Send the bugger back

[SimonMac]

It is a War.
We only need to stay within the Geneva Convention when fighting back. That is the only 'law' that applies here.

The Geneva Convention is irrelevant in your argument as it states that a war is between two nations, you cannot be at war with a organisation like Al-Qeada, so again we are back to the fact we are NOT at war.

[KimberleyChris]

Here are the rules. In this case they would be our ONLY moral obligation to a member of a foreign force who refused repatriation/deportation.

The third Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War") covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands. They are in the power of the enemy State, not of the individuals or troops who have captured them


Prisoners of war MUST be:

- Treated humanely with respect for their persons and their honour.
- Enabled to inform their next of kin and the Central Prisoners of War Agency (ICRC, the International Red Cross) of their capture.
- Allowed to correspond regularly with relatives and to receive relief parcels.
- Allowed to keep their clothes, feeding utensils and personal effects.
- Supplied with adequate food and clothing.
- Provided with quarters not inferior to those of their captor's troops.
- Given the medical care their state of health demands.
- Paid for any work they do.
- Repatriated if certified seriously ill or wounded, (but they must not resume active military duties afterwards) .
- Quickly released and repatriated when hostilities cease.

[gingerjedi]

True, however our rule of law also states that he can appeal to the ECHR which can over rule out law.

Which our law makers are getting increasingly frustrated about, it's not just this case.

[KimberleyChris]

Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.

[SimonMac]

Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

[gingerjedi]

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

Oh come on, they don't use the term to describe getting a sofa up some stairs.

[KimberleyChris]

In Modern Standard Arabic, jihad is one of the correct terms for a struggle for any cause, violent or not, religious or secular.

True. It can refer to anything from an inner moral struggle upwards.

In this case, Jihad means bombs and civilian airliners being flown into skyscrapers.

[Doggy Styles]

Our own rule of law said he should be deported.

Indeed it did.

And as for the ECHR, what about my human rights with this bleeder on the loose?

[d000hg]

The third Geneva Convention ("Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War") covers members of the armed forces who fall into enemy hands.

Even if we were at war (it's not capitalised), terrorists are not members of the armed forces.

Jihad = 'Holy War", therefore it is, as far as they are concerned, a War.

But we use the definition we use, not the one they use. They're not a nation, they don't have an armed force, ergo they are criminals.

[SimonMac]

True. It can refer to anything from an inner moral struggle upwards.

In this case, Jihad means bombs and civilian airliners being flown into skyscrapers.

So its open to interpretation? Just like our laws and those laid down by the ECHR, shirley a better use of your time would be to try and change the views of those who make the decision rather than spout nonsense on an internet forum. You don't like the law, what are you doing about it? You have a choice, a political approach or a campaign of (keyboard) terrorism against anyone who will listen.