Human rights or human wrongs?

[0iD]

As you all might have read/seen/heard, a handful of terror suspects suspected of plotting a bombing campaign in this county, have escaped deportation to Pakistan. A ruling which took greatly from the Human Rights Act has allowed them to stay in the UK, owing to Pakistan's poor human rights record.

Now the security services believed the men were planning to attack within days of their arrest, but neither was charged, therefore they are innocent under UK law. However convinced other parties are that they were al-Qaeda operatives, they have not technically broken any laws.

So, despite the outcries, is it (in your opinion) right not to deport them?

[Terbinator]

No. I don't know the full in's and out's of the case but from what I've seen, these people wanted to come here and attack us - lets put them up for protected asylum, why of course /sarc.

[[GSV]Trig]

If they are not UK citizens then they should be deported.

/end

[aidanjt]

If they're suspected of breaking British law on British soil, they should be tried in a British court. Deportation to a 3rd party country simply to enable torture is an act as bad as the torture itself.

[MadduckUK]

no, get rid, quick and permanently. the Russians have got it right

[aidanjt]

Get rid of someone who you can't prove has done anything wrong?

Are people really that fear ridden by media hyperbole these days?

[TAKTAK]

I don't get upholding the human rights of wanton terrorists, what about upholding the rights of those that they are blowing up?...

Obviously it would depend upon irrefutable evidence being produced.

[aidanjt]

Because if the government can trample on their rights, they can trample on your rights.

[TAKTAK]

Because if the government can trample on their rights, they can trample on your rights.

Who's protecting the rights of the victims here?

Purely hypothetically: Your uncle Bob gets on a bus which is the target of a terrorist attack, after the incident you discover that the terrorist has previously been held on terror charges and jailed for an insignificant amount of time, they were allowed to stay in the country because their lives are at risk if they return to their own.

So because the terrorist was in possible danger upon return to the country of origin, they were allowed to stay, then they carried on with their terrorist activities, concluding in the deaths of everyone on the bus, including Bob, and themselves...

So a choice of: terrorist is in possible danger

or

Terrorist dies, bob dies, shed loads of other people die/are maimed

If they are man enough to decide to blow people up, then they're man enough to return to their country.

Again it would all depend on the specifics of each case, but can you see where i'm coming from?

[aidanjt]

The victim has already been victimised, the only thing to be done after that is catch whoever did it, and try them in a court of law. What you're talking about is pre-emptive/thought policing, or also known as, witch hunting.

Due process of law is the only thing stopping the government from arbitrarily arresting and punishing you for made up crap. Take that away, and you're only screwing yourself under the guise of 'security'.

And honestly, how many people have died as a result of actual terrorism in the last 10 years? More people will have died from heart attacks in 1 year. The fear is blown way out of proportion. You've faced much worse in the past with much greater dignity, and you'll face much worse in the future.

[Terbinator]

If they are not UK citizens then they should be deported.

/end

QFT
They also gave/give up their citizenship when they become and have contact with Al-Quieda (?).

[Splash]

If they're suspected of breaking British law on British soil, they should be tried in a British court. Deportation to a 3rd party country simply to enable torture is an act as bad as the torture itself.

This. If their crime is against Britain, committed in Britain then why would we be deporting to Pakistan to face "trial"?

[shadowmaster]

If they're suspected of breaking British law on British soil, they should be tried in a British court. Deportation to a 3rd party country simply to enable torture is an act as bad as the torture itself.

+1. Neither of them has been charged with terrorism as there is clearly not enough evidence.

[KidChameleon]

Because if the government can trample on their rights, they can trample on your rights.

If it can be taken away, it's not a right. You can't be selective about who gets basic human rights.

Who's protecting the rights of the victims here?

What victims?




To repeat what most people are saying: I don't know the details of the trial. But if they weren't charged with anything, then there is no more reason to deport them than any other foreigner, regardless of the dangers posed in their home country. It seems according to the media, "suspect" has the same meaning as "convicted criminal". Labelling someone as a "suspected paedophile", for example, immediately puts it into your mind that they are a kiddy fiddler, which stigmatises them for a long time.

[TAKTAK]

What victims?

I wasn't actually talking about this particular case, as there are no legal charges. (plus i don't know about this particular case..)

Hence why i keep saying dependant on irrefutable evidence.

It's not good enough for someone to look at a lemon and say "you're an orange", and then send them to live with the oranges. There should be irrefutable proof that it is an orange, at which point my previous posts kick in

If you prove youself capable of mass murder/attempting to undertake mass murder, then i don't see why you should be either locked up for life, or sent packing to face the wolves...

[aidanjt]

I have nothing against a life sentence *if* a conviction is successfully and fairly achieved. I still can not condone torture, regardless of excuse for doing so, it's still a subversion of due process.