Terror watchdog says UK is 'safe haven' for suspects

Infinite Chaos · Feb 3, 2011

The UK has become a "safe haven" for foreign suspects, the outgoing terror laws watchdog has said.

In his last report, Lord Carlile said rulings from the European Court of Human Rights meant it was difficult to remove dangerous people.

He said the UK was relying on foreign states' assurances about the treatment of suspects that judges may not accept.

He also said the political debate over replacing control orders had been "poorly informed" at times.

In his sixth annual report Lord Carlile, a QC and Liberal Democrat peer, said that the UK had failed to persuade the European Court that the risk of ill-treatment faced by a detainee in his home country had to be balanced with the threat posed to the UK's national security.

The UK had deals over the treatement of deportees with Algeria, Jordan, Ethiopia and Libya - but Lord Carlile said the legal chances of avoiding removal remained high.

"The effect is to make the UK a safe haven for some individuals whose determination is to damage the UK and its citizens, hardly a satisfactory situation," he said.
BBC

This is a thread with a high chance of attracting rabid posters bent on continuing their false picture of the UK but at the heart is a matter worth investigating which is how the UK relationship with the EU Human Rights legislation is affecting our Parliamentary and National Sovereignty.

The purpose (IMO) of the UK Govt is to look after the UK population and nation and this should also mean at times where necessary, fighting the case against certain aspects of EU legislation that are against this country's interests.

I am personally not pro-EU, I feel the EU is headed down a route I disagree with and elements such as the Human Rights legislation has a detrimental effect on our dealings with those who are not British nationals whose only intention is to harm British people.

I've posted before however about Binyam Mohammed and others like him - his case (I believe) pre-dates the Human Rights Legistlation yet he is still here in the UK. His asylum claim failed, his legal status to remain here is unclear and I'm not even sure he's allowed to work. So how is he supported? How does he pay his bills?

He's now called a "British Resident," and won a payout against the British Govt over compensation for being in Guantanamo.

The fact a long standing terrorism watchdog has made this claim on his departure from the post shows we have to deal with this matter urgently.

William Rea · Feb 3, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
This is a thread with a high chance of attracting rabid posters bent on continuing their false picture of the UK but at the heart is a matter worth investigating which is how the UK relationship with the EU Human Rights legislation is affecting our Parliamentary and National Sovereignty.

The purpose (IMO) of the UK Govt is to look after the UK population and nation and this should also mean at times where necessary, fighting the case against certain aspects of EU legislation that are against this country's interests.

I am personally not pro-EU, I feel the EU is headed down a route I disagree with and elements such as the Human Rights legislation has a detrimental effect on our dealings with those who are not British nationals whose only intention is to harm British people.

I've posted before however about Binyam Mohammed and others like him - his case (I believe) pre-dates the Human Rights Legistlation yet he is still here in the UK. His asylum claim failed, his legal status to remain here is unclear and I'm not even sure he's allowed to work. So how is he supported? How does he pay his bills?

He's now called a "British Resident," and won a payout against the British Govt over compensation for being in Guantanamo.

The fact a long standing terrorism watchdog has made this claim on his departure from the post shows we have to deal with this matter urgently.

It is very important to recognise that the Council of Europe is responsible for the EHCR not the EU. This isn't an issue regarding membership of the EU except in relation to the fact that the EU expects member states to ratify the conventions as a part of the package for joining the EU.

This is best illustrated by pointing out that there are 47 member states in the Council of Europe and 27 in the EU.

PeteEU · Feb 3, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
This is a thread with a high chance of attracting rabid posters bent on continuing their false picture of the UK but at the heart is a matter worth investigating which is how the UK relationship with the EU Human Rights legislation is affecting our Parliamentary and National Sovereignty.

The purpose (IMO) of the UK Govt is to look after the UK population and nation and this should also mean at times where necessary, fighting the case against certain aspects of EU legislation that are against this country's interests.

I am personally not pro-EU, I feel the EU is headed down a route I disagree with and elements such as the Human Rights legislation has a detrimental effect on our dealings with those who are not British nationals whose only intention is to harm British people.

