Abu Qatada

Even if he was an illegal immigrant, many of them are still in this country because the courts have ruled that they may not be sent back to the regimes from which they originally escaped.

No, if he was an illegal immigrant he could be deported. He now holds asylum status and that has not been revoked. Strong argument for revoking I agree but not happened & now probably will not be!
Many desperate people fleeing from wars/persecution enter countries with false /forged documents and have done so for years.

he originally entered the country on a false passport, Gally so is an illegal immigrant.

Gally He was granted asylum here in 1994 I think. He is Palestinian by birth, therefore stateless but has Jordanian status as he was born in an area occupied by Jordan. I do not in any way condone his behaviour or terrorism but think that the political situation in the middle east, Palestine in particular, helps to create these crazed and dangerous extremists. My grandmother was Palestinian ... she would be really pi**ed off with him for bringing a bad name on an honourable people!

Sorry to be a bit slow on the uptake (nothing unusual there) but if he is a Jordanian citizen why is he in the UK? Was he a political refugee? Why are we supporting him and his family to the tune of £millions not to mention the millions it costs to keep him under surveillance etc..?

I suppose the other positive to take (and I am of course playing Polyanna here, because we'd probably all be quite happy to see him go back to Jordan, including probably the vast majority of Muslims in this country) is that it shows that UK justice system is better than most.
The variety of islam that he preaches is not in line with what the vast majority of Muslims approve of or believe but if he is seen to be unfairly victimised just because of what he says in his sermons then that will help to recruit young people to extremism.
ok Polyanna is toddling off now. Duties call.

On the BBC1 Breakfast programme this morning, they read out the news that Abu Qatada had been released on bail and was "now free to walk the streets". He's going to have to be a bit nifty as they later told us that he has a 16-hour daily curfew. Sloppy reporting doesn't help people understand what is happening and why.

The man is a political extremist using Islam as his medium but if he has not broken laws here and there is unclear evidence elsewhere it is not right to persecute him. That is the slippery slope and the behaviour of the many countries British Governments have invaded to 'restore' law and order & democracy!

If the man is a terrorist, why has no prosecution taken place in the UK? We, the public, have no idea what, if any, evidence there is that indicates wrongdoing.

Does Jordan's promise that it won't use information gained through torture to prosecute Abu Qatada hold water? Can they even be sure which evidence was gained through torture and which was not?

Well said Jess once we go down that route we head towards despotism.

Thanks for that post, Jess - you have summed up the situation perfectly.

Two wrongs never make a right do they.
The ins and outs of different extradition treaties are a nightmare.
This is not about our extradition treaty with the US.

But at the end of this day - there was the secretary of state with the power of the government on one hand and some judges with the power of the law on the other. The identity of the person they are arguing about is of secondary importance to the principle that they judges make an independent decision. The other way opens the door to vast political abuse of power. Like the innocent until proven guilty principle, sometimes it works in the bad guy's favour. But if you reverse the principle.... an abyss yawns. It is not just that sometimes innocent people get locked up because someone powerful has just decided they should be. It means that people in power can decide to trump up charges, take people into custody, get them put away for years and all without a fair and independent trial.
You have to have principles to protect individuals against the politicians and their allies and the judges are there to hold those lines to the best of their ability.

Yes, graces "they" win and "we" lose.

So does that apply to UK citizens deported to the US Jess? I know that Gary Mackinnon (?) will not now be extradited, but it was a close thing and there have been other cases. Seems to me, heads "they" win and tails "we" lose.

There are 2 underpinning principles of our legal system:
1. innocent until proven guilty
2. judges are independent.
If we hold these to be paramount, you can't have trial by politician, journalist or anyone else.
In the US the supreme court judges are appointed by the politicians. Why does this matter? Ask the anti abortion campaigners. And remember the hanging chads in Florida when it was finely balanced between Bush and Gore...

You have to be able to prove that you are in mortal danger if you return to your own country when you apply for political asylum. I do not see how a convicted criminal can use that as a defence. OK he may be at risk if Jordan has already found him guilty, but so would most war criminals (Milosovich et al) - basically I think we are being taken for suckers and suckers with extremely deep pockets at that.

Do not agree Johanna ..even in war there is unacceptable behaviour torture being one of them...

I do not agree that AQ has a protected 'right' to anything if he has broken laws..I think if you make that choice you have to take the consequences.

In love and war all is fair.
Now boot him out.

If he has broken the law in England then England should bring him to justice. As far as I am aware he has not been tried for anything and Ido not know if this is because he in fact has not broken any law here or what!

On the face of it it seems all arse about face- mixed up when Gurkhas are denied the right to stay in UK but AQ is.. but I am not certain of the true facts of this case just the propaganda from both sides!!

I don't think it matters whether he observes the human rights of others. Is he the foundation of our moral compass? We should do what we think is right and ethical, regardless of whoever or whatever is at issue at the time. I think Tony Blair tried the bit about Saddam Hussein did far worse things in Iraq that we [are] doing. Yes, obviously. Is Saddam Hussein our moral compass so if we behave slightly better than an appalling, brutal, tyrannical dictator, we get to wear the white hat?

I think he has already been tried in his absence in Jordan but they have promised he would have a fresh trial and evidence gained through torture would not be used. I understand he is actually Jordanian so we can't just send him back to his own country.

I wonder whether any other country in the region could be persuaded to take him in. Still he wouldn't be able to live off them like he can here. Perhaps the government should find a way of not paying him any benefits so he actually has to work for a living (then perhaps they could pay pensioners a proper pension!)

Of course he is entitled to his human rights but he should not be HERE!!!!!

I wish Joe Brand hadn't sung his name to ''Ave a Banana' on HIGNFY. I can't stop doing it now

I was waiting a mention of human rights!

I know I can't compare the two cases but in the meantime we have SAS Sgt.
Nightingale in prison.