Islamic preacher Abu Qatada extradition MEGATHREAD

[ugo stiglitz]

The brits desperately want to send him back don't they ? Thought it was the nutty euro court of human rights that have ordered Britain to keep him here, here is a man who hates Britain why should we have the burden of looking after him ? the best place for him is 'paradise' if you ask me !

[ugo stiglitz]

Send him to one of those. what they do with him once they've finished with him is their business.

 

here here - well said

[southcoast]

Really?

 

Right to move and right of residence for up to three months

 

All Union citizens have the right to enter another Member State by virtue of having an identity card or valid passport. Under no circumstances can an entry or exit visa be required. Where the citizens concerned do not have travel documents, the host Member State must afford them every reasonable means in obtaining the requisite documents or having them sent.

 

Family members who do not have the nationality of a Member State enjoy the same rights as the citizen who they have accompanied. They may be subject to a short-stay visa requirement under Regulation (EC) No 539/2001. Residence permits will be deemed equivalent to short-stay visas.

 

For stays of less than three months, the only requirement on Union citizens is that they possess a valid identity document or passport. The host Member State may require the persons concerned to register their presence in the country within a reasonable and non-discriminatory period of time.

 

Right of residence for more than three months

 

The right of residence for more than three months remains subject to certain conditions. Applicants must:

 

either be engaged in economic activity (on an employed or self-employed basis);

or have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay. The Member States may not specify a minimum amount which they deem sufficient, but they must take account of personal circumstances;

or be following vocational training as a student and have sufficient resources and sickness insurance to ensure that they do not become a burden on the social services of the host Member State during their stay;

or be a family member of a Union citizen who falls into one of the above categories...

 

Restrictions on the right of entry and the right of residence on grounds of public policy, public security or public health

 

Union citizens or members of their family may be expelled from the host Member State on grounds of public policy, public security or public health. Under no circumstances may an expulsion decision be taken on economic grounds. Measures affecting freedom of movement and residence must comply with the proportionality principle and be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Such conduct must represent a sufficiently serious and present threat which affects the fundamental interests of the state.

 

Previous criminal convictions do not automatically justify expulsion. The mere fact that the entry documents used by the individual concerned have expired does not constitute grounds for such a measure.

 

In any event, before taking an expulsion decision, the Member State must assess a number of factors such as the period for which the individual concerned has been resident, his or her age, degree of integration and family situation in the host Member State and links with the country of origin. Only in exceptional circumstances, for overriding considerations of public security, can expulsion orders be served on a Union citizen if he has resided in the host country for ten years or if he is a minor.

 

Do you think the French will be able to find anything in that lot to defend their action?

 

Then, of course, there is also the 'small print' in the Accession treaty.

 

 

The E U comission are taking steps to bring France to account for this iilegal action and the sooner the better,what they did was immoral and more importantly plain wrong.

[Bladesman]

Send him to one of those. what they do with him once they've finished with him is their business.

 

Exactly.

 

It looks like we seem to want or for some EU reason feel obliged to keep people like this in our country.

 

Why is our country some dumping ground for these sorts.

[hard2miss]

What I don't get is why not just ship him off somewhere and then worry about it ?

 

It seems its only us idiots that plays it by the book when it comes to human rights. Its about time we got off our high horse and did what's right by us, like everyone else seems to do.

 

If this was Italy he would be send out into the channel in a dingy and had it sank.

[Rupert_Baehr]

The E U comission are taking steps to bring France to account for this iilegal action and the sooner the better,what they dis was immoral and more importantly plain wrong.

 

Not quite. It's an alleged illegal action. In your opinion what the French did was 'immoral and more importantly plain wrong.'

 

There may well be other opinions and before a 'ruling' is made, no doubt all the facts will be investigated and all the arguments will be considered.

[Rupert_Baehr]

...If this was Italy he would be send out into the channel in a dingy and had it sank.

 

No, if he was in Italy he would be given paperwork to allow him to stay in the EU for 7 weeks and a one-way train ticket to London.

[mafya]

What I don't get is why not just ship him off somewhere and then worry about it ?

 

It seems its only us idiots that plays it by the book when it comes to human rights. Its about time we got off our high horse and did what's right by us, like everyone else seems to do.

 

If this was Italy he would be send out into the channel in a dingy and had it sank.

 

Human rights is a double edged sword, we go round preaching human rights to the rest of the world and have to be seen to be practicing what we preach.

Nobs like this make life awkward for the rest of us.

[Mecky]

Human rights is a double edged sword, we go round preaching human rights to the rest of the world and have to be seen to be practicing what we preach.

Nobs like this make life awkward for the rest of us.

 

Yeah yeah, "We're not all the same," .... How many times does that line need to be trotted out and who believes it anyway, since the evidence is to the contrary?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Most things in life are not 'black' or 'white' they are often shades of grey.

 

All human beings have human rights, but that does not mean that one human being has his or her human rights at the cost of those of another.

 

If a man (or a woman) is deemed to represent a potential risk of physical harm to other people and if that man's (or woman's) rights are likely to be put at risk by sending him (or her) to a country where (s)he is wanted for trial in respect of an alleged criminal act, then should the rights of that individual outweigh the rights of (possibly) a number of members of the public?

 

The law (as interpreted in the UK) often says 'Yes'. "Forget about the hypothetical innocent people who may be at risk - they are not standing before the court today. The court can only concern itself with the person appearing before it." That is quite true. - But unfortunate.

 

Abu Qutada is a Jordanian. He is not a Briton. Jordan does not have a record of inhumane treatment (and he is wanted there to stand trial for alleged criminal acts.)

 

He is also wanted in Belgium, Germany, France, Italy and the United States. None of the first 4 has the death penalty so why could he not travel to each in turn, be tried by each in turn and - if convicted and sentenced - be imprisoned by each in turn? Get it right, and you could keep him off street corners for the next 50 years or so - after which he could go home and retire.