Angry MP: 'deport Abu Qatada and damn the consequences'

Forget legal niceties: backbencher wants freed radical cleric put on first plane to Jordan

LAST UPDATED AT 11:38 ON Tue 13 Nov 2012

THERE IS a growing clamour this morning for the British government to put extremist cleric Abu Qatada on a plane to Jordan and damn the legal consequences.

"The system is being made a monkey of," Baroness (Pauline) Neville-Jones, a former head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, told the Today programme this morning. "Deportation is an executive power. I do share the view that the executive ought to be able to exercise that power against someone who is not a British citizen."

She believed yesterday's decision by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) was extraordinary. The court had decided Abu Qatada would get a fair trial in Jordan, she said, but it got "hung up" on the narrow point about the admissibility of evidence obtained via torture.

As for the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, she accused it of "raising the bar". The ECHR had originally objected to Abu Qatada's deportation because he faced the risk of torture. When Jordan guaranteed its legal processes, Strasbourg came up with a new objection, that he might be convicted based on witness evidence gained under torture.

The case illustrates that the British legal system is only too happy to elevate the "rights" of terrorists over the rights of UK citizens, columnist Richard Littlejohn says in The Daily Mail.

The government's failure to repeal the European law "at the root of all this madness" means Britain will continue to be "a taxpayer-subsidised playground for foreign jihadists, murderers and torturers, as well a lucrative meal ticket for opportunist lawyers filling their boots at the 'yuman rites' trough."

The Daily Telegraph asks if any other country in the world would have been willing to demonstrate its "judicial impotence" in such a "humiliating" fashion.

"At every turn, Qatada and his lawyers have used human rights laws to thwart his deportation to his native Jordan, where he is wanted for terrorist offences," the paper says. "SIAC says he cannot be guaranteed a fair trial because the evidence against him may have been extracted under torture, though there is no proof that this is so.

"In any case, the reason why successive governments have sought to get rid of Qatada was not so that he could stand trial but to remove an enemy of the state from our midst."

Qatada was due to be released on bail today from the maximum security prison HMP Long Lartin in Worcestershire. He will wear an electronic tag and be subject to a 16-hour curfew. He will not be allowed to use the internet.

Leading the calls from MPs for the government to ignore SIAC and the ECHR and deport Qatada forthwith is Tory Peter Bone. "Enough is enough – put this terrorist on a plane and send him home and worry about the European Court afterwards," he told ITV's Daybreak this morning. · 

Disqus - noscript

What ever happened to human rights-the corner stone of British law? This man has not committed an offence in this country! It's a shame we can't send some of of "our" MPs abroad.

@ Allen BIshop

The case illustrates that the British legal system is only too happy to elevate the "rights" of terrorists over the rights of UK citizens, columnist Richard Littlejohn says in The Daily Mail.

The government's failure to repeal the European law "at the root of all this madness" means Britain will continue to be "a taxpayer-subsidised playground for foreign jihadists, murderers and torturers, as well a lucrative meal ticket for opportunist lawyers filling their boots at the 'Human rites' trough."

He is a known terrorist, that has languished in UK Jails at the Tax Payers Expense, Getting Better treated than those on benefits, but you want his Human Right's justified??

What about the Human Right's of those killed in his acts of terrorism,??
What if he decides he's going start his acts of terrorism in the UK??
What if he gets out and starts spouting his anti west hate garbage like all the rest do, like Abu Hamza etc..???
When is Enough Enough Alan???
When did all those that fought in the First World War & The Second World War just do it for the fun of it, not to gain freedom for their friends and families??
When will people like you, and that other moron Lord LOngford (Myra Hindley and her Human Rights) Relaize that these people give up their human rights when they commit such attrocious acts!!
Or what is the point of The Court that was set up to deal with War Crimes?? You might as well let the Nazi's off for their crimes against Humanity as well!!

Get a grip on reality, SEND HIM HOME, Who Cares if he gets tortured?? He never gave a damn about those he killed or maimed, so why care about him???

Our Western legal system protects also the rights of those who commit crimes. A fair trial for everybody is one of the corner stones of our democracy. At the same time it
is a vulnerable spot in our system, because it can be used to avoid well deserved punishment. The question is fundamental: are we prepared to give up an important aspect of our democracy in cases as this one? If we do, we risk stooping to the level of countries that use less moral values when dealing with law offenders. There is undoubtedly and even understandable public support for the outcry of this Member of Parliament, but first of all an MP should protect and defend the existing law. If that law needs mending and adapting to his or hers opinion, well, make a constructive proposition to change it and try to find the necessary support to make this happen.

No one is saying he has "committed an offence in this country!" . Read the bloody article, it is about extradition for an offence committed in another country.

"SIAC says he cannot be guaranteed a fair trial because the evidence
against him may have been extracted under torture, though there is no
proof that this is so."

MAY HAVE!, MAY bleedin' HAVE!

Give me strength. That argument(?) can be made for all evidence that has ever been produced and will ever be introduced in every court in every land since there have been courts.
One worrying thing for me is I find myself in agreement with a daily mail journo :)

We don't seem to have a problem extraditing British citizens to the USA without seeing the evidence first or analysing where it came from, but for some reason we do have a problem sending a Jordanian back to his own country when we have written guarantees that he will get a fair trial.

For further concise, balanced comment and analysis on the week's news, try The Week magazine. Subscribe today and get 6 issues completely free.