Poetry Forum

Full Version: should we kick him out or let him stay
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Quote:Source

LONDON — The attorney general said Tuesday he was "very concerned" about the release on bail of radical cleric Abu Qatada, amid a hail of press criticism, but said the government was bound by the rule of law.

A judge on Monday ordered the release of the 51-year-old Jordanian, allegedly a former top aide of late Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, under strict bail conditions despite government concerns he poses a security risk.

Qatada has been fighting British attempts to deport him to Jordan for more than six years, most of which he has spent in jail, but without charge.

we're told by brussels that we as country (the UK) have to let him live here as a free man. the question is this. should a state be able to send someone back home irispective of the consequences on their return to motherland (things such as them being tortured). or should we have to keep him here.
views please,

i know the media can lie as can governments but after seeing this guy i'd say cap him (bullet in the head) it would be less fun than torture but worth the saving on airfare.
come on,mate,he never had a charge against him,and i'm sure they tried to find something,the government should be sued to keep somebody that long without a charge and no,you can't send him home to get tortured some more.
(02-08-2012, 09:04 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]come on,mate,he never had a charge against him,and i'm sure they tried to find something,the government should be sued to keep somebody that long without a charge and no,you can't send him home to get tortured some more.

Agree with srijantje. The problem with executive actions is that they can
be used against peaceful dissidents as well as violent ones. The price of
freedom includes risks to your personal safety. As Benjamin Franklin said:

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
.


while we can't try him (because he committed no crime here (apart from collecting people) he is wanted world wide, for trial.
on terrorism charges. i'm surprised he wasn't charged with 'A' crime. that he got in on a forged visa obviously makes no matter. that if were caught using said visa he'd have been put back on the plane. we also have to pay for him to stay here, pay all his medical bills. see normally if someone illegally enters a country they can be deported. but he asked for asylum and we like twats gave it. sorry but the amount of human kindness i have will not go to this man. i don't care about brussels human rights or santa, in this instance i say send him back home.
what you mean he's wanted worldwide,if the usa wanted him the brits would give him within a second,they even give their own citizens to them,try to get an american citizen extradited,no chance
If a person is in my country illegally, I think I would have a perfect right to deport him unless I had a compelling reason, to me, to grant him asylum. That's something like saying a guy breaks into your house, but before he can kill you and your family and take you possessions, some people who don't like him and wish to do him harm, show up and demand you release him to them. Yet, you have evidently made some senseless rule that says you have to let him stay in your house indefinitely?
I don't see how this is an issue of Liberty when he is illegally in the country. This is not a dissident that wrote nasty poems about his home country and that's why they want to kill him. Regardless, asylum has always been on a case by case basis, as for obvious reasons it has to be. But to say this person is owed anything but a ticket home is ridicules. Maybe the problem is in the terminology, so replace dissident with "psychopathic murderer". Someone being labeled a dissident should not obviate the suspension of reason.

"The problem with executive actions is that they can
be used against peaceful dissidents as well as violent ones."

This is an erroneous argument. It presupposes that if any leeway is allowed then abuses will occur and so one must have black and white laws that allow injustices as great as those you are trying to prevent, while also unnecessarily risking your citizens safety by releasing a psychopath into the community. And please, don't try and say that he wasn't. He worked for Ben Laden, and his goal was to see as many infidels killed as possible, and ultimately bring down the country. He obviously had intent to do harm. Just because he was caught before he could do so is no justification for treating him nicely. Believe me I am no supporter of government, as I have been on the wrong end of abuse of power before, but that by no means make me want to take leave of my senses and open my arms to welcome a person like this.


Dale
(02-09-2012, 11:30 AM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]what you mean he's wanted worldwide,if the usa wanted him the brits would give him within a second,they even give their own citizens to them,try to get an american citizen extradited,no chance
it isn't about the us, it's about some cunt being allowed to stay illegally in my country while i have to help pay for his upkeep. someone who is a know cunt fuck me and mine up the arse while giggling with his buddies. personally i'd cap him just for fun, but that.s not on is it. i say if his own country won't have him, set him adrift in the row boat, i also say that unless brussels changes its mind about this and other matters, pull out of europe 100% they'll still do business with us. and we'll send back who we want to send back,
there are many cunts in many places and of course he is one,but i think he should have his freedom of expression,how repugnant it may be,take care of him is another story,put him on a train to brussels or something
he did more than express his freedom sj. and yes, i could live with him going to brussels, in fact we should send all people in out country like him there Wink
you'll loose half your population,not a bad idea actually Tongue you're saddled up with your colonial past and have to deal with it,like europe has to deal with their cheap labour migration policy that's now heavily backfiring on them
"i think he should have his freedom of expression"

I do not consider intent to murder, or conspiracy to commit genocide covered under the term "freedom of expression"!

