Muslim terror suspect allowed to stay in UK

#1
OK I need somebody to explain to me why this is happening

Muslim terror suspect allowed to stay in UK

A Muslim terror suspect -living in the UK has publicly praised the insurgents who are battling British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hani al-Sibai claimed that Islamic fighters were humiliating Western forces, adding: "In the battlefield, they are the masters."

Al-Sibai has lived in Britain since 1994, after fleeing his homeland of Egypt where he has been convicted by a military court in his absence of plotting terrorist attacks. Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister, once described the failure to remove him from the country as "not good enough".

The 46-year-old radical was refused asylum nine years ago after British security chiefs concluded he was a senior member of the terrorist group Egyptian Islamic Jihad, an allegation he denies. He has, however, been granted temporary permission to live in the UK while officials consider his latest claim for asylum.

While he waits, al-Sibai continues to speak out against the West. In a debate on al-Jazeera television last month.

He was refused asylum on national security grounds, and was jailed in 1998 pending deportation. However, human rights laws make it impossible for suspects to be returned to countries where they might be tortured or killed, and Britain was unable to obtain from Egypt the necessary assurances as to al-Sibai's welfare.

Tony Blair intervened personally to try to deport him, scrawling on a letter warning that he might have to remain in the country: "I don't believe we shld (sic) be doing this. Speak to me." Nevertheless, al-Sibai was freed after spending nine months behind bars. A High Court judge has ruled he was unlawfully detained for nine days of this time.

In 1999 he was granted "exceptional leave" to remain in Britain for five years. Before the leave ran out in 2004 he lodged a fresh asylum claim, still being processed by the Home Office. He and his family have the same entitlements as British citizens to work or claim welfare benefits.
in full

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/19/nterr119.xml
 
#3
There isn't anything I can say about this one case that hasn't been said in general.

The rabbit is in the fox's den, calling the foxes names.
Let's treat him as such, shall we? :)
 
#4
Tony Blair intervened personally to try to deport him, scrawling on a letter warning that he might have to remain in the country: "I don't believe we shld (sic) be doing this. Speak to me." Nevertheless, al-Sibai was freed after spending nine months behind bars. A High Court judge has ruled he was unlawfully detained for nine days of this time.
He did at least make an attempt at doing one good thing whilst he was in power then...
 
#5
We can't hand him over to be executed, because we don't execute people any more (rightly or wrongly). Saying we do not support execution and then handing people over to be executed would be a tad hypocritical.

This bloke should never have been granted permission, temporary or not, to stay in this country.
 
#6
However, human rights laws make it impossible for suspects to be returned to countries where they might be tortured or killed
That whole article was written in order to have yet another poke at the Human Rights Act. There are many people in power who would like to persuade the common man that it is a bit of legislation he could do without. This is not so and the ordinary person should be wary of those who try to convince him so. It is the powers that be who want to lose it.

That individual would probably not have been able to be deported under other longstanding legislation.
And soldiers particularly ought not to wish for the repeal of the act. It might come in very handy for them for a variety of reasons over the next few years.


And anyway this is apparently what the police have said so altogether it must be a non story used just to wind people up - about the HR act rather than terrorism.

Under the Terrorism Act 2006, it is an offence to "glorify" terrorism in a way which incites attacks by others. However, police sources said al-Sibai's comments on al-Jazeera were probably within the law.[/quote]
 
#8
It comes to something when the Prime Minister cannot decide to deport someone who is classed as a securtity risk.

So what powers do we have anymore ??
 
#9
Tony Blair intervened personally to try to deport him
It's spin. The guppymint created the rules that pervent people being deported then blame the judges for applying the law.

There are thousands like this bloke who were let in when the guppymints in the muslim world started to crack down on fundies. Lot of British people will get the death penalty because our guppymint is far too "good" to deport them. Personally I'd much rather it was him than one of my kids.
 
#10
armchair_jihad said:
OK I need somebody to explain to me why this is happening
It's not hard to understand. Should the British state deport this person to a country which refuses to guarantee that electrodes will not be attached to his testicles shortly after 'de-planeing' this would reduce the room for maneuver enjoyed by British embassy officials round the world to argue that electrodes should not be attached to YOUR testicles should you be arrested - perhaps by mistake or on a false charge - in foreign parts.