I've posted before however about Binyam Mohammed and others like him - his case (I believe) pre-dates the Human Rights Legistlation yet he is still here in the UK. His asylum claim failed, his legal status to remain here is unclear and I'm not even sure he's allowed to work. So how is he supported? How does he pay his bills?

He's now called a "British Resident," and won a payout against the British Govt over compensation for being in Guantanamo.

The fact a long standing terrorism watchdog has made this claim on his departure from the post shows we have to deal with this matter urgently.

First off.. the country behind the present Human Rights convention, was... Great Britain. It was written by a Brit and it was signed by the UK as one of the first.

Secondly as William Rea states, it has nothing what so ever to do with the EU with the exception that the EU treaty states that EU members have to have signed the Convention.

Thirdly... if it was not obvious.. the UK was in the convention decades before it joined the EEC and EU.

And to be brutally frank.. it is not the fault of the convention that the UK continues to piss on the convention and have been doing so since the middle of the 1970s. The UK has been "busted" many times for breaking basic human rights of its own citizens, including on open discrimination against the people of Northern Ireland and worse.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 3, 2011

William Rea said:
It is very important to recognise that the Council of Europe is responsible for the EHCR not the EU. This isn't an issue regarding membership of the EU except in relation to the fact that the EU expects member states to ratify the conventions as a part of the package for joining the EU.

This is best illustrated by pointing out that there are 47 member states in the Council of Europe and 27 in the EU.

:doh My bad. I'll stop trying to write introductions in future... :mrgreen:

The point remains however that we have undesirables here who are not British citizens; in the case of Binyam Muhammed he failed in his asylum bid and even left the country but because of Guantanamo - he's back and we (the tax payer) paid him compensation for his time there.

He's been tried and found innocent but there are others who've been tried and are a serious threat to Britain, who are not British citizens and who should not be here. There is a serious problem as the legal process is heavily weighted against us and that is a major flaw.

PeteEU said:
First off.. the country behind the present Human Rights convention, was... Great Britain. It was written by a Brit and it was signed by the UK as one of the first --

That doesn't mean it has to stay as written - if a law has serious flaws and leads to serious problems then it must be replaced or re-written.

Manc Skipper · Feb 3, 2011

If you want to change the contract, you need to get all the signatories to agree. As for Binyam Muhammed, MI5 were found to be complicit in his torture by the Americans, whose charges against him were related to a conspiracy that they later admitted never happened. He deserves any payout he might get for what he suffered. (I don't recall him having had any yet.) He has not been convicted of any crime.

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 3, 2011

If even a LIB-DEM sees the flaws in the practice of the ECHR's ever-bizarre politically correct rulings, I have to say that the Eurotrash have been well and truly rumbled.

That is, if His Lordship's observations don't reflect the kamikaze mood of the rest of his party in regards to greedily consuming the rulings of foreign courts like hungry rats. The Lib-Dems are also known to be more EU-crazy than Labour too.

And the ECHR's other latest bout of lunacy (I'm picking just one) is so over the line that even the oily Liberal Conservative is to allow his MPs to rebel on it:

Cameron gives Tory MPs the go-ahead to defy Strasbourg over prisoner votes | Mail Online

2,000 perverts and thugs will get vote under government plans | The Sun |News

Tory MPs are to be given the green light to assert the supremacy of Parliament in a defining battle with the European courts.

David Cameron has accepted he has no chance of persuading Parliament to back demands from Strasbourg to give thousands of prisoners the vote for the first time in 140 years.

In an extraordinary move, the Prime Minister has decided to give his MPs a free vote on the issue – effectively encouraging them to refuse to bow to the European Court of Human Rights.

A defeat would allow the Government to go back to the court in Strasbourg and insist it has tried, but failed to change the law – and that the democratic will of Parliament should prevail.

We can only guess why the retards at the ECHR are so in favour of making life easier for terrorists, murderers, rapists and burglars. Perhaps it's a question that one bunch of weirdos and society-wrecking scumbuckets can more easily relate to others but that's just speculation.

