Twenty six years or so into the ongoing most craven appeasement of the Irish Thuggees, in Euro-peon-Neo-Soviet-subordinated once great Britain I can go to prison for defending myself against robbery and/or other assault and/or for alluding to the very real danger posed by the very real enemy among us. And yet that enemy, who wakes up every day determined to kill me and my sons, to rape, sexually mutilate and enslave my wife and daughters -- and to take all of Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization into a new Dark Age from which it will never recover -- will walk free? God save us from bloody lawyers.

Vale Enoch Powell. Vale Winston Leonard Spencer Jerome Churchill. (Neville Chamberlain is alive and well)
Brian Richard Allen - Los Angeles

Brian Richard Allen, Los Angeles, United States of AMERICA

England. It's virtually impossible to drive anywhere without incurring a speed fine, a parking ticket or a congestion charge fine. But the law lets an individual like this get off scot free? This is what gives people a contempt for the law.

Tom, London,

This is a typically myopic set of comments. Here is a great chance for MI5 and GCHQ to take time off from surveilling the innocent citizens and contain a genuine alleged terrorist. What chance has this man got of doing anything nefarious in this country when every move he makes, any transaction or communication he makes, can be easily monitored? I submit that the judgement of the court of appeal shows how complicated are these matters and therefore how much we do need the law as a control on political and paramilitary manipulations.

Henry Percy, London, UK

Do I understand you to be saying that "innocent until proven guilty" is too much trouble for us now? That it's okay to wrest innocent people from their beds and torture them because someone, somewhere, says they might be a terrorist? That we should make no real effort anymore to be sure?

I can think of nothing more terroristic than to give government such power.

Avedon, London, England

To put it simply we can never defeat terrorists
they win every way, and i strongly believe the UK is the only country that would even give likes of Osama bin laden a home.

wayne, huntingdon, cambridgeshire

There are a lot of them going free running around Washington and London.
Where is Tony now?

Tim, Toronto,

Extraordinary rendition?

Nigel MacNicol, Oakham, Rutland UK

You said it yourself, Camilla; SUSPECTED terrorists. If the Government's evidence against them is the same as that for Weapons of Mass Destruction, then yes, there should be checks and balances.

Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Surely if someone commits a crime in a foreign country, they accept the risk that they may suffer the punishments of that country's justice system. Send the bum back.

Loosehead, Basingstoke,

So the safety of the British public is put at risk by these violent men rather than face the possibility that one person, not British, might be mistreated in a foreign country. God help us all.

Tony, Chicago, USA

The British govt can't be responsible for protecting the human rights of foreigners..otherwise it would have to declare war with every regime in the world that doesn't respect human rights.
The British govt can and should protect the human rights of British citizens by deprting any foreigner suspected of being a terrorist.
The problem is, we no longer have a British govt. We have a European govt. and unelected judges taking over the powers of the British govt.

Gareth, Cardiff,

I don't see how the judges could have come to a different conclusion. These countries - and the UK - have signed up to the UN Convention outlawing torture. But the Government had such little faith in their paying any heed to that commitment that they sought these additional Memoranda of Understanding. But if they're not prepared to abide by the Convention, why on earth should we expect them to live by the Memoranda?

And let's not forget that the UN Convention also forbids a state from sending someone to a country where s/he is likely to face being tortured. It's just that the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the very few international agreements which empower individuals.

As Ken Clarke said to the Joint Committee on Human Rights at the beginning of March, the test of rights is when someone to whom we take great exception seeks to make use of them.

Rob, Swindon,

The other option is to declare them a risk, intern them indefinitely with the only possibility of release being that they leave Britain to any country that will accept them.

Tony, Chicago, USA

Labour incorporated the European Charter of Human Rights into British law. The solution, get rid of Labour and vote in the most right wing party available before we are doomed.

david webb, bournemouth, uk

I dont care where they send him, but why should he remain in a country he is determined to destroy. He obviously doesnt like the country or the people. So he should leave, he wont leave though, because he wants to die and take us with him. Im sure none of us want to die. So lets send him away anywhere, a good start would be to wherever he is from.
He thinks this way so he should be ok in his own country where he will have more people that agree with him. Maybe they'll just blow each other up.

I thought the people of this country had a say, obviously not. Who cares if we die, lets just protect our killers.
It seems if we want to be heard & we want fair treatment in our own country we need to break the law. & i was brought up to be law abiding citizen, how wrong were my parents! It seems that being a criminal cant be that bad afterall.

We feed him, clothe him, protect him, keep him safe in our country and he sits. So we work, to pay for all this to keep him alive and well.

