Jeebus

After all that:

Abu Qatada timeline

September 1993: Claims asylum on his arrival in Britain on a forged passport and a year later is allowed to stay
April 1999: Convicted in his absence on terror charges in Jordan and sentenced to life imprisonment
October 2002: Detained at Belmarsh high-security prison following a law allowing authorities to hold foreign terrorism suspects without charge or trial
March 2005: Law Lords ban detention without charge, ordering release. He is initially issued with a control order, but subsequently detained again
April 2008: Court of Appeal rules deporting Abu Qatada will breach his human rights, because evidence to be used against him in Jordan may have been obtained through torture
February 2009: Law Lords back deportation, saying the Court of Appeal got it wrong
January 2012: European Court of Human Rights overturns that decision, saying he cannot be deported while “there remains real risk that evidence obtained by torture will be used against him”
April 2013: UK government signs a treaty with Jordan, complete with guarantees on fair trials, to ensure Abu Qatada can be deported – which he is later that year
September 2014: Civilian court in Jordan clears Abu Qatada of terror charges

35 comments on “Jeebus

  1. So what are we to conclude? That he was innocent? No offense, but no one in their right mind can believe Jordanian Courts get it right more often than chance would allow. That the Jordanian Judge was bribed? Was an Islamist?

    Like so much in the Middle East, the people involved are so irrational that anything might be true. I would suggest we would have been better off if he had been deported to Jordan around 2002. No doubt he would have confessed to something. Perhaps even something true.

    But the lesson is obvious – we should not have an immigration policy that allows people like this man, or the people who wanted to torture him, into the country. Zero Muslim immigration. It is too late and we will become a Third World sh!thole. But the longer we delay it the better for everyone.

  2. Made me laugh when I read it. Turns out you get a fairer trial in Jordan than England. So, a hollow, joyless kind of lolz, then.

  3. I may fall flat on my face here, having not followed the case too closely, but so far as I have been able to tell there’s never been any evidence that he’s anything more than a ranting fucktard.

  4. He may be nothing more than a ranting fucktard, but at least now his ranting is being done at the expense of some other suckers. Not the UK taxpayer.

  5. It is not too late but certainly zero islamic immigration should be the policy from now on. Combined with pressure to ensure that those here find it very difficult to have more than 2 kids so that their numbers will decline at the same rate as the native population.

    As far as I know Qatada was only ever a windbag. People should be tried for their actions not for hot air. He should however never have been in this country to spew his hot air in the first place.

  6. “Mr Ecks
    September 24, 2014 at 1:47 pm
    It is not too late but certainly zero islamic immigration should be the policy from now on. Combined with pressure to ensure that those here find it very difficult to have more than 2 kids so that their numbers will decline at the same rate as the native population.”
    Sadly not a policy that everyone agrees with.

  7. Something jumps out at me here:

    April 1999: Convicted in his absence on terror charges in Jordan and sentenced to life imprisonment
    October 2002: Detained at Belmarsh high-security prison following a law allowing authorities to hold foreign terrorism suspects without charge or trial

    He wasn’t a foreign terrorist suspect, he was by then a foreign terrorist convict. Shouldn’t the position of the UK government have been either ‘We accept he is a convict so we’ll jail him until extradition can be agreed’ OR ‘We don’t recognise the conviction so he is a free man in the UK’? Instead they chose to fudge it.

    These cases seem to involve a catalogue of perverse decisions taken by knee-jerk bureaucrats and politicians trying to distract from the initial error of granting asylum in the first place.

  8. He wasn’t a foreign terrorist suspect, he was by then a foreign terrorist convict. Shouldn’t the position of the UK government have been either ‘We accept he is a convict so we’ll jail him until extradition can be agreed’ OR ‘We don’t recognise the conviction so he is a free man in the UK’? Instead they chose to fudge it.

    He requested and was granted asylum in the UK four or five years before his first trial in absentia in Jordan in 1999.

  9. Well, if the rule of law and due process is applied more conscientiously in Jordan than here – and it clearly is – then we have reached a low point haven’t we. The sort of low point where only delusional fuckwits still think we have the right to refer to 3rd World shit holes.
    Sad day.

  10. I have every faith in the courts in Jordan. And Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Indonesia, Qatar, Bahrain, Iraq, Egypt, Somalia and the Sudan.

    To suggest one might not receive a fair trial in such places, or that a judge might even be nobbleable in one’s favour, or that the common law countries are in some way better, would be to be guilty of gross Islamophobia, and probably racism, and I am glad that I for one rise above such things.

  11. Yeah, buy the country’s rulers wanted him convicted. Maybe, just maybe, the judge was honest.

    P.S. cos Hutton, Lever on, Widdecombe. Our judges are just paragons aren’t they.

  12. As nothing has happened to him can we prosecute him for fraudulently claiming asylum if he ever tries to come back?

  13. David
    Is there a law against fraud in asylum applications?
    If fraud is proved can all the legal bills be charged to the fraudster?
    Genuine question.

