Who says he will be tortured?
Pretty damn convenient claim to make from now on.

Posted by: GrennBeck at February 28, 2008 8:00 AM

His fear of torture did not stop him committing terror in his home country

Good bye Europe

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/01/disturbing-images-europe.html

Posted by: Shiva at February 28, 2008 8:33 AM

By this logic, since it is a given that most Muslim states have practiced torture, then no Muslim can be deported to his home country if he is wanted there. In other words, the judges in Strasbourg have declared that every Muslim likely, upon his return to a Muslim country, to be charged with a crime, may be subject to torture so the countries of the European Union cannot possibly deport him, but must keep him, presumably forever, within their borders. And it it is the taxpayers of those European countries who must pay either for the expensive care and feeding in jail, for such people, or for constantly monitoring them if they do not go to jail, or when they get out.

This is an economic and social nightmare in the making for the citizens of every E.U. country. They have created a system where it is they who must pay for the lords of Muslim rule, they who must be forced to pay for the political, economic, and social failures of Muslim states and societies, including their violence and aggression and cruelty. It happens in big ways, and in small. But it happens. If there is no way for common sense to overrule the senseless ideologues of the purer-than-pure, purer-than-humanly-possible, European Court, then the only way out is for individual members of the European Union to rethink their commitment, and refuse to accept the jurisdiction, in all matters having to do with countries outside the E.U., of the Human Rights Court. Or, alternatively, to rethink altogether their adherence to the E.U., which began, reasonably, with Jean Monnet's Coal and Steel Community, an attempt to weave Germany and France into an economic net, that then became the six-member European Community, and then finally the greatly-enlarged European Union, that by weakening, or attempting to, the sense of the individual European nation-state, has weakened the most powerful force for naturally resisting trans-national, pan-national, Islam, just when it has become a mortal threat, through the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest, to the wellbeing and safety of the peoples of Western Europe.

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2008 8:33 AM

I couldn't care less if a Mohammedan Terrorist is tortured. He deserves it.

Posted by: darcy at February 28, 2008 8:37 AM

The idea the people shouldn't be sent back if they will be tortured only makes sense if those people aren't a threat to our society and haven't broken any laws in our society. Once a person has committed crimes against our society he or she should simply be sent back.

I a person wants to luxury of the protections of Western law that person shouldn't work against that same law.

Posted by: Jerry M at February 28, 2008 8:41 AM

Yes Hugh,

But when there are parties that are working actively against being within the European Community, then they are labeled as Nazi,s, as we every time the subject arises concerning such parties as BNP or VB.

Posted by: Shiva at February 28, 2008 8:43 AM

wait.....he doesn't want to go home to his country b/c the gov't there WILL torture him BUT he wants to turn the West into a shariah state that WILL torture,basically,everyone but the nut jobs like him.Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, I get it...sorta like........everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others..............I thought THAT particular brand of pretzal logic died w/ the Soviets,,,,,,,,,hmmmmmm

Posted by: KittyBootz at February 28, 2008 8:47 AM

Officially, there are at present somewhere between 25 and 27 million Muslims in EUrabia.

Out of a population of 400 million that would be 6.75 %.

However, there is some 20 % Muslim representation in the EU parliament.

You go figure!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at February 28, 2008 9:06 AM

The idea the people shouldn't be sent back if they will be tortured only makes sense if those people aren't a threat to our society and haven't broken any laws in our society.

Oh thats very nice Jerry, very nice. So these vermin can blow up buses,trains and murder innocent men women and children, and just hop over into Europe and enjoy the luxury of the protections of Western laws, laws which they strive to replace with Sharia

Posted by: Shiva at February 28, 2008 9:11 AM

The court ruled that protection against torture is absolute and Saadi cannot be sent back, even though he has been convicted of terror-related offences in both Tunisia and Italy.

Once again the enemy uses our own values against us. !

It would seem that we can be subject to beheadings, torture, suicide bombings etc but, as Hugh says we have to pay for the piece of filth for the rest of his natural life.

If the Tunisians want him and he is a Tunisian national surely, they have the right to demand him back. For whatever reason: particularly if he has committed crimes on EU soil. It would seem that the Tunisian government has been deprived of its rights as well.

We have to have the right to abrogate from the human rights act on a case by case basis.

Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 28, 2008 9:21 AM

Then execute him where they have him.

As a "terrorist / enemy combatant" they can hand him over to the NATO forces, give him a military tribunal, and hang him.

The death penalty needs to apply in terrorism cases, superceding their civilian-applicable, non-military laws.

Pussyfooted to oblivion.

How do you carve that on a tombstone in Arabic?

For the European Civilization.

