« In Country With Our Troops Video in Ramadi | Main | 640 GIs of the 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment Re-Enlist »
May 12, 2006
London High Court Favors Terrorists ~ WTF?
Britain misused power against Afghan hijackers’
LONDON: London’s High Court accused the British government on Wednesday of “an abuse of power” for refusing to allow nine Afghan asylum seekers who hijacked a plane to Britain to stay in the country as refugees.
In a fiercely critical ruling, judge Jeremy Sullivan overturned the government’s decision and said the conduct of the home office (interior ministry) deserved “the strongest mark of the court’s disapproval”.
“It is difficult to conceive of a clearer case of conspicuous unfairness amounting to an abuse of power by a public authority,” he said.
The nine Afghans, armed with knives and guns, hijacked a Boeing 727 plane in February 2000 after the aircraft left Afghanistan’s capital city of Kabul on an internal flight. They ordered the pilot to fly to Stansted airport near London, where they told negotiators via radio they had fled the Taliban regime and would blow up the plane and kill everybody on board if they were not granted political asylum in Britain.
The High Court ranks third in Britain’s legal hierarchy below the Court of Appeal and House of Lords, which is the upper house of parliament and highest court in the country.
Sullivan criticised the then Home Secretary Jack Straw and his successors, David Blunkett and Charles Clarke, who had all failed to grant the Afghans discretionary leave to enter Britain and allowed them only temporary admission.
He said the government had “defied” judges and legal procedures and “deliberately delayed” implementing a June 2004 appeal panel decision that, under human rights law, the nine could not be sent home because their lives would be at risk.
Junior Home Office minister Tony McNulty said the government was “disappointed with the court’s judgment” and was “considering whether it is appropriate to appeal”.
“It is common sense that to deter hijacking and international terrorism, individuals should not be rewarded with leave to remain in the UK,” he said in a statement.
“The hijackers are not deemed to present a threat to the UK’s national security at present and it remains our intention to remove them as soon as it is possible to ensure that they can be returned in safety to Afghanistan.”
Sullivan noted that the Home Office had feared allowing the hijackers to live and work freely in Britain as it would amount to “a charter for future hijackers”. But he insisted this did not give the ministry a license to ignore the judiciary.
“The issue in this case is not whether the executive should take action to discourage hijacking, but whether the executive should be required to take such action within the law,” he said. He ordered the government to pay legal costs run up by the as hijackers on an “indemnity basis” - the highest level of costs that can be awarded.
Wild Thing's comment.......
I guess I'm a heartless conservative and just don't understand the nuances of why hijackers should be rewarded for their crimes. England can start the motto. "Do the crime pay no time." Pssssssssssssssssssssssssssst.....Osama, here's your ticket to England as a refugee fleeing from American Terrorists who invaded your refugee camp, and who are planning to kill you. The high court of England will grant asylum to you, and freedom of movement throughout the country.
Posted by Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 02:27 AM
Comments
Hmmmm,.... Let's think about this... You may have something here.. Why don't we offer asylum to UBL and his followers. We could send them an offer to check out a time share, they just need to sit through our presentation.
Billy
Posted by: billy at May 12, 2006 03:05 AM
From what ive managed to understand, the issue seems to be a legal complication. They fled from Afganistan to this country. According to the law, once they get here and claim asylum, they can't be sent back to any country where they would not be safe, regardless of their means of entry.
The Home Office has decided that, in these exceptional circumstances, they can ignore what the law says and just return them home. The court says that no matter how exceptional the circumstances, the law is the law and no governmental department of individual may overrule it. The law says they must stay, and so stay they should. If that is a problem, fix the law - dont just demand an exception.
They seem to have escaped any direct consequences of the highjacking on a technicality - they arn't UK citizens, and so cant be tried here. And they cant be returned to Afganistan for trial. Possibly when the stay-or-go issue is solved this would change, and they would get a few years in one of our overcrowded prisons.
Posted by: Suricou Raven at May 12, 2006 04:08 AM
If they decide they want to go back to Afghanistan, maybe they’ll hijack a British Airways aircraft for the trip back home.
Posted by: BobF at May 12, 2006 08:15 AM
Billy hahaha I did that one time ..."check out a time share, they just need to sit through our presentation.".......and about died that I was so stupid to actually do that. I ended up telling the guy keep your so called free gifts. hahahaha
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 11:05 AM
Suricou Raven this sure is a mess and the hijackers will get away with what they did.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 11:13 AM
Bob that would be something. I can see it now, one hijacker to the other.....NO we want to stay in England we don't want to go back to a cave. haha
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 11:14 AM
The reward for hijacking and terrorism is political asylum? Gimme a break!!! A simple firing squad will put a stop to their activities. The attitude of the high court is very telling of why the terrorists are motivated to keep on trying. Maybe the Judicial system there has been infiltrated by too many Muslim sympathizers just like the United Nations has. Like you said, if so why should Bin Ladin spend his last days amongst Camel humpers in a cave or Zarqawi the head cutter to spend his time hiding out when both can be 'hiding in plain sight' on a London street or perhaps practicing law in the high court fully protected by British law.
Posted by: Jack at May 12, 2006 12:08 PM
Grrrrrrr
Posted by: Rodger Schultz at May 12, 2006 02:35 PM
Or the could be here going to YALE!!!
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at May 12, 2006 04:30 PM
DISREGARD THE ABOVE TYPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Tincan Sailor at May 12, 2006 04:32 PM
I agree Jack, they deserve a firing squad.
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 05:42 PM
Hi Rodger, yep a huge grrrrr
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 05:43 PM
Tincan Sailor help not more at Yale. yikes.
Thanks Tincan Sailor
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 12, 2006 05:44 PM
testing
Posted by: LindaSoG at May 13, 2006 07:17 AM
Didn't this kind of thing happen in the '70's an awful lot? Cubans come to mind, and citizens of the Soviet Union. It's one of the unintended consequences of the asylum doctrine extended by most Western societies to citizens of regimes we think of as repressive.
This situation is legally different. First, the Taliban is a movement in Afghanistan and not the regime, and protection for these men is the responsibility of Afghanistan. You can't carjack a taxi to get away from LA street gangs, which leads to the second point:
What they did was illegal at many levels.
They're exploiting the essential weakness at the center of Western society. The simple idea of "tolerance" has worked it's way past legal and moral distinctions and infected the culture with a fatal inability to differentiate between right and wrong behavior.
Posted by: Rhod at May 13, 2006 08:10 AM
Rhod it sure has, well said!
It reminds me of that group that protests in N.Y. (the Islam thinkers society) they use our right for freedom of speech and get away with horrible hate spewing on the streets and pushing of their agenda.
I agree with you.."exploiting the essential weakness at the center of Western society".
Posted by: Wild Thing at May 13, 2006 10:06 AM
