Posted on 08/25/2005 4:40:59 AM PDT by Michael Goldsberry
The hardliners taunted Home Secretary Charles Clarke after he promised action 'within days' to start deporting dozens of foreign preachers of hate living in the UK.
Headed by asylum seeker Yasser Al-Siri, who is suspected of involvement in a series of terrorist incidents, they gloated that lawyers would halt any attempt at their removal.
The Egyptian, who fled to London more than a decade ago and is wanted in the U.S., said: 'I am not worried about expulsion. My legal team think it is impossible.'
Al-Siri's defiance came as Mr Clarke's plans were attacked by leading lawyers and moderate Muslims. They warned the deportations policy would breach international law, create massive confusion and turn Muslims against the Government.
Tony Blair first pledged tough action to remove hate preachers on August 5 before heading away on his summer break. Yesterday
Mr Clarke confirmed the wide-ranging list of 'unacceptable behaviours' which he said could lead to extremists being thrown out of the country or barred from entering in the first place.
It ranges from the expression of views which 'foment, justify or glorify' terrorism to those which 'foster hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence'.
Mr Clarke said the measures were necessary to counter the 'real and significant' terrorist threat facing the country after the suicide bombings in London on July 7.
But legal experts said that, under human rights laws, he could not send anybody back to countries where they could face torture or death.
Britain is trying to secure 'memorandums of understanding' with North African and Middle Eastern countries to overcome this hurdle, but so far has only managed an agreement with Jordan.
The Government has also signalled it is prepared to amend the Human Rights Act to achieve its aims.
But Al-Siri, who faces execution in Egypt for the murder of a six-year-old girl in a terror bomb blast, said: 'I don't think any British judge can accept any agreement between the UK and any Middle East country like Egypt.'
The 42-year-old, who denies involvement in terrorism, added: 'Any judge here can take this agreement and throw it in the rubbish basket.
'I still trust the UK with human rights and, while Tony Blair may want to change the laws, there is still the Magna Carta.'
Saudi dissident Dr Saad Al-Fagih, who has been described as 'global terrorist' by the U.S., also said he was not worried by Mr Clarke's threat.
He said: 'There is no reason why I should go, none whatsoever. I am doing nothing wrong. If any attempts are made I will contact my lawyer and go through the due process.'
Al-Fagih, who lives with his wife and four children in a £600,000 semi in Willesden Green, North-West London, added: 'If the legal process is transparent I have no need to worry.'
Home Office insiders said Mr Clarke planned to take action against 'dozens' of extremists. The process will start within days, according to the bullish Home Secretary.
Those who could be targeted include Al-Siri, Al-Fagih and fellow Saudi Mohammed Al-Masari, a leading supporter of Osama Bin Laden who has said it would be legitimate for Muslims to assassinate the Prime Minister.
But human rights group Liberty said it was convinced the memorandums would not satisfy international human rights law.
The deportations are likely to be tested in the Court of Appeal, House of Lords and, ultimately, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg in a process lasting up to three years.
Ten extremists rounded up by officials ten days ago have already lodged appeals.
Liberty's legal director James Welch said: 'What has always separated us from the terrorists is that we do not torture people or send them to be tortured - that is the standard we need to maintain.'
Mr Clarke's definitions of ' unacceptable behaviour' also came under attack, amid predictions they too would face legal challenges.
Ian Macdonald QC, who resigned his post on the special immigration appeal court last year over the Government's anti-terror laws, said the new criteria neither added to the Home Secretary's powers nor made things clearer.
He said the descriptions appeared to have been drawn up 'on the back of an envelope'.
Asghar Bukhari, of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said the Government risked turning the Muslim community against it if people were no longer allowed to speak out on issues such as Palestinian rights.
Legal experts = mindless anarchists and activists.
Sorry, kiddies; a sovereign state can choose to do whatever it feels necessary for the continued safety of its citizens.
As you are about to find out!
Are the references to 'human rights law' and 'international law' binding? I realize they would be to certain 'justices' on our SC.
The concept is neither new nor complicated. The Turks, for instance see it quite clearly. The unruly can be dealt with in only one way:
"Everybody must know that the Turkish armed forces will not tolerate the use of the opportunities of democracy by the enemies of the system as a means to dynamite the basic principles of our state...”
retiring Chief of Staff General Huseyin Kivrikoglu, Turkey
It's not rocket science.
Really.
"a sovereign state can choose to do whatever it feels necessary"
(Formerly)Great Britain is not a sovereign state. As the article points out, anything they do is appealable to the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and that court has the power to overturn British actions.
How about drop off OVER Cairo?
F International law. Sovereign nations have a right and a duty to its citizens to protect them from criminals. I wish sometimes that the old concept of Outlaw could be revised. Simply put being declared an outlaw meant not only were you a criminal but that you were also placed outside the law's protection. You became fair game. Goodbye trial by jury, goodbye protective custody, goodbye fear of vigilantes.
Yes it is harsh but these skanks have no respect for law until they can hide behind its coat tails. Vermin got no rights. Also moderate Muslims should be the loudest in supporting deportation for terrorists. As for claims of innocence. Great, prove it and we might let you back in.
Then try, convict, and execute him for sedition and treason.
Binding, in the sense of a citizen being punished if he breaks them?
It depends on whether the Brits made this human rights law they're talking about, the way our Congress makes laws, or it's just another lefty front.
Activists like to use the word "law" to describe activitites or opinions that are nothing of the sort to make them sound inviolable and weighty.
Similarly, there's no such thing as "international law". They may be strongly held convictions, or widely accepted custom, but not law.
They are not arms against mythical creatures!
44 seconds - our thoughts ran alike...;-)
You are correct, They use a county's own laws against them.
Then they laugh about it and how foolish that country is. These people who come to a country to avoid being killed in their own country.
You cant send a person back who may be killed in their own country,Bullship. If their own country wants them dead you have to wonder why.
They urge violence and a country has to stand by and watch it happen. Over the years lawyers have gotten away with interpreting the law their own way, The problem has been compounded by liberal judges , the two working in concert have destroyed Justice, and its time it was stopped. Hard.
Save them a phone call and throw the lawyers out with them!
Haven't we heard somewhere else where the "lawyers" prevented something else. (Able Danger)
I hope MI6 inhabits the other half!
I don't think our own country would have much success either. None of our judges seem to be on the same sheet of music about any of our laws.
The lawyers, ACLU and the Judges would have an appeal or other decision thwarting the government position before the ink was dry on the deportation order.
I agree about the 'international law'. It is like the 'international court' some of the lefties are trying to make important. Of course, you can tell how important it is to them by who they want brought before it. It is strictly alon ideological lines - and the right would lose every time.
How many Divisions does the International Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg have?
Sovereign States, just as individuals, cannot "sign away" fundamental rights.
None is as fundamental as its own continued existance.
Inside the Criminal Mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.