Abu Qatada extradition blocked by EU court of human rights

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
seeker36
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:56 pm

Abu Qatada extradition blocked by EU court of human rights

Post by seeker36 »

Hello,
Apparently this guy has links to al qaeda and faced a trial in Jordan that may have used evidence obtained under tourture. Hence the repeal. Care to discuss the morality of this?

Chris.
User avatar
John
Posts: 738
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:05 pm
Location: Near Glasgow, Scotland

Re: Abu Qatada extradition blocked by EU court of human righ

Post by John »

If evidence obtained under torture is considered to be tarnished then it seems reasonable not to deport someone who will face what is likely to be considered, by European standards, an unfair trial.

From a moral perspective, if we say torture is wrong in all circumstances then we shouldn't hand people over for trial where the case against them is based on evidence gained under torture, even if the evidence is likely to be sound. Let them build a proper case that isn't based on such evidence and try the accused on that basis. If the UK has been trying to get rid of him but can't legally torture anyone to obtain evidence against him then it's immoral to effectively allow someone else to do it for them.

I'd say it was a similar to the unwillingness to extradite anyone to the US, or any other country for that matter, that might face the death penalty irrespective of the strength of the case against them or the severity of the crime they've been accused of.
seeker36
Posts: 31
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2012 2:56 pm

Re: Abu Qatada extradition blocked by EU court of human righ

Post by seeker36 »

Hello John,
If evidence obtained under torture is considered to be tarnished then it seems reasonable not to deport someone who will face what is likely to be considered, by European standards, an unfair trial.
Yes.
From a moral perspective, if we say torture is wrong in all circumstances then we shouldn't hand people over for trial where the case against them is based on evidence gained under torture, even if the evidence is likely to be sound. Let them build a proper case that isn't based on such evidence and try the accused on that basis. If the UK has been trying to get rid of him but can't legally torture anyone to obtain evidence against him then it's immoral to effectively allow someone else to do it for them.
Again i'm in agreement with this analysis. Thanks john. Does anyone have differing views?
Post Reply