Despite the trials, any high ranking German officer after WWII was considered guilty because of association, whether charges could be proved or not. The crime is aiding and abetting a known mass murder, it has nothing to do with freedom of expression. Belgium barely has as much total population as London. Belgium can't even keep it's own house in order.
(02-09-2012, 07:31 PM)srijantje Wrote: [ -> ]you'll loose half your population,not a bad idea actually Tongue you're saddled up with your colonial past and have to deal with it,like europe has to deal with their cheap labour migration policy that's now heavily backfiring on them
i'm saying he can have his freedom of expression (within bounds and the law)
what he can't have is the right to stay here, he's an illegal. if brussels say we can't send him back, then fly him to brussels. he has apparentlt commited crimes else where, (not just the usa, maybe not even the usa) that any other person would have been deported for. that he hasn't commited crimes as far as we're aware of here (though i think he has) we can't try him as such.
send him to brussels and let them deal with him,fair enough
(02-09-2012, 05:43 PM)Erthona Wrote: [ -> ]If a person is in my country illegally, I think I would have a perfect right to deport him unless I had a compelling reason, to me, to grant him asylum. That's something like saying a guy breaks into your house, but before he can kill you and your family and take you possessions, some people who don't like him and wish to do him harm, show up and demand you release him to them. Yet, you have evidently made some senseless rule that says you have to let him stay in your house indefinitely?
I don't see how this is an issue of Liberty when he is illegally in the country. This is not a dissident that wrote nasty poems about his home country and that's why they want to kill him. Regardless, asylum has always been on a case by case basis, as for obvious reasons it has to be. But to say this person is owed anything but a ticket home is ridicules. Maybe the problem is in the terminology, so replace dissident with "psychopathic murderer". Someone being labeled a dissident should not obviate the suspension of reason.

"The problem with executive actions is that they can
be used against peaceful dissidents as well as violent ones."

This is an erroneous argument. It presupposes that if any leeway is allowed then abuses will occur and so one must have black and white laws that allow injustices as great as those you are trying to prevent, while also unnecessarily risking your citizens safety by releasing a psychopath into the community. And please, don't try and say that he wasn't. He worked for Ben Laden, and his goal was to see as many infidels killed as possible, and ultimately bring down the country. He obviously had intent to do harm. Just because he was caught before he could do so is no justification for treating him nicely. Believe me I am no supporter of government, as I have been on the wrong end of abuse of power before, but that by no means make me want to take leave of my senses and open my arms to welcome a person like this.


Dale
Nice use of rhythm and a fine example if comItment verse. A little work required in the structure and perhaps on the obscure ryhme scheme....but overall a good solid read
Not sure about the lack of clear stanzas but anything that rhymes with
Abu hanza gets my vote!
Best,tectak
they have him out under strict bail conditions,
22 hours curfew, no internet or mobile phones.
no mosque visit.

the bill is expected to top 1/2 a mill over a year.
there's also talk of jordan agreeing to no torture, ( i hope they're lying Blush)
and him returning there
(02-15-2012, 05:10 AM)billy Wrote: [ -> ]they have him out under strict bail conditions,
22 hours curfew, no internet or mobile phones.
no mosque visit.

the bill is expected to top 1/2 a mill over a year.
there's also talk of jordan agreeing to no torture, ( i hope they're lying Blush)
and him returning there

Billy --- Do you remember when that Tory bloke suggested he would send such people to some island? He was laughed out of court. But---- when I think of it--- St Helena? Why not? It was good enough for Napoleon. Or Asuncion, where there is a bloody great base? He would not be subject to torture. What objection could ECHR have?

I am becoming more of a fascist by the day...but who cares? The idea of accepting judgments of a court whose judges are appointed by a panel including Russians is ludicrous.Angry
i just read the surveillance bill will be about 5million a year abu so yes, i think it's a great idea.
send him to the Falklands. and allow him no internet of phone connects. or the outer Hebrides.
i think cameron shot himself in the foot by keeping him here, he should have sent him packing and refused to pay any fine. or he can pull out of human rights league and send him packing.