r/AskBrits • u/PsychologicalBend508 Brit 🇬🇧 • 23h ago

This is lunacy, right?

Post image

An Islamic terrorist who belonged to Al-Qaeda and later Isis has been spotted shopping at King Charles’ local Co-op.

Mohammed Yaseen was free to walk the streets near Windsor Castle after he was allowed to stay in Britain on human rights grounds.

Yaseen was part of the Al Qaeda group that beheaded Briton Ken Bigley before joining a unit in Isis that carried out stonings, beheadings and mass executions.

He was released from prison last week after serving just six months of a two-year sentence for illegally entering the country on a small boat, following a near five-year prison term in Germany for his Isis membership.

The Foreign Office has raised concerns he could face ‘mistreatment’ if he were returned to Iraq because of his terrorist past, the Mail on Sunday reports.

Experts have said Yaseen could cost the taxpayer £85,000 as the Home Office pays for his stay in accomodation and his food allowance.

Chris Philp, Shadow Home Secretary, said: ‘We are paying through the nose to feed, clothe and house individuals who pose a clear threat. If Andy Burnham took this seriously, he would deport this man at once.’

A court in Germany heard in 2020 that Yaseen was involved in bomb attacks that killed US troops in Iraq.

He also served as a security guard for Isis, including during at least two mass executions where the victims included children.

Yaseen was intercepted last December by Border Force. He gave officials a false name before routine biometric checks revealed his true identity.

At his trial at Winchester Crown Court, prosecutor Steven Molloy said Yaseen had a ‘deeper and lengthy involvement in terrorism and Islamic extremist ideology’.

It is understood that Yaseen was cleared to walk around town with an ankle tag and observe a 6pm to 6am curfew.

However these restrictions did not stop him going to Windsor Great Park or to the castle.

Yaseen grew up in western Iraq and became a member of Islamic State of Iraq, a franchise of Al Qaeda, aged just 16.

364 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

148

u/slamjam25 22h ago

If someone is supposed to be deported but can’t because their plane broke down, we’d keep them in immigration detention while the plane is getting repaired. If someone is supposed to be deported but can’t because the country is unsafe, we should keep them in immigration detention until it becomes safe. This works in places like Australia that do it.

53

u/crackedsmilecheek 20h ago

Speaking as an Australian, that’s not how they do it. If a person can’t be removed to the home country because it’s unsafe and there’s no likely prospect of that changing, they have to be released from detention

13

u/Crumbs2020 19h ago

Wait have you guys stopped putting people in concentration camps on Christmas island then?

-9

u/DestinyManifester 20h ago

That's genuinely insane

26

u/barejokez 19h ago

what's the alternative? imprison people forever without a court having found them guilty of anything?

you sure that's the world you want to live in?

12

u/Ok_Construction_1638 19h ago

Yeah they want people in concentration camps where they can't see them and don't want to think about them

-3

u/DestinyManifester 19h ago

Thanks for speaking for me, I really appreciate that. As a matter of fact, though, yeah, I really wouldn't give a shit if al-Qaeda members that "can't" be deported were in concentration camps

5

u/0i_Clean_Shirt 18h ago

So you are happy to live in a world where foreign people are given life sentences because their homes are unsafe without any kind of due course.

I get it may be a warranted level of revenge for this chap but that's a pretty messed up view to have about immigrants and immigration.

0

u/Sensitive-Talk9616 19h ago

They can just go home. Many go on vacation to their home country anyway, despite it being found too dangerous for deportation.

4

u/Norman_debris 19h ago

And many show up in AskBrits talking about "vacation".

1

u/DestinyManifester 19h ago

Well in the case of a terrorist, yeah, imprison them forever. "Oh no, we can't deport them so we need to release them" is crazy

2

u/barejokez 15h ago

hey, it sounds so simple, doesn't it? this guy is a bad hombre, right? so let's just lock him up. btw, i don't know the guy, but he doesn't sound like a nice chap to me.

trouble is, what crime has he committed? has he been found guilty by a judge or jury? he has terrorist connections according to the article, but then it should be trivial to charge him with something. let's do that, and let him suffer the consequences once found guilty of a crime.

"just bang him up forever!" is a great thing to suggest, but is hugely problematic. for a start, plenty of people who don't fit this guy's profile have been charged with terrorist related offences (think about the pensioners arrested for holding palestine action signs) - will they also be locked up forever, or just people you don't like the look of specifically?