The perversion of human rights as jail thug is allowed to become a dad | Mail Online

The European Court of Human Rights is a threat to British law that must be dealt with | The Spectator

More than 230 terror suspects free to stay in Britain - Times Online , etc.

Even political extremists notice its toxic effects; though as with so many far-Left extremists, toxicity is vital to daily life and politics: Terror legislation in turmoil » Freedom Press - The Home of Freedom Books and Freedom Newspaper

SCRAP IT CAMERON! It's what you promised us and most of us would love to see this monkey off our backs!

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 3, 2011

It was written by a Brit and it was signed by the UK as one of the first.

Mosley was a Brit but that wouldn't have made it OK to have him boss of anything.

What's more, on that Euro' mindset, our country signed a generous naval agreement with Nazi Germany in 1935 but that didn't mean things were going to turn out well.

British people signing things isn't always a mark of quality.

William Rea · Feb 4, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
:doh My bad. I'll stop trying to write introductions in future... :mrgreen:

The point remains however that we have undesirables here who are not British citizens; in the case of Binyam Muhammed he failed in his asylum bid and even left the country but because of Guantanamo - he's back and we (the tax payer) paid him compensation for his time there.

He's been tried and found innocent but there are others who've been tried and are a serious threat to Britain, who are not British citizens and who should not be here. There is a serious problem as the legal process is heavily weighted against us and that is a major flaw.

That doesn't mean it has to stay as written - if a law has serious flaws and leads to serious problems then it must be replaced or re-written.

I really don't know the specifics of the case of Binyam Muhammed but on the face of it I cannot disagree. If he is not a UK citizen and has no other legal right to be here then he should be deported (legal right meaning a legally upheld asylum application).

As has been demonstrated by another poster, if you pick out exceptions and treat them as the rule then it is very easy to make a case that "the law is an ass" or "it's those pesky Europeans and their human rights laws". Unfortunately, we have to frame the law to preserve the everyday rights of citizens and some "very nasty" people will use that to further their aims; I am reminded that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." BF.

If the UK is failing to make the EHCR law work then it either has to stop contravening it, get it amended or leave the agreement. Trying to politically undermine it when it seems that there are 46 other countries that do not have a problem with it indicates to me that it is another case of removing the plank from our own eyes before trying to remove the splinter from others.

PeteEU · Feb 4, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
That doesn't mean it has to stay as written - if a law has serious flaws and leads to serious problems then it must be replaced or re-written.

Just because the UK cant keep within the convention it invented and brought to the rest of us.. does not mean it is flawed.

And like it or not, it is not a UK only problem.... far far far from it. In Denmark yesterday, the somalian man who attacked the Danish Cartoon guy in his home was sentenced on attempted murder and terror charges. Once he has finished his prison term, then he will be kicked out.. but... Denmark cant at the moment because Somalia is not a safe place. Now I have no doubt that the Danish government will change their guidelines on what is safe and not before that, but he can appeal his deportation back to Somalia. What it comes down to, is how your government categorises a country.. is Iran safe or not? In Denmark it is considered a "safe" country, so Iranians who break the law can easily be deported there. Personally I dont like it, but that is how it is. It is not long ago the Danes deported a gay Iranian.. and well, you know what happens to them in Iran.

Removing non nationals to their home country is damn hard under any legislation because of all our human rights. You can simply not export them to countries where they are at risk of death or torture. It is not only Algeria, Egypt and so on but also the US, China, Russia and other nations that have the death penalty. Hence these people often have a good reason to avoid deportation and that is how it is. As long as our society is built up around the idea we do not send people to their possible deaths, then that is how it has to be.

Now as I stated, it comes down to what the UK government considers "safe". France does not extradite to the US because it does not feel it is safe.. the UK does. So what this boils down too.. is UK policy and not the convention it self.

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 4, 2011

I am reminded that "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." BF.