Now, on the presumption that you're keen to keep your testicles voltage-free you should, accordingly, support the non-extradition of this person.

See? It's not rocket science.

:D
 
#11
Yea, loads of terrorists are allowed to stay here. Weren't 3 plane hijackers allowed to stay few months back or something? It's sickening that our tax money goes towards paying for their housing, food, Sky TV, nice car etc...

Anyway, i can see the governments plan. If we bring all the terrorists to the UK then we can stabilise Afghanistan and Iraq! I can't help but think there might be a flaw in that plan though?
 
#12
Bisley_Bob said:
Yea, loads of terrorists are allowed to stay here. Weren't 3 plane hijackers allowed to stay few months back or something? It's sickening that our tax money goes towards paying for their housing, food, Sky TV, nice car etc...

Anyway, i can see the governments plan. If we bring all the terrorists to the UK then we can stabilise Afghanistan and Iraq! I can't help but think there might be a flaw in that plan though?
I quite like the idea of Blair, Bush and some of their underlings (including the top brass who 'only followed orders') being deported to answer charges at an International War Crimes Tribunal on Iraq. On condition they receive a fair trial and the Blair testicles remain electrode-free.

Perhaps Al-Sibai and Tony be handcuffed together on the plane?
 
#13
Wasn't a possible withdrawal from the European Human Rights Bill in the Tory Manifesto last time? Probably not next time though!

It would have probably allowed such a deportation.

Call me Dave
 
#14
annakey said:
armchair_jihad said:
OK I need somebody to explain to me why this is happening
It's not hard to understand. Should the British state deport this person to a country which refuses to guarantee that electrodes will not be attached to his testicles shortly after 'de-planeing' this would reduce the room for maneuver enjoyed by British embassy officials round the world to argue that electrodes should not be attached to YOUR testicles should you be arrested - perhaps by mistake or on a false charge - in foreign parts.

Now, on the presumption that you're keen to keep your testicles voltage-free you should, accordingly, support the non-extradition of this person.

See? It's not rocket science.

:D
You go to foriegn countries, you live by their rules, simple. If you do a crime while in that country, they should be allowed to punish you as they see fit.

Its not rocket science, if you dont want electrodes don't go there.....
 
#15
EX_REME said:
You got to foriegn countries, you live by their rules, simple. If you do a crime while in that country, they should be allowed to punish you as they see fit.
I completely agree, if i went to Saudi Arabia clutching a Bible i'd be whipped. If during my trial i said it was against my human rights they'd just laugh at me and whip me some more! If other countries are allowed to make and enforce their own rules why are we not allowed to? It seems like this whole country is being run by a bunch of PC obsessed cretins in Brussels. Why? It's ridiculous.
 
#18
theres this area in Glasgow called govanhill and the police are told to lay off all the Muslims,they have a bank of pakistan , immigration lawyers,they roam about in gangs beating up white people and the police dont do anything there all fiddling the tax how can 17 year old lads drive around in top of the range mercs and bmws from just working in shops,type govanhill into youtube and youll see videos of the marches all the muslims have with the police tooled up in riot gear yet its never reported on the news.im not a racist coz i have nothign against peoples colour but i ******* hate the muslims
 
#20
annakey wrote:

It's not hard to understand. Should the British state deport this person to a country which refuses to guarantee that electrodes will not be attached to his testicles shortly after 'de-planeing' this would reduce the room for maneuver enjoyed by British embassy officials round the world to argue that electrodes should not be attached to YOUR testicles should you be arrested - perhaps by mistake or on a false charge - in foreign parts.
It's not hard to understand.

a) The guppymint is full of people who get off on self-righteous hot air.
b) The guppymint don't want to upset the muslim vote.

I don't care about the well-being of religious nazis. I do care about my kids being blown up and I do care about them ending up with no freedom because of said religious nazis. People on the left need to wake up to the fact that not all nazis have white skin.