It also suggests that we can just bypass the law and imprison people indefinitely without even proving that they did anything wrong. again, sounds great when the guy has ISIS on his CV, but i wonder how you would feel if you were given a life sentence with no opportunity to prove your innocence or appeal? that isn't how our system works (thankfully!).

it's so easy to assume that we will get this right, or that the power won't be abused. but we won't, and it will.

1

u/Samanthacino 12h ago

How long until someone claims you or someone you love has terrorist connections and locks you up in these concentration camps you want? After all, you say they need no trial! No need to be convicted of a crime, right? Just say “they have terrorist connections, lock them up for life”. It’s not like the government has been abusing what counts as a terrorist as of late!

9

u/luchito619 22h ago

I don't know about now since we closed our off shores detention center in Papa New Guinea, don't know if we got any here

36

u/No-Inspector8315 22h ago

Australia still has offshore processing on Nauru and Christmas Island for immigration detention Basically we give Nauru lots of money for them to give those deemed to be refugees visas for Nauru that explicitly won’t ever become citizenship pathways in the future. From there they can access some pathways to go to the US or New Zealand, or just back to their original home country or any of the safe countries around them.

Primary thing is if you illegally try to cross the border to get into Australia and you’re over the age of 18, not only will you never be able to get permanent residency, you will actually be effectively barred from ever visiting Australia in the future even with a tourist visa

10

u/Scarboroughwarning 20h ago

Sounds fantastic. Lord knows why we permit this nonsense

3

u/No-Inspector8315 20h ago

Largely because the UK is hamstrung by the ECHR and the fact that once someone gets onto British soil and claims asylum, it’s infinitely harder to find ways to get them off British soil.

The key is to find an intermediary nation or territory that is willing to host detention centres for a long time, having done some quick research obviously the Rwanda solution was floated as one but the crude example I could think of is the Isle of Man.

What Australia observed after utilising the navy (I mean why else have a world class navy like the UK with billions of dollars of tech if you’re not going to fight a war anytime soon?) and instituting the boat turn backs was a dramatic drop in initial boat numbers, and with further policies like encouraging Malaysian and Indonesian sailors to sell boats to the government instead of to people smugglers, the illegal crossings dropped to virtually zero. Then the left wing government got in charge, went “We fixed the problem! Let’s roll it back to save cash”, and the number of boats EXPLODED again. Luckily the next right wing government wasn’t dumb and instituted the same policy and after thirteen years of success it’s not really going to go away again.

The UK government is thinking of boat crossings as a crime like prostitution, wherein there will always exist a demand and always exist a supply of people willing to service that demand. They actually need to think about it as an enterprise like drugs. Alongside drug taking is a risk factor, a drug that is low risk, high demand and high supply is instant cash for criminals. By the UK arresting these gang leaders, all they’re doing is swapping around who gets rich, because the customer base still wants the product that has very little risk to it.

Turn back the boats and use offshore detention suddenly the risk goes super high, this ‘drug’ could result in you wasting three years of your life trying to get asylum to a nation that will always reject you or giving up and accepting the wasted money, time and lack of opportunities in the future to try somewhere else. If I gave you a joint and said “Hey, $100 for this, there’s a 95% chance it’s oregano, and btw it’s a magic oregano that if you smoke you won’t ever be able to smoke weed again. But there’s a 5% chance it’s weed!” Would you actually buy that drug off me?

Then when the demand has sunk because of the high risk, there’s no more customers to sell this supply to, meaning criminals turn back to more profitable industries like drug dealing and prostitution, which means if there are any customers who want this product they either have to try and find someone who is still offering it or give it a go themselves and that risk goes up to 99.99%.

1

u/Scarboroughwarning 16h ago

Beautifully put.

And I completely agree. It must stop.

1

u/section232mha 14h ago

That was explained very clearly

1

u/luchito619 20h ago

Nice thanks for the information, was wondering if we still got some or not

1

u/DaddyK3tchup 19h ago

This is the way

1

u/Crumbs2020 19h ago

Good do people seek asylum in australia? Or do you guys literally just not take in any asylum seekers?

3

u/No-Inspector8315 18h ago

You either go through the UNHCR, get proposed through the Australian offshore Refugee and Humanitarian program or simply physically enter Australia with a valid tourist or student visa and claim asylum.

When the war in Iran started, the Iranian women’s soccer team was playing in Sydney, and our diplomatic and legal team were able to separate the players from the coaches and bodyguards (Usually have direct connections to the regime and have the ability to say to players ‘You don’t leave this room or I call someone to kill your family’) and give them the opportunity to claim asylum if they wanted to.

