'Threats to UK security' detained

[rcne]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4141000.stm

'Threats to UK security' detained

Abu Qatada arrived in Britain seeking political asylum in 1993 Ten foreign nationals who the Home Office says pose a threat to national security have been detained in the UK, pending deportation. The Jordanian cleric Abu Qatada and at least two others previously detained in Belmarsh Prison without charge are believed to be among those arrested. The raids follow an agreement between the UK and Jordan that deportees would not be persecuted. The arrests were made in London, Luton, Leicestershire and the West Midlands. Those held are now in the custody of the prison service. Home Secretary Charles Clarke announced the detentions, but did not reveal names. RADICAL CLERIC ABU QATADA Given refugee status in 1994 after arriving in UK on fake passport Detained in Belmarsh jail in 2002 under laws introduced after 9/11 attacks Linked to al-Qaeda by a British judge Released under control order in March 2005 Clarke defends deportations "The immigration service has today detained 10 foreign nationals who I believe pose a threat to national security," he said. He added: "The circumstances of our national security have changed. It is vital that we act against those who threaten it." Meanwhile, London-based radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed has been arrested in Beirut, Lebanon.

Good news for the Brits.

[Matt W]

Hmmph. Bets on them being tortured when they get to their home countries?

[rcne]

But Matt, in the kinder gentler multicultural nations, they are not returned to their home counties if harm may come to them.

Wait a minute - isn't the reason for their deportation - a case of them causing or inciting harm to others?

I read recently where one of the Islamist preachers left the country before he could be detained, but is scheduled to return for free medical service.

How nuts is that?

[Matt W]

Actually, he's been arrested in Lebanon - reasons unknown.

But Matt, in the kinder gentler multicultural nations, they are not returned to their home counties if harm may come to them.

As for this, it's just like the UK government receiving 'assurances' from Indonesia & Israel that military equipment we sold to them wasn't going to be used against Aceh or the Palestinians - namely, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Funnily enough, I disike seeing my government being complicit in torture.

[rmnunez]

UK to Deport Iraqi Asylum Seekers:

Britain has begun rounding up failed Iraqi asylum seekers and plans to deport them to their own country, the Home Office said. The move triggered alarm at a refugee agency about the dangers of forcing people to return to a nation that is shaken by daily violence.

I supose they are trying to get rid of potential terrorists?

The Home Office refused to discuss the numbers currently being held, but the Refugee Council said it believed 43 had been arrested by the end of last week.

These are simply failed political asylum-seekers, not suspected terrorists. The reason they failed to gain asylum must be that they couldn’t offer a credible showing they would be persecuted by their government if they remained at home. Iraq is dangerous and people have reason to fear living there, but its not so clear this is because of some active effort by the government (either from the CPA or the locals). Hence a well-founded fear of persecution may be difficult, unless Britain allowed premising that fear as expansively as US law does to include non-governmental threats.

Britain is home to some 7,000 Iraqi asylum seekers. Until now they have only been sent back on a voluntary basis because the situation on the ground was considered so dangerous.

I don’t think any change in the situation in Iraq has prompted the British change in immigration practice at home. I suspect the recent terrorist attacks prompted an effort to get rid of some excess Muslims and these are just the first of many who will make their way home given hardened attitudes in Britain and elsewhere.

http://sg.news.yahoo.com/050817/1/3uamw.html

[monty of ll]

They're not criminals and HRW seems to think that they will be tortured or killed if they are deported to some of the countries in question. Some of us believe that it must be determined first before they are deported that they won't be punished in their home countries for their views. Others believe that they have no rights. This is not all that surprising considering that people are being held for years without being charged for any crime by the U.S. For example, we in Canada don't deport criminals to the U.S. unless we have a guarantee that the U.S. won't kill them. The U.S. kills people for committing some crimes and we in Canada don't do that. We don't consider it civilized but I can see how someone that does would have no problem sending an innocent person to his death in another country.