It is hard to see the benefit for the UK of its membership in the EU, particularly outside of the economic arena, if even there. One of the great EU accomplishments was its Human Rights Convention that Britain adopted as its own under Tony Blair's administration. Such a utopian and wonderful idea it is. But then, it generates suicidal outcomes such as described below, when EU dictates marry up with well meaning leftists permeating the judiciary who are quite willing to substitute their own utopian judgment for that of the governments - not on the issue of whether there is sufficient cause to justify deporting a terrorist, but rather on whether an agreement with a foreign country negotiated by the UK government can be trusted to uphold the requirements of the EU Convention:
Two Libyan terror suspects will be freed to walk the streets after the Home Office's attempts to deport them were thrown out by senior judges.
Home Secretary John Reid wanted to send the men home using a controversial memorandum of understanding by which Colonel Gaddafi's government promised not to torture or kill them.
The aim was to overcome objections to their removal on human rights grounds.
But the Special Immigration Appeals Commission in London ruled that the Libyan government could not be trusted and blocked the deportation order, despite a mass of evidence of the threat they pose to national security.
The move struck a damaging and embarrassing blow to the Government's entire counter-terrorist strategy and means other Libyan terror suspects detained in the UK may also have to be released.
Tony Blair expressed anger at the decision, saying: "In order to be able to give a strong signal that those people cannot get away with what they want to do, we have to be able to deport people and send them back to their own country."
One of the suspects, identified only as 'DD', set up an extremist Islamic website which praised martyrdom and is related to convicted and dead terrorists.
He was caught with a streetmap on which footpaths underneath the approach flight path to Birmingham International Airport had been highlighted.
The judges concluded that he is a "real and direct threat to the national security of the UK" and a "global jihadist with links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda".
The other man, known as AS, was described as a "senior member" in a terrorist group thought to have planned attacks in Europe, and as "a clear danger to national security".
Despite the threat they pose, the court upheld their appeals against deportation.
Both men are expected to be freed on bail next week - overruling Home Office objections - with strict conditions including 12-hour curfews at their home addresses.
The court's chairman, Mr Justice Ouseraidley, ruled that their human rights could be breached if they were sent home to Libya, even though it was "not a probable risk", and that they could be denied a fair trial.
He said the only monitoring arrangements relied on an organisation run by Colonel Gaddafi's son ensuring that the men were not mistreated.
The suspect known as DD came to Britain three years ago with his Moroccan wife. He claimed asylum and has been in detention since 2005 awaiting deportation on security grounds.
He is related by marriage to the suspected ringleader of the Madrid train bombings which killed 191 in 2004, who is thought to have blown himself up in a by Spanish police.
The man known as AS is accused of supporting a "serious terrorist group" based in Milan. He arrived in Britain in 2002 and claimed asylum. He served a prison sentence for offences relating to forged and stolen travel documents and has since been held under immigration powers.
The Home Office has signed memoranda of understanding with Libya, Jordan and Lebanon - and reached a similar deal with Algeria - in the hope of deporting foreign terror suspects to countries with questionable human rights records where there is not enough evidence to prosecute them in Britain.
Some two dozen suspects are held awaiting removal. But a string of legal appeals has meant that none has been sent home and yesterday's ruling raises grave questions over the entire strategy.
The Home Office said it planned to appeal, although SIAC judges described the chances of success as "scant".
Civil rights campaigners urged ministers to reconsider the whole principle of memoranda of understanding deals with Islamic states. . . .
Read the entire article here. The basis for this legal decision would seem far outside the competency of this judge. The Tories were talking last year about scrapping the EU Human Rights Convention and drafting their own Bill of Rights and a written Constitution. Now seems like it would be a good time for that. While your at it, you may want to enshrine a cannon or two on the concept of judicial deference, and perhaps even competency reviews. Alas, Britain, when will you take your country back?
No comments:
Post a Comment