twice in absentia by Jordanian courts for crimes relating to terrorist activity.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/fe ... r-islamist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Could I ask you, because i'm interested, and, as a law graduate you'll know, what is the status in law of verdicts of in absentia trials in general? And of those where judges conclude the evidence is highly likely to have been obtained by torture?

I have to say I'm surprised that is all you have to assert that he had committed crimes abroad... I knew about those, and, obviously, know why the UK judges rejected them as genuine trials.

Are you sure it's safe, in law, to say that he committed crimes abroad?

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'status' of those verdicts? Presumably they are at least as valid as English judges deciding from the same distance that evidence in Jordan is likely to have been obtained by torture?

Of course it would be better if he could just stand trial in person, but if we don't think Jordan's legal system is up to it, then nowhere else has jurisdiction.

I would be surprised if you thought this bizarre Catch 22 situation meant that he should be able to come and go as he pleases, when our intelligence services (and others) think it's very likely he has been closely involved with the planning and promotion of terrorist atrocities over the years. It sounds attractively legal and principled to talk about whether it is 'safe in law' to say that he is guilty of crimes, but it's essentially meaningless. Global terrorism is one area where the legal niceties that we, rightly, uphold the rest of time, just don't apply - I'm comfortable with that as long as we are vigilant, determined to ensure that such cases are exceptional in our legal system and we are acting in concert with other national and supranational intelligence agencies, as in this case.

[thebish]

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

I know this sounds like attractively simple logic, but think about it.

The point is Qatada has committed his crimes abroad.

is that really true - or is it the case that SOME of his crimes he is alleged to have committed abroad? Is he not regularly accused of inciting terrorism here and abroad - and preaching in a manner that constitutes hate crime and incitement to violence? it is alleged that he has done that here in the UK. We have laws to deal with that do we not?

[thebish]

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions.

I don't think this is true. As far as i can tell - the times he was put back in prison after short spells of being out on bail was because the govt. thought they were about to be able to extradict him... his most recent return to prison is about an alleged breach of bail conditions - but that has yet to be tested in a hearing or an appeal...

I think we always have to be careful about the stuff we claim people have done - and sometimes we need to be especially careful when that person's demonisation carries with it huge political advantage for an interest group (in this case - all the major political parties in the UK.)

I suspect - though obviously this is speculation and not proven fact - that the reason we want to deport him - and the reason we refuse to put him on trial over here - is that he has had a murky past relationship with MI5 that we don't really want to expose or admit...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

and my question remains - why do we not simply put him on trial here?

I know this sounds like attractively simple logic, but think about it.

The point is Qatada has committed his crimes abroad.

is that really true - or is it the case that SOME of his crimes he is alleged to have committed abroad? Is he not regularly accused of inciting terrorism here and abroad - and preaching in a manner that constitutes hate crime and incitement to violence? it is alleged that he has done that here in the UK. We have laws to deal with that do we not?

Who alleges that he's done that? At considerable expense, we've denied him the opportunity while he's been here, haven't we?

[Hoboh]

Shoot him, then have this argument about his position posthumously is the best/favoured option .

[thebish]

Who alleges that he's done that? At considerable expense, we've denied him the opportunity while he's been here, haven't we?

this kind of 'ting...

1. A 1995 'fatwa' issued by Abu Qatada justified the killing of anyone in Algeria who converted from Islam, including their wives and children.

2. In 1997, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, Abu Qatada called on Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers.

3. In October 1999, according to the British case against him, Abu Qatada made a speech in which, The Guardian reported, "he effectively issued a fatwa authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children".

4. In 1999 Abu Qatada told his congregation at Finsbury Park Mosque that Americans should be attacked, wherever they were; that in his view they were no better than Jews; and that there was no difference between English people, Jews and Americans.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Who alleges that he's done that? At considerable expense, we've denied him the opportunity while he's been here, haven't we?

this kind of 'ting...

1. A 1995 'fatwa' issued by Abu Qatada justified the killing of anyone in Algeria who converted from Islam, including their wives and children.

2. In 1997, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute, Abu Qatada called on Muslims to kill the wives and children of Egyptian police and army officers.

3. In October 1999, according to the British case against him, Abu Qatada made a speech in which, The Guardian reported, "he effectively issued a fatwa authorising the killing of Jews, including Jewish children".

4. In 1999 Abu Qatada told his congregation at Finsbury Park Mosque that Americans should be attacked, wherever they were; that in his view they were no better than Jews; and that there was no difference between English people, Jews and Americans.

Ah yes, that was before we started putting control orders on him in the early noughties.

I think of all the things he's accused of, a bit of hate speech is considered to be small fry.

[Worthy4England]

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions.

I think we always have to be careful about the stuff we claim people have done - and sometimes we need to be especially careful when that person's demonisation carries with it huge political
advantage for an interest group (in this case - all the major political parties in the UK.)

I suspect - though obviously this is speculation and not proven fact - that the reason we want to deport him - and the reason we refuse to put him on trial over here - is that he has had a murky past relationship with MI5 that we don't really want to expose or admit...

Why do we need to be careful? Who's "we"? You might want to be careful, but not everything we have knocking around within our Security Services should be for everyone to know - for a start, most folks wouldn't have the level of security vetting to be privy to it.

Occasionally - as with all forms of democratic government - the electorate effectively give the Government a mandate to take some decisions on our behalf.

I don't have a problem nor feel particularly the need to be careful around them having the mandate on this one.

[thebish]

Doesn't seem to matter - they keep giving him bail under strict conditions and he always violates those conditions.

I think we always have to be careful about the stuff we claim people have done - and sometimes we need to be especially careful when that person's demonisation carries with it huge political
advantage for an interest group (in this case - all the major political parties in the UK.)

I suspect - though obviously this is speculation and not proven fact - that the reason we want to deport him - and the reason we refuse to put him on trial over here - is that he has had a murky past relationship with MI5 that we don't really want to expose or admit...

Why do we need to be careful? Who's "we"?

because it's not true? when someone is demonised by powerful interest groups all sorts of stuff is said - it makes sense to be careful about what we simply repeat... i sometimes do this with stuff i see about the tories which turns out to be untrue or exaggerated! as far as i can see - it is not true to say that qatada has always broken his bail conditions - so i don't think it should be repeated as if it is.