  14. Our judges are better than theirs, yes, and I can’t quite see why any person of intelligence would think differently. That doesn’t mean they’re perfect, of course.

  15. ukliberty – “Innocent of the charges, yes. Or that the court wasn’t persuaded he was guilty.”

    That assumes that if you shave a baboon and put him in a suit and call him a QC you have a real lawyer. As Jordanian Courts are a lot like said shaved baboon, I don’t think their opinion matters one little bit.

    Save the self-loathing for the Guardian pages.

  16. Ian B – “Made me laugh when I read it. Turns out you get a fairer trial in Jordan than England. So, a hollow, joyless kind of lolz, then.”

    Ian, would you like to count the number of ways this is wrong?

  17. Interested

    Well, despite everything he HAS had a fair trial in Jordan and he WAS kept locked up here without charge for years. So I guess I’m pleased not be of intelligence like you

    Now I’ll.leave you and your intelligent friends to bang on about 3rd world shitholes

  18. “bloke in france
    September 24, 2014 at 7:44 pm
    David
    Is there a law against fraud in asylum applications?
    If fraud is proved can all the legal bills be charged to the fraudster?”
    If you obtain money by deception then you can be prosecuted. He got benefits by falsely claiming that he was in danger seems an open and shut case to me. Sadly I don’t think anyone has ever been has been prosecuted for falsely claiming asylum as it would be a good deterrent to others. (I know a couple who should be).

  19. One of the great things about this place is that there is an expert in everything on hand. Sometimes two or more.

    In the case of SMFS, we even have a world-renowned expert in the quality of Jordanian jurisprudence.

  20. BiG,
    That’s a little harsh.

    SMFS is an expert on these things because he puts the miles in. Permanently at the keyboard, in his off-white underpants, he has sacrificed his non-internet life in order to bring Perfect Knowledge to the rest of us.

    When SMFS types, only a fool refuses to read.

  21. Fair trial or not? We’ll never know.

    Evidence extracted under torture was excluded from the Jordanian trial under the agreement with the UK. That evidence might have been true and have convicted him.

  22. @Ironman

    You used to seem OK – lately you’ve turned into a dickhead for some reason. Why? Some personal shit?

    Look, the law of the land (Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001) allowed for him to be held without trial.

    Politicians make that kind of law. Moan about them?

    ‘Well, despite everything he HAS had a fair trial in Jordan’

    Prove it.

    ‘Now I’ll.leave you and your intelligent friends to bang on about 3rd world shitholes’

    Who mentioned ‘3rd world shitholes’?

    I simply said our judges (and by extension our courts) were better than those in the countries I mentioned.

    I think Amnesty International and Fair Trials Int would agree with that statement in most cases, as would numerous other fellow travellers.

    In fact, you’d have to be a colossal fucking imbecile not to agree (or – for some reason – to decide to take it extremely personally on behalf of the courts of Somalia and Saudi Arabia).

  23. Evidence extracted under torture was excluded from the Jordanian trial under the agreement with the UK. That evidence might have been true and have convicted him.

    The evidence extracted under torture might have been true or it might have been false. Either way, that evidence helped convict him in 1999. He faced a retrial and the long-running difficulty the UK gov faced in deporting him to Jordan was that (very long story short) our courts found a ‘real risk’ he would be tried on the basis of that evidence obtained through torture which would give rise to a ‘real risk’ of a ‘flagrant denial of justice’ / unfair trial, therefore we were not allowed by law to deport him until the Jordanians promised they wouldn’t use that particular evidence.

  24. Interested-

    Normally, the general indicator of unfair trials is excess convictions, not acquittals. You could argue that the trial was too fair, perhaps, but it would be a bit of a weird argument to make.

  25. To be perfectly frank, anyone wearing a wild unkempt beard and pyjamas in a UK street (and who is not a bona fide entertainer etc) is in my view guilty of a whole number of offences/crimes for which they should be locked up.

  26. Ironman – “Well, despite everything he HAS had a fair trial in Jordan and he WAS kept locked up here without charge for years. So I guess I’m pleased not be of intelligence like you”

    No, he has had a trial in Jordan. We don’t know if it is fair or not. But given the general state of Jordanian jurisprudence it is not wise to make assumptions.

    But let’s suppose Jordanian Courts are just peachy. Why all the fuss about sending him back? I assume that now everyone here is in agreement that *everyone* can be sent back to Jordan just as easily and freely as to, say, Belgium?

    “Now I’ll.leave you and your intelligent friends to bang on about 3rd world shitholes”

    You may prefer to engage in some middle class sanctimony but if the hole are, in fact, sh!t, then the sensible thing to do is point it out.

    David – “Sadly I don’t think anyone has ever been has been prosecuted for falsely claiming asylum as it would be a good deterrent to others. (I know a couple who should be).”

    The Americans regard citizenship grants in a more contractual sense. So if you commit fraud, the contract, such as it is, is broken and you can be stripped of your citizenship.