Initially six did, but four of them chose not to and the remaining two are now Australian citizens with police protection

-13

u/Decent_Concern8751 21h ago

Is this supposed to be a flex?

6

u/lessormore59 20h ago

100% a massive flex. Elegant solution to a difficult problem.

2

u/No-Inspector8315 20h ago

All it requires is valuing your own citizens over other nations citizens and believing that if a person earnestly wants to make an attempt to come to Australia as a refugee, they will go through the proper channels instead of trying to skip the line

-2

u/Decent_Concern8751 20h ago edited 20h ago

But no international outcry like with ICE because aw kangaroos. And I suppose you support any strong country invading a weak country for their gain as long as it’s beneficial to the larger countries citizens?

0

u/No-Inspector8315 19h ago

Australia has faced massive international outcry from its border programs and offshore detention. Frequently the UN has condemned and issued declarations about the policies, you’re either too young or too uninformed to have heard anything about it.

There’s a big difference between deporting internal illegal immigrants and protecting your nations sovereign borders. Look at Ceuta in Spain, Spain is now suffering a dramatic crisis out of nowhere due to a massive influx of people to one small part of its territory.

Beneficence to the citizenry is the primary aspect of all government policy, the moment a government starts passing laws and policies that are designed to just benefit another country at no benefit to their own citizenry is when you are putting the cart before the horse. Take France for instance, France received dramatic condemnations from the world stage due to its nuclear program and French leadership simply said “We are taking the necessary actions for our countries future defence”.

Decades later, French nukes ensure that the nation will never be invaded and its nuclear technology has allowed its power plants to eliminate 80-90% of all their energy needs. It’s very possible to make great policy for your people that other countries don’t like

1

u/Decent_Concern8751 19h ago

Theres no practical or moral difference between deporting an immigrant who reaches the shore and intercepting one at sea. The result is identical. I do understand there is a legal difference

1

u/No-Inspector8315 18h ago

Allow me to clarify because in your first comment you made a comparison to ICE.

What ICE does is follow up tips from people about businesses that use illegal immigrant labour or people that are known to be illegals immigrants in the US, goes to them, arrests them and then sends them to an immigration detention centre to be sent back to their home country. It started under Obama and ran through Trump and Biden’s presidency.

America’s immigration system and problem is very different without going on a full diatribe, but long story short, America has to accept a certain amount of illegal immigration or illegal immigrants in the nation now, because otherwise industries like agriculture fall apart. Obama’s ICE was focused on disrupting cases of mass immigrant labour to the point of essentially running a slave plantation harvesting avocados or quinoa.

What Trump is doing with ICE is horrific, cutting all the due process quality checks and hiring the dumbest, most unqualified agents to go door to door sending people home. Most are illegal, some are criminals, but many are completely innocent or basically de facto citizens after having lived their for ten years or so.

You’re right on the legal side, imagine I’m on your property and ask for help. If you turn me away and then threaten me with a gun till I leave, you’re probably going to struggle to find people that will agree with me and back me.

But if you ‘let me in’ and after five minutes you kick me out, I can argue a lot more legally in terms of things like moral or civil distress. I still probably won’t get to stay in your house, but it will still look pretty bad for you when drawn out

-1

u/Decent_Concern8751 20h ago

Concentration camps are an elegant solution?

2

u/No-Inspector8315 19h ago

Is it a concentration camp if you had the ability to apply for refugee status or claim asylum legally from a safe country, but chose to ignore the hundreds of millions costing campaigns that communicate to all surrounding and neighbouring countries that any attempts to enter Australia will fail and result in you being blacklisted, and then you still choose to pay a criminal organisation or try to cross one of the worlds most dangerous oceans to commit a crime, and then still get caught?

Or does that sound more like you’re being put in a prison for trying to violate a clearly communicated, established law? I struggle to remember which Nazi concentration camp gave Jewish prisoners lawyers and access to human rights orgs to help them get the ball rolling on third party citizenship to other nations that would accept them, was that Dachau or Ravensbruck?

1

u/Decent_Concern8751 19h ago

Trying to reach a border to claim refugee status by any means is not illegal under international law

1

u/No-Inspector8315 18h ago

Not under international law but under Australian law it is. Under domestic laws trying to illegally enter Australia makes someone an “unlawful non-citizen” which subjects them to administrative actions like mandatory immigration detention, without charging the person with a criminal act.

It’s not pretty, but there are plenty of other nations who have policies that violate international law

1

u/luchito619 20h ago

Are you for or against since you brought up ICE in another comment?