Rather defeats the object to have adopted as a teir of the judicial system an international and far less governable institution which routinely ends up protecting the 'rights' of clowns, criminals and terrorists.

Its remit is far too wide and the best thing we can indeed do is dump it. As with so many things European, we only took it on for dogmatic reasons in the first place.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 4, 2011

Manc Skipper said:
-- He deserves any payout he might get for what he suffered. (I don't recall him having had any yet.) He has not been convicted of any crime.

The payout was apparently agreed because the Govt feared having to release secret documents in establishin the case against him and the others. I totally agree he wasn't convicted either by the US (in Guantanamo) or the UK for any other crime. However his legal and residence status are that he has no right to remain here. He had no right after his first asylum application was refused - this is BEFORE he went off to Pakistan and Afghanistan and capture by American forces.

PeteEU said:
Just because the UK cant keep within the convention it invented and brought to the rest of us.. does not mean it is flawed.

-- snip --

France does not extradite to the US because it does not feel it is safe.. the UK does. So what this boils down too.. is UK policy and not the convention it self.

In terms of UK policy, I would be happy for the UK to regain some measure of national sovereignty over matters of security such as this. I think the more general concern over personal liberty is not the issue here - we're not talking about the liberties of British citizens but of those who would harm British citizens and who perversely seek to remain here for their own "safety."

What is plain is that there is a major problem within our interpretation or application of the Human Rights law. If someone has come here illegally or their application to be here proves to be false then they should not be able to utilise laws and or procedures and or the public purse to remain and then live off the UK taxpayer simply because the legal system allows them to.

PeteEU · Feb 5, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
In terms of UK policy, I would be happy for the UK to regain some measure of national sovereignty over matters of security such as this. I think the more general concern over personal liberty is not the issue here - we're not talking about the liberties of British citizens but of those who would harm British citizens and who perversely seek to remain here for their own "safety."

Again you have all the sovereignty you want and need. The UK was one of the founding fathers of this convention, and knows fully well how to interpret and apply the convention but has over the last 40 years selectively tried to by-pass the convention when it was convenient. The UK did it to IRA terrorists and the whole population of Northern Ireland and many others, and every time the court had to smack the UK over the face and remind them of their responsibilities under the convention.

The UK has a very poor history on human rights under the convention.. which is sad.

What is plain is that there is a major problem within our interpretation or application of the Human Rights law.

Yes, because there are some who dont agree with the convention so they do everything to undermine it. It is usually the conservative types that dont like it, even though it was their kinsmen that made the bloody thing in the first place.

Like it or not, in Europe we try to avoid selective legislation and choosing rules and laws to follow based on what we at the time find convenient. You know who taught us that? The UK. One of the main ideas behind the convention was exactly to prevent selective legislation against minorities by European governments, and secure the human rights of anyone, legal, illegal, citizen, non citizen.

If someone has come here illegally or their application to be here proves to be false then they should not be able to utilise laws and or procedures and or the public purse to remain and then live off the UK taxpayer simply because the legal system allows them to.

Listen I dont disagree, but the UK has regulation that prohibits the UK in sending illegals or people kicked out, back to countries where they may be at risk for torture or/and death. This is in fact not part of the convention per say, but a UK regulation and interpretation. In the end, to send someone back to their home country you need the cooperation of the home country and the UK does not have that with many of the "problematic" examples, so even with a regulation change then you would be in the same situation.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 5, 2011

PeteEU said:
-- over the last 40 years selectively tried to by-pass the convention when it was convenient. The UK did it to IRA terrorists and the whole population of Northern Ireland and many others, and every time the court had to smack the UK over the face and remind them of their responsibilities under the convention--

I'd appreciate some linked examples please.

PeteEU said:
-- Listen I dont disagree, but the UK has regulation that prohibits the UK in sending illegals or people kicked out, back to countries where they may be at risk for torture or/and death. This is in fact not part of the convention per say, but a UK regulation and interpretation. In the end, to send someone back to their home country you need the cooperation of the home country and the UK does not have that with many of the "problematic" examples, so even with a regulation change then you would be in the same situation.

