h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This man always seems to be on the British news. For example from the BBC today we have

"Abu Qatada, accused of being one of the UK's most dangerous extremist preachers, has been released from Long Lartin top-security jail in Evesham. The 51-year-old was seen hiding his face in the back of a van which left the Worcester jail at around 2115GMT. A judge ended his six-year detention last week after the European Court of Human Rights banned him from being deported to Jordan. The UK government says he is a threat to national security..." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17012448


My question to the esteemed members of H2G2 is this: If Abu Qatada were somehow smuggled out to Pakistan would he be a valid target for a US/GB drone attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

Define the word 'valid'.

Valid as in - in your opinion would the US/GB give the go-ahead to target Abu Qatada in a drone attack if he were in Pakistan (as part of their war on terror) ...

I'm quite sure they would.

I'd say possibly. Because let's face it - we've had him in a prison for *years*. If the UK or the US wanted him dead - REALLY wanted him dead, that is, rather than fondly imagining the world a better place without him - he wouldn't have survived arrest.

Not sure of the point of the question. The reason for conducting a drone attack is to neutralise a threat you can't reach by other means. We've reached him, and held him without charge for the best part of a decade. We're therefore clearly satisfied he's a threat. But we've *got* him. There's no actual need to kill him. Unless you believe that the western governments operate like vengeful juveniles, which in most cases they don't. This isn't a bin Laden we're talking about.

I think he's a danger in Britain, where he meets, recruits and encourages Islamist nutjobs. His demented witterings fire up the feeble minded wannabes in this country.

However, if he were running around Pakistan he'd be just one more amongst hundreds and barely worth a second glance.

The whole question is moot though. I'm betting he sees the inside of a Jordanian cell quite soon.

I'm baffled by this juxtaposition:

On the one hand, we've got university student Richard O'Dwyer, who apparently *can* be extradited to a foreign barbarian country that executes people, just for the "crime" of having written a website that allowed people to find copyrighted content. (Note: he didn't supply any such content himself...)

And on the other hand we've got this man from Jordan who can't be sent *back* to Jordan, because despite being judged a clear and present security threat to OUR country, despite being a well-known Islamist extremist and endorser of terrorist acts, apparently there's a risk that in HIS country the justice system isn't all it might be.



and



The extradition system in this country is SERIOUSLY screwed up.

Richard O'Dwyer should get a slap on the wrist and maybe a nominal fine for messing about, IF he's broken any English laws and is found guilty in an English court. If not, it's nobody else's business.

Qatada should be back in Jordan before sunset.

Rumours that Qatada has been approached by Glasgow Rangers. As a successful fundraiser for religious hatred and bigotry, it's felt he could play a role in a fans buy-out.

I've read elsewhere that the UK Government would not be penalised by the European Court of Human Rights if he were just sent to Jordan. There would just be a lot of tut-tutting and a lot of commotion amongst the "self-appointed self-righteous". My view is, if the government are sure of their position, then they should send him back to Jordan and state their reasoning within the media. It's not as if Jordan is deemed a "terrorist state".

The BBC opinion is Britain would receive a fine but would lose all moral authority - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17048682

The fine would probably be a lot less than the savings to be had in keeping Abu Qatada here. In terms of moral authority I suspect that would increase amongst the British public. I feel they just need to state why they believe the unelected court is wrong in this instance and that the British (taxpayer) and British people (security) takes priority on this matter, and that the UK government is accountable to the British people rather than these unelected European judges.

How far down the rabbit hole do you have to go to find someone deluded enough to think that the UK has moral authority??

I rather think if we were talking about a foreign, right wing, white guy the BBC wouldn't be so equivocal

> unelected court

Yeah, because human rights should be decided by popular vote!

TRiG.

... as opposed to decided by the UK government and the British courts?

If the UK didn't want to be subject to the ECHR, it shouldn't have signed up to the ECHR. You can't simply decide to ignore rulings you don't like, you know.

And, speaking as someone who's been following American stories on gay and trans* rights, I'm a rather definite about the idea that human rights should be decided by applied principles and the rule of law, not by popular whim.

TRiG.

"if we were talking about a foreign, right wing, white guy "...

... if we were, it's more likely he'd never even have been allowed into the country in the first place.

One thing that gets me, is why, given that they guy's such a obvious terrorist, is why given ten years or so, why can't we get any evidence against him?

Bit baffled here..

There are dark mutterings that MI5 permitted him to continue his activities so they could keep tabs on those with whom he was in communication. And mutterings that, were he to come to trial, that this would not look good. Hence the unseemly haste to get him out of the country untried.

Pass the tinfoil, my head's getting cold.

Comparisons between two radical islamist clerics. I don't think Abu Qatada is quite in the league of Anwar al-Awlaki, but Anwar was near the top of the US hit list and when he was taken out there was a great deal made of it in the West in terms of a celebrated success in the War on Terror. However I take Hoovooloos point that Abu Qatada is under British control so doesn't need to be "taken out".

13th Feb 2012
Abu Qatada, accused of being one of the UK's most dangerous extremist preachers ...
Abu Qatada, the radical Islamist cleric, has been released from Long Lartin maximum security prison ...
... He is wanted on terrorism charges in Algeria, the United States, Belgium, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and his native Jordan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-17012448
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/13/abu-qatada-released-from-jail?newsfeed=true
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Qatada


30 September 2011
US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki ... has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.
... He was the target of a US drone attack ... Witnesses say that Awlaki was boarding a 2005 Toyota Hilux along with five other supporters when a US drone attack hit the vehicle.
The CIA and the US military ... had placed Awlaki near the top of a hit list.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-dead


From the link in #01
Total killed from US Drone attacks in Pakistan as part of the War on Terror: between 1,745 and 2,711 (As of 8 February 2012) from 283 reported Drone attacks.

Todays news (16th Feb 2012) - Two missiles fired by an unmanned US drone aircraft in north-west Pakistan have killed at least five suspected militants, Pakistani security officials say. The missiles struck a compound in the village of Spalga near Miranshah. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17053995