-4

u/Decent_Concern8751 20h ago

Against, it is fucking disgusting. And yet aussies constantly try to claim a moral high ground

1

u/luchito619 19h ago

I see what is your idea to process people into the country and do the checks and such, what's the best way to do that?

1

u/lessormore59 19h ago

Creates a strong deterrent to illegal breaking and entering. What is the reason ppl make the voyage to Australia? Better life, money, job etc. It’s a dangerous trip, traveling across the ocean.

If the people who would try to make that voyage and risk their lives, know that the Aussies are going to plop you in Nauru before sending you home and blacklisting you from ever entering Australia even legally, it’s a massive disincentive to even try.

It’s why illegal crossings almost immediately dried up post-Trump’s election. Regardless of facts on the ground, ppl from all over the world had the idea that Biden would go easy on them, and that Trump would send them home immediately or leave them stuck in Mexico indefinitely. Perception is massive.

6

u/No-Inspector8315 20h ago

No it’s an explanation of Australian border policy. For some shocking reason Australia has actually maintained a great rate of boat interceptions.

Want to guess how many boats have gotten past navy patrols in the last ten years? Try and wrack your brain.

Current number is 49 boats, carrying 1,149 people. The UK managed 20,935 people between January and October of this year, and that’s a 43% decrease from last year.

Heads up people, if you want this to end, write to all your MP’s and representatives and get them to start consulting with Australia about creating the UK’s own border defence program

-2

u/Decent_Concern8751 20h ago

I love all the posts about what a kind and progressive society Australia is, how enlightened compared to similar places, then people brag about inhumane shit like this

2

u/No-Inspector8315 19h ago

Whoever tells you that Australia is a kind and progressive society is spinning you a web. It’s a nation founded on extermination of the native peoples and a literal ‘White Australia’ Immigration policy from the 1910’s to 1970’s (With a helping dose of xenophobic anti Asian attitudes and kidnapping indigenous children for residential schools). Australia narrowly in the 60’s defeated a referendum to ban the national communist party.

Australia is a propositional nation like America based on the idea that if you keep to yourself and don’t push your religion, ethnic conflict or political creed onto anyone else, you can have a relaxed, happy life. It’s why it is a top destination for refugees and asylum seekers, because there are large ethnic communities from groups all around the world that people can find new connections and opportunities with.

But if there’s one thing Australians know well it’s the ocean. You know how the English Channel is calm at times and then gets really choppy with surging tides and currents out of nowhere? Well the entirety of Australia is surrounded by this thing called the Pacific Ocean, which is that ocean pattern all the time. Unlike the channel, where you have two safe nations on either side and one big stretch of water to search, searching not just Australia’s northern coastline but further into the Pacific between Indonesia and Australia for lost boats in distress is like if asked you to find me any favourite felt tip pen that I dropped in an alleyway in Manchester.

It’s made even worse by the fact that people smugglers boats were patchwork darlings made out of whatever corrugated iron junkers or wooden dinghy shit boxes that refugees paid $10,000 a seat for. The smugglers didn’t give a shit when a storm hit the Pacific and the boat sank, killing everybody, they already banked the cash. Most people who explored the idea of trying to cross into Australia wisely understood the dangers of doing so, meaning the people that were crossing were the most desperate, most willing to ignore the risks and most willing to try whatever they could to cross the ocean. The worst ever disaster was called the SIEV-X disaster when an Indonesian vessel that was carrying too many people sank, and 353 people died including 146 children.

Since 2000, 2,000 people were estimated to have died at sea or gone missing in Australia, we instituted harsh policies in 2003, then loosened them in 2009, then went forward with Operation Sovreign Borders in 2013.

By comparison, they only started recording data on deaths from crossing the Mediterranean in 2014. From 2014-2026, there have been 28,000 reported deaths or disappearances from people trying to cross the Mediterranean.

Comparing the death rates of Channel crossings to Pacific crossings is an interesting detail, the English Channel has an illegal boat crossing death rate of 1 in 830 people. Indo-Australian illegal boat crossings has a death rate of 1 in 40.

You can call it inhumane if you like, but it actually saved a dramatic amount of lives and has led to more overall good

2

u/lessormore59 19h ago

Key point about the absolute humanitarian good that strong border control gives. Migration is an inherently risky business and in both SE Asia and Central America, the ppl facilitating the migration are predatory assholes. Proper disincentives for migration are key to starving said criminal enterprises of bodies and cash.