Tara, Milton Keynes, UK

William.

They would argue there is no "Islamic State".

And that we should pull all our troops out, stop propping up the dictators, stop interfering in their countries...

Then they can be left alone to create their "Islamic State".

We keep complaining about "our way of life" but don't want Muslim to run countries based on their "way of life".

John, Manchester,

It is about time that not being able to deport someone should not automatically mean they are free to live here. If they insist on being in UK, then that should be behind bars and without citizen priviledges, and they should know they are free to leave the country at any time, but not to stay in UK and be free. They are not imprisoned, they are free to leave. Failing that, prosecute them for falsely claiming asylum and follow that up with appropriate penalties.

Penny, London,

I approved of the incorporation of the ECHR into English law, but I was sharing in the innocent idealism of the pre-9/11 world. The world has changed since then, and Blair was right when he said, in the aftermath of 7/7, that the rules of the game have changed. British citizens owe no debts to those who would destroy us. Qatadi must be deported.

Bob, London,

Given the treachery of our legal system, I can see why the US resorted to the Guantanamo solution. If these dangerous people commit a crime in the future I hope some of our supine legal masters will feel partly responsible.

Al, Weybridge, UQ

Ah, the irony! Those who need their human rights protected seem to be the very ones who do not respect the same rights of others.

That we suspend habeas corpus shows that we are (or rather, the Home Office) is not squeaky clean.

So it becomes a matter of degree.

And, frankly, a further degree of pragmatism is required here. In this case are we dealing with a refugee (Geneva Convention), a victim of human rights abuse, albeit even only potential (ECHR)? Or a terrorist on the run?

Mike L, Chippenham, Wilts

The problem is the same with all ' progressives ' , they want ' cosmic justice ', not Law. Before the US Constitution was thrown away two Justices explained this. Justice Learned Hand said to his colleague Justice Holmes " Do justice Sir, do Justice ". Justice Holmes said " I do Law, Sir, not Justice ".

Desmond Taylor, Houston, USA Tx

Although I do not support Guantonomo Bay it is easy to see the benefits of such a system when our normal legal processes, as in the case of this decision, fail so miserably. The fact is our legal system is not designed to handle cases like this. The lawyers defending these men did their job as they should, and used the British legal system to defend their clients interests to the best of their abilities. However when their clients are such dangerous individuals, willing and capable of inflicting acts of murder and destruction on a massive scale and so contempteous of the values of western society, then the option of freeing them is also neither moral or practical. The question is what will our security agencies and the politicians who monitor them do following decisions like this? Will they remove such individuals from the system and intern them in the camps the CIA reportedly has situated throughout Europe? It must be tempting, when viewing ludicrous situations like this.

David Lea-Smith, Edinburgh, U.K.

This is what happens when you have unelected and unrepresentative judges who give primacy to European human rights law over our own national law.

What needs to be done:

1. All treaty agreements such as the ECHR need to reformed or removed. Most of this legislation is outdated and not fit-for-purpose in the modern world.

2. New international agreements need to be formed with the countries that are facing the same problems such as the US. We should co-operate with these countries to allow them to expel anyone back to their home countries regardless of whether or not they may possibly be tortured. Any country that fails to take responsibility for the people that it exports to the rest-of-the-world should be subject to economic sanctions and even military force.

3. Our Judges should be elected as they are in some states of the US.

These are practical solutions for the government’s self-inflicted problems and can be implemented if only the political will to do so existed.

Gareth Williams, Cardiff, Wales

Send them home and, if necessary, take a waiver from the Human Rights act. If the EU says no to that, then let's have a referendum on our membership in that organisation. Time to take our country back.

William Thomson, Guildford, UK

What of my human rights as a potential victim of these people. Why should UK tax payers pay for their upkeep in prison. When these terrorists are eventually released, to go where they like in the UK, how can any one of us feel safe? How come when prisoners are freed in other countries those countries are able to deport them back to the UK, even if they left this country as very young children? I feel there are some crimes for which the penalty should be execution and this is a prime example. I feel Europen do-gooders have too much say in how our country is run. Come on your people in positions of authority, use some common sense, you must have plenty to spare, as I have not seen much evidence of any being used up to now.

P. Grant, Stranraer, Scotland

The responsibility of the Judges should be to the safety of the UK public - first and foremost!

Human rights? Didn't seem to be appreciated much during 9/11 did they?

We would expect any country to deport someone we wanted to bring to trial, so who are our judges to deny the same courtesy to another state?

Besides, as apparent illegal 'immigrants' how do they get the right to stay?

Let's hope the judges or their families are not caught up in any 'outrages' perpetrated by these individuals!