On the one hand you paint the picture of a country happy to abuse Human Rights legislation and trample on Northern Irish terrorists but on the other hand we can't even kick a failed asylum seeker out - before he happily leaves the country of his own volition and is captured by US forces in Afghanistan.

Which picture is it? Are we abusing the human rights legislation or incapable of acting to protect British lives because of it?

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 8, 2011

The European Convention on Human Rights is a sham piece of PC meddling, doing nothing but superimposing its drivel on top of perfectly serviceable existing legislation.

Do you remember when schoolchildren were asked to write poetry on it as part of the propaganda drive to soften us up for it? Personally I was sickened that they brainwashed kids into believing that we had no appreciable human rights legislation before it.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...rderers-and-terrorists-remain-unmolested.html

Says it all if baldy wants it kept. He's one of the most PC shysters of the lot, his new office wasting taxpayers' money on trying to get Nick Griffin in jail on flimsy charges (as it turned out) and bed and breakfast owners humbled for wanting only marrieds in their beds.

He boasted that he was inspired by Lenin and had a bust of the mass murderer on his desk. Seems there is indeed a certain 'equality' in oppression and keeping people in their place for lunacy's sake.

PeteEU · Feb 9, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
I'd appreciate some linked examples please.

Five techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dudgeon v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Murray v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Murray v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In total there has been 34 cases against the UK since 1952. Not all, as you can see have been a slap in the face of the UK, but in part the UK has been hit over the hands in almost all for some breach.

On the one hand you paint the picture of a country happy to abuse Human Rights legislation and trample on Northern Irish terrorists but on the other hand we can't even kick a failed asylum seeker out - before he happily leaves the country of his own volition and is captured by US forces in Afghanistan.

Which picture is it? Are we abusing the human rights legislation or incapable of acting to protect British lives because of it?

Again.. you can kick him out all you want. Problem is no one will accept him, not even his own country. So what do you do?

This part is not part of the EHRC and the so called expert is only covering his own ass and that of the British politicians that have allowed these rules into the system. The only part that is even remotely, is you can not send a person to a country where you can expect him to be tortured or killed and that is usually defined as a country in civil war or war with another. That is why the Danes can send Iranians back to Iran, because the country is not in civil war or war. That is also why sending a man back to Algeria is considered "iffy" because of the defacto civil war going on. Also sending back a Palestinian.. he has no state, hence.. send him to where.. And in each case, it requires that the country in question accepts the sending back..

Like it or not, there has been an effort, especially from the Conservative ranks of British politics, to disregard and discredit the convention because a wish to abuse the human rights of "certain" people they deem a threat. In the 1970s it was the gays and IRA, and now it is "Muslims". Like it or not, IF these people are a threat then the government must have evidence to back this up... else we are talking about giving the government massive powers of detention and imprisonment without any evidence or trial of ANYONE, not just "Muslims". I would think that anyone would fight against such a right..

Also the EHRC was made in 1950 and fully ratified in 1953. THe first nation to ratify it.. The UK. The person behind the whole thing was the this man

David Maxwell Fyfe, 1st Earl of Kilmuir - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A conservative MP and Earl... and legal scholar oh.. and a BRIT.

It is based on

The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the American Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.

So again it is not the convention that is the problem, or even the court but the fact that the UK government (labour or Conservatives) constantly try to break and push the basic human rights of people in the UK, citizen or not. And the kicker is, it is human rights written by one of your own...

I understand fully they want to kick out suspected terrorists or convicted criminals.. problem is as I stated, if no one, not even their home country, will take them.. then what the hell do you do with them? Maybe send them to the Falklands? And as I said, it is not the UK only that has this problem.. far from it.

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 9, 2011

No wonder Americans derisorily call our capital Londinistan when you have even MODERATE Muslims like this anti-semitic nutter saying:

Basically mpac is there to make you 'out vote' Islamophobes and Zionists

It's amazing what these repellent people will say when they think you're not looking! And no wonder MPAC tries to have Muslims swing the vote in as many constituencies as poss!

