http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8688501.stm



OK, the secret evidence is such a bad idea, but if the special court is gonna use that evidence, they should have the courage of their convictions (no pun intended). There's obviously a very flawed system at work there.

And I'm sick to the back teeth of vague potential torture allegations on deportation - where is this threat alleged to come from? That country's security forces? It's just not our problem if we've sent them away legitimately, which as I've said is something we really need to sort out...

On the other hand, whilst it may be inherently distasteful, we have a law that provides that no-one should be deported to a jurisdiction where he might face torture.

I want rid of him as much as anybody but not at any any price. We should not maul or disregard a very sensible law just because, in this extreme case, the outcome is not what we would wish for. Extreme cases make for bad law.

The way I see it, if we're willing to stand up and say someone's a scrote, we should be willing to deport them. Our own citizens should come first if we think someone is a genuine threat. I know that's harsh, but in these instances I see that as the way of the world we live in, though as you suggest, take each case individually.

As it stands though, the rules have become an easy way out for many a scumbag. Though I have to say, we've shown no consistency about it either

Did I miss the bit where he was placed in a court and tried before a jury? Or is this a case where a bureaucrat has said he's probably guilty?

It seems to me that if there is real evidence of his guilt, then this question should be moot as he ought to be doing a life stretch at the pleasure of her majesty. But MI5 / the police shot their bolt and ended up with sweet FA and now they want to send him somewhere he will be tortured into confessing, maybe to something he has done, or maybe not.