UKC

So Abu Qatada has been found not guilty of what was reported to be a thin case against him after the discounting of torture evidence. However, with his trial outspokenness, his form, and his presence in a clearly unstable part of the world.. ..wouldn't we have been better off keeping our enemies closer to home?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28033749

In reply to contrariousjim:



No, we sent him "home". Unless you're suggesting we can get only deport people we "know" will be found guilty.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Are you saying we should actively seek out jihadists to offer them a home?

Because 5,000 ISIS fighters would be an improvement in Birmingham?

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Not at all. I'm suggesting that having granted him asylum, and not having been found guilty via any due process in the UK that *we*, the UK govt, had a choice in whether to deport him. With all our feigned interest in the stability of the middle east, wouldn't it have been better to have kept him here, and watched him? Rather than let him go back to face a thin case that will (or has?) resulted in his subsequent freedom.. ..and freedom to become a bigger pain in the arse than he already is?!

In reply to winhill:


The difference being that he was already our problem, and one less potentially influential radicalising character contributing to the mess is better. Are you saying he is as much a pawn as any individual ISIS fighter and has or will have no influence. Certainly cuts against the grain of the UK govt's portrayal of him.

In reply to contrariousjim: The middle east isn't one country, I don't know what you have against letting the Jordanian justice system run its course.

In reply to contrariousjim:

Surely he was only granted asylum because at the time he wouldn't have faced a fair trial. Having negotiated the conditions for a fair trial in Amman he was no longer our problem. The fact that he has been found not guilty rather validates the decision to deport him.

In reply to Clarence:


He was granted asylum under the claim of religious persecution was back in 1994 some 5yrs before the trial against him was set up in 1999.

In reply to contrariousjim:


And his defence against subsequent deportation was he wouldn't receive a fair trial, which was clearly untrue, unless he's going to appeal against the not guilty verdict. Anyway, he can fight his heroic fight against the great Satan far more directly where he is, so it'd be cruel to deprive him of his only pleasure in life.

In reply to Ridge:

The great Satan being us/the West...so it was a great idea to deport him?

I don't know how right you are that he's more of a threat where he is now, but if you are right, the OP is right that he ought to have stayed in the UK.

In reply to Timmd:

Why are we better off with him here? Allowing the Germans to invade in WWII would have been more sensible than keeping them out? Plus the likelihood of him being beheaded on a liveleak video after some internecine falling out is probably much higher in Jordan than it is back here.

In reply to winhill:


I thought that once this is all over and subject to him being found Not Guilty he'll have a right under the Human Rights Act to return to the UK as he has family here i.e. A right to a family life.

In reply to Ridge:

Huh? Whoever said anything about the Germans?

In reply to Ridge:


Mindboggling post. I take it you're drinking some very good wine.

In reply to Indy:


That's quite a possibility but not the premise of the OP, namely that we want more jihadists in the country, which he's clarified slightly to mean higher value assets than just the foot soldiers.

In reply to Ridge:
PS, excuse me by the way, I'm waffling, I know nothing about Abu Qatada.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Glad you enjoyed it.

In reply to contrariousjim:

You are aware he still faces other charges, the verdicts of which aren't due until September?
As for keeping him here, do you really think the level of surveillance that would be needed to keep tabs on nutters like this a justifiable use of taxpayers money? If he pollutes minds over here, then the polluted become our problem as well. If he does so in Jordan, chances are most of them will never get near enough to bother us.

In reply to pec:


So take a £10 wager he'll be acquitted and freed then?!


And I guess you have just crystallised the kind of insular view of the world people are content to have, that I detest. The "polluted" are our problem wherever they are.. ..just as Osama and the relatively few strategic minds involved in the worst terrorist atrocities go to prove. I'd rather have them in our backyard putting faith in our law, our security services and belief in the triumph of our values.

In reply to contrariousjim:

why just him? Or do you want all religious nutters shipped over here?

Why expect "our values" to triumph on a second attempt?

In reply to MG:


Shipped over? No, I think we shouldn't have shipped him out. We'd taken him on already. He stood as a hypocritical figure in that context and was in my view far less dangerous.


Because his western criticism sits hypocritically in tension with the advantage he took of the benefits on offer. And not so much our values converting him out of his own foolishness, but because his message is delivered here in a background milieu of positive western values which create tension in the minds of those who hear it and may reduce the number affected. Furthermore, because the battle of values is *the* underlying battle behind many of the physical battles in the Middle East we have involved ourselves in. If we cannot put faith in our own values here, nobody is going to care much about their projection into the attempted rectification in a distant civil war zone.

In reply to contrariousjim:


It was rather implicit in " I'd rather have them in our backyard putting faith in our law," that you wanted them here.


Furthermore, because the battle of values is *the* underlying battle behind many of the physical battles in the Middle East

I don't think that's correct. Mostly they are one religion (or flavour of religion) against another.

If we cannot put faith in our own values here, nobody is going to care much about their projection into the attempted rectification in a distant civil war zone.