MPACUK :: Muslim Discussion Forum - View Single Post - What Part of Political Spectrum Does MPAC Occupy?

MPAC boasts of election ‘triumph’

Labour grovelled to the Muslims as much as they could... but the jimjam vote still didn't save them:

News Comment

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 9, 2011

A conservative MP and Earl... and legal scholar oh.. and a BRIT.

Makes no difference to the fact that the average Brit doesn't like the quackery the ECHR has come to symbolise. The advertising blurb ALWAYS comes second to how things turn out in practice.

And it would be more relevant to speculate whether Maxwell-Fyfe himself would have wanted BOMBERS and KILLERS to be pampered and spared justice had he known the absolute weirdos and baboons who would come to run this institution today.

Infinite Chaos · Feb 12, 2011

PeteEU said:
Five techniques - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soering v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dudgeon v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

John Murray v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Murray v United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Excellent links, can't rebutt them.

PeteEU said:
-- Again.. you can kick him out all you want. Problem is no one will accept him, not even his own country. So what do you do?

If we're still talking about someone like Binyam Mohammed - he left of his own accord for Pakistan and Afghanistan of his own volition. It was only because he ended up in Gitmo that we have the pleasure of paying him compensation (not paid yet) and giving him a home - though I am at a loss why.

If he (and any others) felt so worried about their safety, it's strange that they have left and gone to dangerous parts of the world. We're also talking about home nations where these peoples chances of slipping back in through porous borders is much higher. I remain unconvinced that this is more than our softness on the issue.

PeteEU said:
else we are talking about giving the government massive powers of detention and imprisonment without any evidence or trial of ANYONE, not just "Muslims". I would think that anyone would fight against such a right..

I'd be more than happy with speedy removal of failed asylum seekers.

PeteEU · Feb 13, 2011

Infinite Chaos said:
Excellent links, can't rebutt them.

The ironic part is as I have stated... the UK was the bearing force behind the convention and the first country to ratify it.. something the UK media totally forget to mention in this whole debate. The fact that it is based in large part on UK law, only shows how far you have strayed over the last 50 years.

If we're still talking about someone like Binyam Mohammed - he left of his own accord for Pakistan and Afghanistan of his own volition. It was only because he ended up in Gitmo that we have the pleasure of paying him compensation (not paid yet) and giving him a home - though I am at a loss why.

That was political and frankly I suspect blackmail. They screwed up (US and UK) and had to deal with it some how.

If he (and any others) felt so worried about their safety, it's strange that they have left and gone to dangerous parts of the world. We're also talking about home nations where these peoples chances of slipping back in through porous borders is much higher. I remain unconvinced that this is more than our softness on the issue.

I understand what you are saying. But we cant have individual rulings on what country/area is safe or not for people since we have so many people asking for protection. It would grind the system to a halt. You cant say.. "he is a suspected terrorist, so he can got back to Pakistan and let them deal with it" but this guy "is a political refugee because he stood up against the Taliban or government so cant go back".... and the do that for 1000 people.. It would take ages to figure out. That is why we do "X" country is safe and "Y" is not. And like it or not, Pakistan and Afghanistan are not safe places these days.

But it again boils down too... Afghanistan and Pakistan and any other country HAVE TO ACCEPT them back.. which most do not.

I'd be more than happy with speedy removal of failed asylum seekers.

Me too, but many come from countries that wont accept them back.. then what?

Republic_Of_Public · Feb 14, 2011

Me too, but many come from countries that wont accept them back.. then what?

We still have a few little islands we can stick them on. Or pay their countries to take them back out of the bloated foreign aid budget.

And send a message out that we're the nastiest, most racist and hateful people on Earth (though the liberal-left already tell the nation that on a daily basis). Threaten 'em with having their organs harvested if they get caught, or that they'll be put in uniform and sent to Bagdad as expendable cannon fodder, and there'll be a drop-off in freeloaders. Just say anything.

Terror watchdog says UK is 'safe haven' for suspects

Wrinkly member