Terry, Bagneres, France

They say the law is an ass, how true. It is about time we pyt reality into place, these people should be deported forthwith torture or no torture. They think nothing of the people who they regard as infidels. If we cannot deport them then OFF WITH THE HEADS.

Ian in Melbourne

Ian Rogers, Melbourne, Australia

The worst terrorists in Britain already go free.

I'm referring to Tony Blair and his henchpeople, who, as part of the Coalition of the Willing terror network, unleashed bombings and massacres on defenceless Iraq which have killed a million people and driven four million from their homes. These terrorists have also been complicit in kidnappings, torture, detention without trial, disappearances and secret prisons all over the world.

None of these Christianist terrorists have been brought to justice.

Richard Cheeseman, Wellington, NZ

I am so so glad that I left Britain with my family all of those years ago when Harold Wilson was running havoc through the country. Thank you Britain for giving me a reason to leave then, because I think that I would have topped myself if I had to live in Britain now! What a pathetic country. Truly the breadbasket of Europe.

AB FOSSER, Brisbane , Australia

So Abu Quatada and the others cannot be returned because of the possibility of a possibility ....... and that is against the Human Rights Act.

So what about the possibility of a possibility that they will plot large-scale terrorist offences against the British people..... that obviously doesn't count.

Time to repeal the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Rights Act which puts the rights of British citizens above those of imported terrorists.

Donna Walker, Effingham, Surrey

Way too simple, since he filed false documents to gain entry, just deport him to a country of his choice (pay the plane fare) and block his re-entry to the UK. Soon he will return anyway, as the UK will soon be (like much of Europe) an Islamic state. More rights and benefits to to immigrants than to citizens, isn't liberalism great! Another option is to send him to Guantanamo where he will get free food, health care, prayer rugs, new Koran, and neighbors that think like him. Oh, I forgot that's torture.

Jim Thompson, Charlotte, USA/North Carolina

We sent some bankers to the US to face prosecution for some kind of fraud - their human rights would likely be violated if incarcerated over there - the chances of being hurt or raped in US prisons is high.

Yet we can't send a convicted terrorist to the country that convicted him?

Wake up. Who are the governement and the judiciary serving?

ws, Manchester,

Who says the ECHR doesn't protect the criminal and give them more rights than law-abiding citizens. The evidence is here and plain to see that it does exactly that. Our European counterparts do not keep these people, they deport them. The question is why do we interpret the same laws in a different manner?
We should deport these people whether they are killed at home or not is down to their own laws in their own countries. Stop putting their welfare above mine! It's against the human rightsd of all British citizens to have wanted foreign criminals wandering freely around the UK. Get rid of the flotsam from other countries..

David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK

To resile from the Human Rights rubbish is the only way forward. The Act should have said something about the responsibilities owed by refugees to the host country and it seems that many of these refugees are not really asylum seekers at all but simply in search of the good life.
I would offer these potential deportees the choice of going back to their countries or being marooned on St Kilda.

John Pelton, Cognac, France

So what will happen to this guy now? I doubt he will ever work for a living, there's probably a clause in his religion that forbids it! He will sponge off of the state along with his dependents for ever! What's worse, he will undoubtably claim compensation and win thousand's, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, for some cleverly worded claim about his loss of human rights!
If this government had any sense of duty to the country, which it doesn't of course, it would scrap the human rights laws immediately.
The lunatics are definitely in charge now!

Andre Needham, Ely, Uk

David of London says, "the obvious answer is to release him, surveil him and then arrest and charge him if and when he breaks the law." And what if the crime he commits is another 7/7 bombing? Will legal niceties be worth the death of another 52 people?

John Tomlinson, Brentwood, UK

I used to respect 'human rights lawyers', but now I see them as part of the problem. Governments should get together and revise the human rights conventions, so that we can return to sanity. For example, if someone comes from a country that practices torture and capital punishment, then that is the law that applies to them. It should give them no right to stay this country.

andrew, swindon,

But in the view of our judges it is legal to start a war when it suits our interests.

Jim, Kingston, UK

£1000.00 per month in BENEFITS - Why am I working to pay for him - What is the point in having a government when their hands are tied by Human Rights - the only people this gov. look after is immigrants and people on benefits - SHAME ON BROWN - Too gutless to do anything.

Margaret, Bristol, UK

Time to take the law into our own hands and protect our birthright. Because the politicians and the judges are selling us down the river we have moral authority to do so.

Chie, Tokyo, Japan

The Government still hasn't told us why it won't give the man a fair trial - that would resolve the issues one way or the other. The rule of law is a founding principle of any democracy - ignoring it gets you into a mess, be you citizen or government.

