terryh Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 im in favour of bringing back hanging for the likes of this religious nut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 im in favour of bringing back hanging for the likes of this religious nut Yes but then we really would be brought down to his level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spooky3 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 im in favour of bringing back hanging for the likes of this religious nut My first thought the other day was a rolling pin up his jaxie... But no... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERDREAM Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 For crimes against satorial elegance. Surely you mean SARTORIAL. ?? There is no sense to your post as satorial is just a made up word. Can you spell? The only place I can find the spelling you used is here http://www.satorial.com and that has nothing to do with this post, so could you please stay on topic. Its so annoying when people go off topic then get sarky about it, ISNT IT??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I've seen a few articles stating the biggest charge we could confidently secure a UK conviction on is incitement to murder which would be a maximum of 7 years and as he's already served more than that he'd be immediately released anyway, so we'd have an expensive trial for nothing. The whole point is to get him out of the UK anyway, not have hime cost us even more money. Hopefully the Jordanians can do a deal that's acceptable and we'll just deport him then argue the appeal at the ECHR with him out of the country. They just need a chit signed by a Jordanian official that says "we promise not to pull his teeth out with pliers, honest". I believe it's known as "A Memorandum of Understanding". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 He has a beard... So do I, but I'm not a convicted terrorist. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Does anybody actually doubt that Mr Aamer was in Afghanistan supporting the Taliban? It's irrelevant whether anyone doubts it or not. We do not imprison people without trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Another thing I don't understand-if they have evidence he has commited an offence why hasn't he been charged anyway and if they don't have evidence why do they suspect him? Or is it that they have illegally obtained evidence or something? There is clear evidence that he's incited people towards violence. If - and I specify "if" because nobody knows - there is solid evidence that he is connected to terrorist groups directly, then the evidence has been obtained illegally and cannot be used in court. (Otherwise, as with the illegal detention without trial, the anti-Westerner brigade have already won because we've thrown away the legal system they wanted to destroy!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 They just need a chit signed by a Jordanian official that says "we promise not to pull his teeth out with pliers, honest". I believe it's known as "A Memorandum of Understanding". The problem isn't that he may himself be tortured. The problem is that the evidence against him may well have been obtained by torture. We do not, and under no circumstances should we ever, send people to face a trial that isn't a fair trial by our own standards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hard2miss Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 It shouldn't, actually, have been all that hard to find the information that he was imprisoned without charge. To the best of my knowledge, eight years for not even having been accused of anything is a new record for the British legal system breaking its own laws. Its because of the way we share inteligence with the US why we cannot put him on trial. If what we knew was to go to court no doubt it would compromise how intelligence is gathered and probably put our own as well as American lives at risk. In the UK we have one of the best legal systems in the world as well as an outstanding human rights record compared to other countries including the US. As a preacher in London mosques, Abu Qatada soon gained a militant following. In 1999, he allegedly sought to justify the killing of Jews, including children, and attacking Americans. Three days after 9/11, Abu Qatada preached that the attacks were part of a global struggle between Christianity and Islam, and were a response to America's unjust policies. In another sermon, he sought to justify the killing by a Muslim of a "non-believer" for the sake of Islam. His arrest will have had a lot of influence by what happened directly after 911 though, and they had him taken off the streets as a precaution to civil unrest in the country as well has a gesture to the US in the name of decency given what they had just gone through. He has terrorist connections it is believed in Spain who wish to try him for that as well as having his speeches found in the possession of other terrorists, signifying that he was a danger to the public both here and abroad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.