We should not have to sacrifice our principles and the rule of law in order to defend ourselves against the jihad. But cases like this present a difficult dilemma. If it can be definitively established that he made public threats and was involved with associates of Osama, at very least he should lose his refugee status -- and more, depending on how seriously he was involved in jihadist activity. From the Times Online, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:
The first of 12 foreign terrorist suspects held in British custody for years without charge learned today that he would soon be released on bail, following a ruling that indefinitely detaining the men was unlawful. Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian, was granted bail by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the court set up to hear applications from terrorist suspects.Mr Rideh was arrested soon after the terrorist attacks attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001. He was detained without charge or trial under the provisions of the Terrorism Act 2001.
Last month, however, a landmark legal ruling by the Law Lords declared it discriminatory and against human rights law to hold foreign suspects in this way.
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, responded last week by announcing a new anti-terror policy, under which both foreign and British suspects could have their movements restricted without charge or trial.
The new measures would be provided for in "control orders", which will replace indefinite detention in jail. The orders will be determined by the Home Secretary and could include house arrest or curfews imposed on suspects.
Mr Rideh came to Britain in 1995 and was granted refugee status. A father-of-five in his early thirties, he was one of the first to be detained under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act before the courts prevented identification of the detainees.
Claims against him included that he made public threats to carry out a bombing and that he was involved with associates of Osama bin Laden in Britain and abroad.
He claims the allegations are "lies" and that, when he was in Afghanistan, he was setting up a charitable school for children rather than meeting terrorists. He also claims to have been tortured in Israel.
Human Rights might one day be described as 'Our Human Right to Life',
If - for example one of these terror suspects takes part in committing an atrocity - on the society - which HE has been granted the freedom to live in, then the idea of Human Rights will need to be redefined or exceptions made.
If a person believes that they have the God given right to kill those who are outside of their group -
- then our ideas of Freedom and Rights are in direct conflict.
Our idea of freedom is to be free to keep the law of our land -
But if one believes - that freedom is the right to keep a Religious Law, which advocates the killing or harming of non-members. And deception and conning are a part of achieving this - then we are in trouble.
In such cases our Human Right to Live - will need to override the terrorist suspect’s right to his freedoms.
There are no "human rights", only "rights granted under Islam". You know what that means for the rest of us- dhimmitude, slavery, or death.