Afghan hijackers

[JulieL/B]

Was the ruling correct?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4767463.stm

Should they be allowed to stay here?

 

[hermes]

Does the law state that it is illegal to send an asylum seeker back to a country or regime where they may be tortured or killed? If so then the ruling was correct.

 

[joe-90]

The Taliban are no-longer in control. Do you know anything about international issues?


joe

 

[hermes]

The Taliban are no-longer in control. Do you know anything about international issues?


joe

silly comment, since when did someone have to be 'in control' to shoot you? The IRA were never officially 'in control' in Northern Ireland but you wouldn't have wanted to cross them, do a runner and then be sent back to live on the Shankil Road.

And besides:

Published: 02 March 2006
Despite President Bush's optimistic speech in Kabul yesterday, no amount of rhetoric can disguise the fact that Afghanistan is slipping backwards at an alarming rate. That the country now has an elected president and parliament may suggest progress. But few Afghans have seen any benefit from this. In rural areas, health and educational facilities are still among the worst in the world. The security situation has deteriorated.

Most ominous of all is the return of the Taliban, five years after they were driven from power. This time the religious fanatics, who are operating from the south and east of country, seem to be even more ruthless than before. The tactic of launching suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets has been imported from Iraq. Schools are being targeted too. Some 165 schools and colleges have been burnt down or forced to close by the Taliban. Last year around 30 aid workers were killed too, in alarming confirmation that everyone is a potential target.

 

[joe-90]

The Taliban are no-longer in control. Do you know anything about international issues?


joe

silly comment, since when did someone have to be 'in control' to shoot you? The IRA were never officially 'in control' in Northern Ireland but you wouldn't have wanted to cross them, do a runner and then be sent back to live on the Shankil Road.

And besides:

Published: 02 March 2006
Despite President Bush's optimistic speech in Kabul yesterday, no amount of rhetoric can disguise the fact that Afghanistan is slipping backwards at an alarming rate. That the country now has an elect president and parliament may suggest progress. But few Afghans have seen any benefit from this. In rural areas, health and educational facilities are still among the worst in the world. The security situation has deteriorated.

Most ominous of all is the return of the Taliban, five years after they were driven from power. This time the religious fanatics, who are operating from the south and east of country, seem to be even more ruthless than before. The tactic of launching suicide bomb attacks on civilian targets has been imported from Iraq. Schools are being targeted too. Some 165 schools and colleges have been burnt down or forced to close by the Taliban. Last year around 30 aid workers were killed too, in alarming confirmation that everyone is a potential target.

Then send them back and let them sort out their own country. It's not our problem.
If it is our problem then lets bring back ALL the 'at risk' people in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than just hijackers.


joe

 

[Thermo]

Do you know anything about international issues?

so your simple answer hermes was yes you clearly do!

 

[Richardp]

which one would you send back first ?

number 9 is my favorite

 

[gcol]

Isn't No.7 David Baddiel?

 

[Thermo]

number 4 has got a pretend stick on beard, it doesnt match the colour of his hair!

No 3 was a drummer with the buzzcocks, oh no thats another game isnt it!

 

[Richardp]

number 3 dosnt care wether he stays or goes back.

 

[Brightness]

Number 1 is quite handsome....

Although the way they got here was appalling and probably the most terrifying thing that the other people on board that plane could ever imagine, I can see their point of view.

If they really do want to stay and contribute to society then give them a chance to do so. If in 2 years they are still not working or paying their way then send them back.

Personally, if what they say is true and they were running from the Taliban for teaching young girls etc then we should surely show them some compassion and help them?

At least by giving them 2 years max to prove themselves, if they truly are terrified of going back then they will do their damnedest to find jobs and settle here.

Plenty come over and do nothing but sponge off the state and really don't want to work - they get away with it though

 

[masona]

If it is our problem then lets bring back ALL the 'at risk' people in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than just hijackers.

Blair & Bush should've left them alone in the first place then it wouldn't be a problem wouldn't it

 

[joe-90]

If it is our problem then lets bring back ALL the 'at risk' people in Afghanistan and Iraq rather than just hijackers.

Blair & Bush should've left them alone in the first place then it wouldn't be a problem wouldn't it

Yes. The Taliban were in full control as was Sadam.

I agree that it wouldn't be OUR problem.

It's just so bloody stupid that we can rain bombs down or Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands yet we can't even send a few back over there when the bombing is over.

The real reason for invasion is oil. There is a pipeline to be built right across Afghanistan and Saddam wouldn't play the game - so he had to go.


joe

 

[Brightness]

It's just so b****y stupid that we can rain bombs down or Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands yet we can't even send a few back over there when the bombing is over.

The bombing is far from over though is it? How many of our troops have been killed out there so far? OK, so UK and US aren't bombing now but you can bet your life that the Iraqi terrorists are!
I doubt very much if they care who they kill or maim either.

 

[paulbrown]

Does the law state that it is illegal to send an asylum seeker back to a country or regime where they may be tortured or killed? If so then the ruling was correct.

How long will this law last though? our autocratic PM doesn't like this law.

Tony Blair is planning sweeping changes to the UK's human rights laws despite vehement criticism from civil liberty campaigners, it is reported.
The Observer says a leaked letter to Home Secretary John Reid suggests creating new laws which would allow the government to veto court rulings.

It follows a judge's decision to block the deportation of nine Afghans who hijacked a plane to Britain.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4770231.stm

Personally I reckon they lost any rights they may have been entitled too anyway. They should be sent back irrespective of what they say may happen.

We should send the correct message out to any other would be hijackers.