Posted by: profitsbeard at February 28, 2008 10:43 AM

Ministers argued the right of the public to be protected against terrorism should be balanced against a suspect's rights not to be ill-treated.

Makes sense to me.

Posted by: tanstaafl at February 28, 2008 11:17 AM

This relates to the question of where to send prisoners, if they close Gitmo. Sending them to their home countries might constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

"U.S. may sign Guantanamo accord with Algeria: agency"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080227/pl_nm/rights_guantanamo_algeria_dc_2

"U.S. officials say some governments will not take custody of their citizens held at Guantanamo, others would not treat their citizens humanely and still others are not willing to provide security guarantees Washington believes are necessary.

"Algerian President Bouteflika offered an amnesty for Islamist rebels in 2006 as part of a reconciliation policy aimed at ending years of violence in the north African country.

"As part of the reconciliation drive he authorized the release from jail of more than 2,000 former members of an Islamist armed rebellion that aims to overthrow the government.

"Algerian newspapers say some of the released former fighters rejoined the rebellion after they were freed and have taken part in attacks on government targets in recent months."

Posted by: CTYankee at February 28, 2008 11:50 AM

Dear Shiva,

"Oh thats very nice Jerry, very nice"

No I don't say let the terrorists in, after all most of the people in question have been directly involved in terror against Westerners (hence they have committed crimes) either by acting, planning, raising money etc.

Posted by: Jerry M at February 28, 2008 1:09 PM

"...the right of the public to be protected against terrorism should be balanced against a suspect's rights not to be ill-treated"

Where's the balance in this? A single person's "right not to be ill-treated" is equally important as the right of the hundreds of people (potential victims) to be protected?

This is nothing more than a ploy by the European court to assert its supremacy over the national courts. It had nothing to do with "rights".

And as we move closer to aligning ourselves with these idiots, with the Sea Treaty, the Convention on the Right of the Child, etc., we're going to see the same things happening here...the standards of international law, irrespective of its wisdom or adherence to U.S. Constitutional laws, taking precedence in our courts...much to our detriment.

Posted by: Godefroi at February 28, 2008 1:10 PM

For me the key word is 'suspect'. Anyone could be a suspect, and western law should protect us from false conviction.

Yes, once found guilty send them back to wherever they came from. Also any illegal immigrants - criminals or not.

But a legally present suspect should be tried under correct procedures.

Posted by: Lili at February 28, 2008 3:45 PM

Whenever a Muslim fights deportation on the grounds that he might be tortured he should be asked whether he thinks Murdering Mo acted wrongly in the following incident, following the taking of Khaybar in 628:

"Among the Jewish women there was one who was chosen by Muhammad as wife. It was Safiyya bint Huyayy, daughter of the killed Banu Nadir chief Huyayy ibn Akhtab and widow of Kinana ibn al-Rabi, the treasurer of Banu Nadir. According to Ibn Ishaq, when Muhammad asked him to locate the tribe's treasure, al-Rabi denied knowing where it was. A Jew told Muhammad that he had seen Al-Rabi near a certain ruin every morning. When the ruin was excavated, it was found to contain some of the treasure. Muhammad ordered Al-Zubayr to torture al-Rabi until he revealed the location of the rest, then handed him to Muhammad ibn Maslamah, whose brother had died in the battle, to be beheaded"

Since a Mohammedan is unlikely to disapprove of any action by the beloved founder of his cult, it should at least make the point that Muslims do not disapprove of all torture on principle. In fact this quasi-historical incident explains why it is almost impossible to deport any Muslim 'radical' under the Human Rights Act. Rulers in the average Islamic hellhole are more inclined to follow the example of the best of all men, an model for all time, than mere treaties, involving infidels, about human rights.

Although unlikely to affect the outcome of any court case, raising the subject would at least draw the public's attention to some of the nastiest aspects of this religion - and why it is, perhaps, not wise to apply infidel legalisms and standards of behaviour when dealing with these people.

Posted by: wallyUK at February 28, 2008 6:23 PM

What a bunch of anti-Islamic bigots these 17 judges are! They should be removed from office immediately for hate-crimes. They're spreading the vile lies that Islamic governments practice torture and that Islamic law provides no justice. I think the Tunisian government should demand a grovelling apology from the EU. After all, isn't the Tunisian government run entirely by adherents of the ROP, which is renowned for dealing justly and humanely with malefactors?
This is a lot bigger insult to Islam and Moslems that a few cartoons in a Danish newspaper. It's an official EU declaration that no Islamic government is trustworthy, and that they all are terrorist and criminal enterprises.
I'm just waiting for the riots about this.

Posted by: ebonystone at February 28, 2008 7:20 PM