I think attempting to project our values has been a unmitigated disaster for at least the last decade. Personally I would prefer to leave others to arrange their own affairs and preferably not encourage those who preach violent religion to arrive or return here.

In reply to MG:


Yes. By virtue of the fact he was already here and our problem, and of his supposed historical influence, and not by virtue of Winhill's strawman that we should bring all ISIS fighters to the UK for re-education.



Well yes, it might not be *their* current battle, but that's not to what I was referring, but rather to the underlying *reason* for our various forms of interventions, along with our naive cheers for the "Arab springs". And what values have we been espousing? Tolerance, freedom of speech, democracy etc? Not to encourage religious conflict. So where do our values meet in tension with those of other cultures?



I agree with your former, and not with your latter point. Take NIreland as an example. Peace did not come from the provocative presence of the army in belfast. However, there needs to be the opportunity for discourse, not the elimination of discourse through cultural and religious apartheid, excluding those ideas we detest from our locale, and leaving them to be nurtured in distant states. That has been the status quo, and it didn't stop those leaders from causing us great harm.

In reply to contrariousjim:
"You come to this country, take advantage of the system and think because we are tolerant that we are weak and helpless. Your arrogance offends me."

I'm sure some people would interpret the above quote from a film to mean we should do horrible things to horrible people... I see it differently.

I would suggest that it is in our tolerance that we find our moral strength. If we don't do the things we say are right because we are afraid, then we really are weak. We need to stick to our principles or we become as bad as those we fear. Innocent until proven guilty is one of those principles it is never worth violating.

In reply to contrariousjim:


We'll wait and see


No, they are A problem but not OUR problem. We are not the world police and we cannot solve all its problems. If they want to behead each other and blow each other up over some ridiculous religious ideology then that's sad but I'd rather they did it to each other somewhere else and not here.


I'd rather we didn't waste our money keeping watch on them in order to contain their lunacy.


Well it hasn't worked so far.

In reply to contrariousjim:


He was deported to answer allegations of serious crimes committed in Jordan committed after his asylum was granted in the UK.
I don't think asylum was ever intended to provide a "get out of jail free card" for subsequent criminality.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Given that neither he, nor anyone else, has been deported for expressing their hateful(and hypocritical) views, nor for exploiting the tolerance, values and benefits culture of this country then I think we can pat ourselves on the back for providing a splendid example (or a magnificent fertilising ground and host for international terrorism) and get back to the real work that needs to be done : criticising the state for it's intrusive surveillance culture whilst simultaneously arguing that the risk of terrorism is minimal....

In reply to pec:



It as if 9/11 never happened, or are you a conspiracy theorist ?!




Which suggests you're happy with the kind of structures that allowed Osama / al Qaida to do the damage they did, organised and led from distant shores.


We've barely started to try. We've hardly tried, for example, to learn the lessons of NIreland and work out how to apply them in the different situation of the Middle East.

In reply to contrariousjim:
One of the lessons from NI is that considerably less than a hundred active 'fighters' whose names, addresses and movements were known to the security services managed to kill more than 3600 people despite our tolerance and belief in our positive western values. They also didn't need training camps in the Yemen or the structures that allowed al Qaida to flourish on distant shores to do it.

So why do you think allowing Qatada to return and preach to 500 odd Jihadis who've just got off a flight back from Iraq is such a good idea?

TBH Letting them crucify and behead each other in some fly infested shithole before ending up on the wrong end of an air strike seems a better option to me.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Wow, that's quite a leap. One minute I'm arguing I'd rather they behead each other somewhere else, next thing I'm some delusional conspiracy theorist.
Now I've got some insight into your "logic" I'm begining to see why it is you want us to provide refuge to dangerous lunatics.


But none of them lived over here. Are you suggesting we should scour the world for crazed religous nutters and invite them all over so we can put them straight by showing them how much our hearts bleed?


The lunacy which prevails over there has taken centuries to evolve to its current level, how you think we could ever solve their problems by just showing them how civilisation works and what nice people we are really, in anything like a reasonable timescale is beyond me.
Like I said, we are not the world's police, its not our job to solve their problems. We're doing bloody well (but at quite some expense) to contain the spillover of their madness that's found its way onto our shores but we really don't need any more of it than we absolutely have to.

In reply to pec and Ridge:

Bloody hell.. ..what a bunch of nihilists!

Wrong end or right one?!!

In reply to Firestarter:

The end with the fireball, blast wave and shrapnely bits, obviously.

In reply to Ridge:


The whole point of this stuff is that it's actually a small number of extremists (as it was in Ireland) who convince/persuade/bribe/threaten/force often vulnerable people in to committing atrocities. Lots of those taking pot shots at soldiers or police in Ireland did so under duress.....
I have no issue if there is real evidence for the leaders or controllers to be 'removed' in any necessary way.

In reply to contrariousjim:


Two people make a pretty small bunch! Wouldn't "pair" be better?

In reply to Ridge:

That's the one!