Anyone?
August 11th, 2005 - 10:23 am
It looks like the Brits are finally cracking down:
Described as “Bin Laden’s right-hand man in Europe”, Abu Qatada once called on British Muslims to martyr themselves in a holy war on oppression.
He has now been detained by police working with the Immigration Service as the Government cracks down on ‘preachers of hate’ in Britain.
The radical cleric, aged 44, had links to shoebomber Richard Reid and Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of being the “20th hijacker” in the September 11 attacks, both of whom sought religious advice from him.
My question is – what took them so long?
Apparently they want to deport him. Is that really the right response? That leaves him free to act, but just shifts the problem elsewhere.
Blair needed sufficient political cover for this action. Most Brits think the Iraq war is wrong-headed remember. The recent spat of bombing provided him the cover. Contradicts many of his earlier statements regarding the need to be pro-active in fighting islamo-fascists. Just shows the limits of one’s political capital and how you sometimes are forced to leverage current tragic events to enable you to act according to your charter.
Of course, for the Brits, there’s an extra caveat to the whole issue of deporting terrorists and terrorist-enablers: they can’t ship them to countries where there’s the chance of them being tortured or killed.
Clowns.
Steven Den Beste said “Apparently they want to deport him. Is that really the right response? That leaves him free to act, but just shifts the problem elsewhere.”
Considering the source of the comment, I am going to assume that I am missing something here.
It seems that at least in most cases, they are deporting these people to contries where they have already been convicted of crimes and will be serving long prison terms. In fact, they are actually working out special extradition treaties with Mid-East nations to allow them to do so and still comply with Euro. legislation (forbidding extradition to countries which may torture or kill prisoners). They have already worked out one such treaty with Jordan.
So what am I missing?
–shaulie
People in countries like Jordan and Egypt tend to be more persuasive in getting such folks to divulge information than are authorities in the western nations. And don’t even think torture—these people are going to promise in WRITING that they won’t torture them. After all, if you put something in writing its the same kind of thing as signing a treaty, and no one ever breaks those, do they?
I’m sorry, but I’m really tired of this crap. Western countries give asylum to these goons to protect them from their own governments. Then they abuse their hospitality by encouraging violence in the countries that have sheltered them. Send them back. What happens to them when they get there is no concern of mine.
Plus didn’t most of these countries sign all the appropriate UN human rights treaties? So they won’t be doing anything wrong, correct?
William Young: “Clowns.”
Possibly; but that’s what you tend to get with an independent judiciary. You’ve had similar cases of judicial independence/idiocy in the US in the past, IIRC.
Which in a way, is a good thing; I wouldn’t want a judiciary at the command of the Crown or Parliament. What is required, though is that the judiciary take account of reality, and the that the courts must not ignore the public good in a fog of legalism.
That may, if the courts prove balky, require Parliament to replace or amend legislation and treaty obligations which the judiciary have interpreted so as to obstruct detention and/or deportation.
But Parliament seldom moves fast. To get this done the government requires enough political support in and outside Parliament to override the protests of the more mulish members of the legal establishment and their media supporters.
Doing this while Parliament is in recess means that when it resumes, it will be plain whether administrative measures and judicial realism will serve, and if not, what legislation will be needed.
Smart timing, IMHO.