Gerry, Coventry,

Renounce the European Convention on Human Rights and deport them all.

A Cooper, Norwich, England

If he is is not guilty of a 'terrorist' offense or any other offense according to our laws. Then he should be set free.

If he is found guilty fair enough.

Has an anyone heard of a trial?

The Government tied its own hands when it suspended 'the right to a fair trial' and locked people up with no charges whatsoever.

John, Manchester,

It must be great to spend your days mulling over obscurely drafted laws, deciding the meaning of this word, or that, and what takes precedence over what, without any thought or responsibility to the consequences of your decisions. Whilst I have little sympathy with this Government, they are trying to act in accordance with the wishes of the majority of us on this issue, only to be thwarted time and again by the Judiciary, who are protected establishment figures whose daily experiences are light years away from the rest of us.

We all know by that, that with regard to foreign nationals, no matter how heinous their crimes, if they appeal long enough, they will win sooner or later.

Tony , Nottingham, England

Perhaps we require a system where we tell him he is free to leave the country but, while he is in the country, the only place he is allowed is behind bars.

Simon Jenkins, Luton, Beds

"Can we let terrorists go free?" Of course not. And we don't.

"Can we let suspected terrorists against whom we can find no evidence, go free?" Of course. If you start locking up innocent people, where do you finish?

Our civilisation is built on the precept that it's better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent one to be unjustly imprisoned.

bob, london,

"Britain will give anyone refugee status, their only concern is and have always been, is to keep out decent, law-abiding Jamaicans. "

Please search the crime statistics in the Britain and you would come to know that a majority of Jamaicans (not all) are the criminals. Our bus stops aren't safe at night becuase of them.

Tom Flint, London,

We read topics like this again and again, yet nothing is ever done about it. Nothing ever changes until it is too late. Everyone just gets on with their daily lives, and so long as it doesn't affect them directly they put up with it. To an extent this is understandable, and I am as guilty of it as the next person. However, the government who we elect to take the next step and deal with issues like this, are exactly the same. Noting changes!
As mentioned by W Haines, if these people want to live in an Islamic state by all means go there, and leave the majority of law abiding people to live safely in their own homes.

Joe Nolan, Blackburn, England

With laws like the ones our Judiciary have to obey, isn1t it about time all these fuddy duddies woke up to the fact that our country is being overun by fanatics who will go on breaking our laws with impunity and not only get away with it, but be paid by our government to support them in their efforts to carry on with their scheming which effectively undermines the whole country. No one in his or her right mind wants to live in permanent terror, so go on Gordon Brown pull out your finger and get the laws changed faster than fast! Or you to will be in the same position as the rest of the country.

Norma, London, UK

Oh how the Islamic Jihadists will be laughing at Britain. A once proud nation becomes the laughing stock of the Western world as we bow and surrender to the jiahidists 'human rights'. We have only our own politicians to thank. When we let these lunatics back out on the streets and the next train or bus is blown to pieces with deaths a plenty who will defend my human right not to be blown to pieces by terrorists. Certainly not this government.

Mick Meston, Leeds , England

Britain will give anyone refugee status, their only concern is and have always been, is to keep out decent, law-abiding Jamaicans. Mind you they allow all the criminals and wrong doers from there to come in. They need to review the criteria for which an immigration personnel is employed.

I am here with two small kids without my husband because the British immigration system will not allow him to come in because they claim we cannot support our kids although i working full time and he is an ex-soldier, hard working, willing to work and support the family. I do not claim any money from the social fund but if i was the wife of a refugee terrorist with his kids i would be ok because i would have my family together. I am a British Citizen living in this country for 19years.(BRITISH MORALS)

LEE HAMILTON, LONDON, ENGLAND

This is a mad mad mad mad world.

Derek, London,

Send the judges to Jordan and Libya - who needs them ?

Ian Payne, WALSALL,

If this fellow is so dangerous, and the government lack the evidence to convict him of anything, then the obvious answer is to release him, surveil him and then arrest and charge him if and when he breaks the law.

The government should not have carte blanche to lock people up indefinitely, but nor should it send refugees back to be tortured. People accused of crimes on evidence obtained under torture surely have every right to seek political asylum in this country.

Your Geneva Convention solution would not work because without untainted evidence it could not be reasonably shown that a suspect represented a danger to the public.

How about allowing foreign governments that use torture to prosecute alleged criminals through the English courts, with the costs of British justice and punishment paid for by that government?

David, London,

These people want to live in an Islamic state? Send them to one.

william Haines, northwood,