Lords wrong on detainees - Straw

#2
The thing that worries me about the Lords ruling is that the actual legal objection they've raised is against making a distinction between how foreigners can be treated in law as opposed to British citizens.

There could be unintended consequences 8O
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Because the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Act, forbids the deportation of individuals to their home countries if they face execution there. For the same reason the UK won't deport crims to the US if they could face the death penalty in either a Federal or State Court.
 
#4
Mr_Fingerz said:
Because the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Act, forbids the deportation of individuals to their home countries if they face execution there. For the same reason the UK won't deport crims to the US if they could face the death penalty in either a Federal or State Court.
Great, that makes us a magnet for degenerates, crims and terrs!
 

Mr_Fingerz

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
Biscuits_Brown said:
The thing that worries me about the Lords ruling is that the actual legal objection they've raised is against making a distinction between how foreigners can be treated in law as opposed to British citizens.

There could be unintended consequences 8O
I can see where their Lordships are coming from. People either have rights in law, or they don't. If people have rights in law, then they have to apply to everyone. If they don't, then a logical outcome is 1930's Germany.

So Mr Clarke now has to square a circle. Either these people have rights and so Habeus Corpus and a fair trial apply, or these people (who have no legal right to remain in the UK are deported to face an almost certain death in their home countries) are sent home and Mr Clarke has another embarrassing day in court.

Alternatively, the Home Office could just tear up the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, and re-instigate Diplock Courts. And Mr Clarke could have yet another interesting day in court.

Only winners - Lawyers.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#7
The BBC said:
Jack Straw has attacked the decision by Britain's highest court that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws.
I see that once again the Great Satan puts his voluminous knowledge of the law above that of a nine man team, each with many years of legal experience.

Cheers Jack - you've again confirmed to the nation that you're an arrogant cnut who wouldn't know sh!t from clay !

Plank !

:evil:
 
#8
As long as he doesn't think that decraing a "Civil Contingency" and suspending Habeas Corpus for all is a workable short-term method of keeping the foreign chappies locked up....
 
#10
lol (in a dodgy german accent)........

"ID Card please! YOU ARE NOT A LABOUR SUPPORTER AND ARE A ENEMY OF DER FUHRER! You will now jump on the truck to the detention center!!"

Jack Straw seems strikingly similar to SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler.....

NAZIS = A violent group who rose to power in a democracy and established institutions of legitimized terror.

Sounds familiar??!?!

 
#11
Deport them.

Has it been proven that these people WILL be executed if returned to their respective countries? I think not, these irksome little people have been sent here to cause as much distruction as possible and then leave.

Straw is wrong in as much as he should have got shot of the ASAP and not hold onto them indeffinitely.

Johno
 
#12
johnojohnson said:
Deport them.

Has it been proven that these people WILL be executed if returned to their respective countries? I think not, ...

Johno
LOL, how could you prove that until it happens? Would suit you, no doubt...
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#13
johnojohnson said:
Deport them

......
I thought Johno was on about Straw & his mob, I'd definitely deport them !
 
#14
Saw some Labour minister being questioned on Ch4 news on Thu night. Can't remember her name, increasingly they are acting like clones, viz the one on Question Time tonight.

She was good enough to say that the Government would "take into account" the House of Lords decision. FFS, it's our country's Supreme Court and these charlatans are treating it like a focus group.
 
#15
source http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3905562

Sat 18 Dec 2004 11:09pm (UK)
Top Lawyer Quits over 'Odious' Anti-Terror Laws

By Jennifer Sym, PA

A leading lawyer will no longer represent suspected terrorists in the wake of the Law Lords’ damning verdict on the Government’s “odious” anti-terror laws, he said today.

The emergency measures were left in tatters on Thursday after the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention without trial contravened human rights laws.

The Law Lords have no powers to strike out the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act, but their eight-to-one ruling in favour of nine detainees held for three years on suspicion of links with terrorism shot a hole through the Government’s plans.

Ian Macdonald QC – one of the Special Advocates given security clearance to represent detainees before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) – will now resign after seven years “for reasons of conscience”.

Writing in the Mail on Sunday, he says: “I now feel that whatever difference I might make as a Special Advocate on the inside is outweighed by the operation of a law that is fundamentally flawed and contrary to our deepest notions of justice.

“My role has been altered to provide a false legitimacy to indefinite detention without knowledge of the accusations being made and without any kind of criminal charge or trial.”

He adds: “Such a law is an odious blot on our legal landscape and for reasons of conscience I feel that I must resign.”

Mr Macdonald, who has been President of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association since 1984, says that following the September 11 attacks, the SIAC’s role was expanded to hear appeals against the indefinite detention without trial of suspected international terrorists accused of links to al Qaida who could not be deported.

He stayed on because he thought he could “make a difference”, despite considering it “a wrong law brought in the wrong way to the wrong court”.

He said such laws alienated Britain in the international arena, with the tone of the war against terrorism producing hatred and attacks on the Asian community.

He writes: “The solution to the perceived threat of international terrorism is not, in my view, to pass new laws which apply arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention without trial to every terrorist, British and foreign alike.”

The Government had to opt out of the European Convention rights to a fair trial in order to bring in the anti-terrorism Act which was in response to the September 11 attacks in New York and Washington.

Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.

But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.
 
#16
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself."
-- Thomas Paine

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-- Thomas Paine

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
-- Benjamin Franklin
 
#17
1215 - Magna Carta


--------------------
39. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in anyway destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawfuljudgment of his peers

40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right orjustice.
---------------------
63. Wherefore it is our will, and we firmly enjoin, that the English Church befree, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaidliberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly,fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in allrespects and in all places for ever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, hasbeen taken, as well on our part as on the part of the barons, that all theseconditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent. Given under our hand--the above-named and many others being witnesses--in themeadow which is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenthday of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.







Straw, Nulabour, all of them can argue as much as they like - this is Directly a constitutional issue between the monarchy and the people, Magna carta is the foundation of our nations laws and cannot be revoked or igored.
 
#18
The whole problem comes about due to the conflict of anti-terrorism actions & individual rights.
IMO if "Johnny Refugee" has a "dubious" past, then we should have kicked him out to start with.
Remember; terrorists only have to be lucky once but we have to be lucky every time.
It's a damn' hard balancing act between personal freedom & letting the Islamofascists score a home run.
Sooner or later we'll be hit by a "9/11" type of atrocity. Personally, later is better.
 
#19
johnojohnson said:
Deport them.
But they may be innocent of the charges... 8O

The Government claims that there is evidence to support their detention - in which case why not charge them and let the courts decide.

Of course, this evidence may come from the same source as that proving the Iraqi WMD :roll:
 
#20
"They" will try and ignore this ruling, paying lip service to it, but it will cause some trouble.

The Commons may reject renewal of the legislation - unlikely but possible. I am not sure if the Lords can throw it out, but if they can then they surely will. Lots of nasty sh!t flying around in an election year - if Liabour were trusted, it would probably help their campaign but trust is something they enjoy very little of!

If the detainees have done something wrong then charge them. If there is insufficient evidence then release them. If the evidence is largely covert, and the detainees are such a potential danger then there is a strong case for presenting the evidence in an open court. This shower are trying to have their cake and eat it - it doesn't work!


For those that think "it's just a bunch of dodgy Muslim foreigners" then bear in mind the following words of Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.
Ultimately, it'll be anyone speaking out or causing a "nuisance".
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Top