    Bloke in Germany – “One of the great things about this place is that there is an expert in everything on hand. Sometimes two or more. In the case of SMFS, we even have a world-renowned expert in the quality of Jordanian jurisprudence.”

    Aren’t you lucky? But I have never claimed any expertise. On the other hand. Amnesty International has. Would you like me to quote what they have to say about Jordanian Courts? You know who else claims expertise in these matters? The UN Committee on Torture? You know what they have to say about Jordanian Courts?

    I don’t mind you being an ar$ehole. I don’t mind you trying to be an ar$ehole in my general direction. Knock yourself out. But I am utterly baffled why you would want to be one on an issue where there is such overwhelming evidence on my side of the argument and you have nothing but this sort of pathetically childish name calling. It is bizarre. What are you thinking?

    Jack C – “When SMFS types, only a fool refuses to read.”

    As above. But you are right. And let me give you something from Wikipedia for you to read:

    Torture is illegal in Jordan, however it remains widespread. According to a report by Amnesty International, intelligence agents in Jordan frequently use torture to extract confessions from terror suspects. Common tactics include, “beating, sleep deprivation, extended solitary confinement, and physical suspension.” Palestinians and suspected Islamists are treated especially harshly. Though Jordan has improved many procedures including a prison reform campaign in partnership with EU in this respect, agents at the General Intelligence Department remain largely immune to punishment.[28][29]

    In May 2010, the UN Committee against Torture reiterated long-standing concerns at Jordan’s failure to investigate and prosecute allegations of torture, to provide adequate protection against torture, and to prosecute perpetrators in accordance with the seriousness of the crime. It noted the “numerous, consistent and credible allegations of a widespread and routine practice of torture and ill-treatment” including in General Intelligence Department (GID) and Criminal Investigations Department detention.[30] The government did not respond to the Committee’s recommendations.[8]

    This is the legal system that Ian B and a number of other people, including uklib by the looks of it, think is better than the British system.

    Maybe Amnesty is full of crap too. How about the US Embassy?

    Military Court System

    Although martial law was lifted in 1991, certain crimes considered to touch on national security are still tried in State Security courts administered by the Jordanian military. These crimes include espionage, bribery of public officials, trafficking in narcotics or weapons, black marketing, and “security offenses”. Military judges generally adjudicate cases. …. The decision of a military court cannot be appealed but must be ratified by the Prime Minister in his capacity as martial law governor. He may increase, reduce, or annul the sentence.

    Generally, persons arrested by the police are brought before a magistrate and charged with a crime within 48 hours after the arrest. However, public prosecutors may order suspects kept in custody indefinitely in connection with a pending investigation. Such detentions may be challenged by the defense, in which case some showing of cause for continuing confinement must be shown by the prosecutor.
    ….
    Defendants have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present their own witnesses. All cases are heard by judges as there is no jury trial in Jordan. Cases may be appealed by either the defendant or the prosecution.

    BraveFart – “Evidence extracted under torture was excluded from the Jordanian trial under the agreement with the UK. That evidence might have been true and have convicted him.”

    Or it may not have mattered either way.

  27. @Ian B

    ‘Normally, the general indicator of unfair trials is excess convictions, not acquittals. You could argue that the trial was too fair, perhaps, but it would be a bit of a weird argument to make.’

    ‘Too fair’? Hmmm.

    You seem to be assuming that the only person who has an interest in a ‘fair trial’ is the defendant.

    But ‘fairness’ extends beyond the defendant, to those who ought to be protected from the defendant and his actions by the court reaching the proper decision.

    If a judge or jury is nobbled and acquits a guilty man, that is no ‘fairer’ than convicting an innocent one.

    That technicality aside, I agree – I was simply saying that none of us were there, we don’t know what motivated the judges, and can’t therefore know that it was ‘a fair trial’, with the certainty of Ironman, any more than we can say (without knowing the full details, which we don’t) whether British judges were wrong to agree (with a policitian’s decision) that he could held without trial here.

    On a general principle, though, I’d rather be tried in a British court than a Jordanian one, and so would any sane person.

  28. @Jack C

    SMFS may not have clean underwear, I don’t know, but I’d be interested in why you think he is wrong about Jordanian courts not absolutely top notch?

  29. The guy was aquitted thus he received a fair trial. QED. End of. It was fair to him (which is what a fair trial means – it doesn’t have to be fair to the prosecution). The presumption of innocence was not diluted. We could only be arguing about the fairness of the trial had he been convicted and we had reason to believe the conviction was unsafe.

  30. SMFS,

    Save the self-loathing for the Guardian pages.

    I haven’t indicated that I loathe myself

    This is the legal system that Ian B and a number of other people, including uklib by the looks of it, think is better than the British system.

    I haven’t indicated anything about my opinion of the relative qualities of the systems.

    It seems you ought to try improving your reading comprehension – are you one of those functionally illiterate people I hear about from time to time?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.