3

u/No-Inspector8315 16h ago

I hate when people say things like “People smuggler” (even though I believe I’ve said it a few times) as the term really should human trafficker. Trafficking involves a lot more than just non consensual trafficking of sex slaves, and smuggling migrants under the promise of getting them asylum in different countries is an example of that.

Let’s talk drugs. Imagine I sell coke for a living and 1/3 bags I sell has enough fentanyl mixed in to kill someone. People will talk and pretty soon I’m not going to be selling coke that well due to bad rep.

Problem is, people buy coke to have a good time, not because they think it will change their whole life and save them and their family. If I reported a 1/3 (reported lol but let’s pretend) success rate as a human trafficker, there would still be plenty of people for me to sell my services to who would tally it up and decide it’s worth the risk. Except that’s not what I’m going to do because there’s no board of standards for what I do. I’m going to tell every prospective customer that I’m the best in the business and make up every time I was successful while passing my hand out for the cash.

Human traffickers are also reported to do some truly vile and disgusting things, robbing people along the way for their valuables, demanding their passports and paperwork as blackmail so when they arrive and are forced to work in a factory or a brothel as a slave, they have no way of proving who they are. As it relates to border crossings, rapes of women and children, even mid journey have been reported as an additional charge made up by the traffickers.

Most horrific of them all is what happens when it looks like they’re going to get caught. Most crossings by ocean they just send them out for good hope because they’ve already been paid, jamming as many people as possible into rafts unable to hold that money because each additional person means $10,000.

Then when the authorities come, they turn tail and run, leaving innocent people in some of the most horrific situations possible

In 2022, a trafficker locked 66 migrants in an airtight steel trailer in the sweltering Texas sun. 53 of them died, and many of those who died left claw marks on the inside of the trailer begging to be let out

In 2019, 39 Vietnamese nationals froze to death in a sealed trailer in Essex, including ten teenagers.

I already mentioned the incident where the overloaded fishing boat sank, but in 2010 a literal wooden raft carrying 90 asylum seekers smashed against the rocks of Christmas Island, 48 of them died.

Human traffickers are scum and policies that treat border crossings like “Just a fact of life we have to get used to” are putting money in their pockets

1

u/Decent_Concern8751 19h ago

I do think it is inhumane but broadly I agree with you - the ethos in the us and AUS is very similar. The only reason Australia isnt an international bully / nightmare is because they don’t have the manpower or geographic location for it

1

u/TripleMellowed 22h ago

There is one in Scotland a town over from my parents.

19

u/PA2SK 22h ago

Or in the US they do third country deportations now. One group of deportees was sent to Eswatini despite them not having any connections to that country at all: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-allows-trumps-third-country-deportation-policy-rcna599724

-2

u/Extreme_Yesterday_93 22h ago

Sounds like a plan.

-11

u/Northwindlowlander 22h ago

Sure, but third party deportations are evil. I mean let's not fuck about here, sending people to nations they've never been to, know nobody, have no connections and often don't even speak the language, it's fucked. Especially since the nations that they chose, and that are willing to do it, are going to do absolutely nothing for them

We don't send people back to places they'll be mistreated, let's not do it ourselves.

26

u/being-a-noob 22h ago

Aww the terrorist is gonna get mistreated womp womp

29

u/slamjam25 22h ago

He has no connection to the UK either and yet is perfectly happy to be here.

31

u/billbarrett 21h ago

Such a shame when terrorists that kill children get sent somewhere “unsafe”

13

u/Strict_Reputation867 21h ago

Another unfortunate consequence is that more terrorists don't want to come to your country when you have such strict laws.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 4h ago

OK I've posted this a couple of times but- the US has deported 25000 people to 3rd party countries and most of them have never been found guilty of any crime. Most have never even been credibly accused of a crime other than civil immigration offences. Sending them to a 3rd country is just a way to destroy them, but out of sight so we can pretend it wasn't us.

Unlike all those poor bastards, terrorists have networks. If you send an al queda member to a third country, they just vanish from the security serviceses control and radar and then reappear after they've been involved in some other atrocity. It's catch-and-release fishing. So ironically these terrorists get helped by it while the least offensive of people get destroyed.

I'm not sure why "let's just basically let terrorists go" is controversial, any more than "let's just ruin people's lives who've done very little wrong". And the exact same single bad idea does both of these things. This dude is under supervision, he's electronically monitored so we know where he is and what he's doing. I'd sooner he was in jail but of the three options "jail awaiting trial" "monitored bail awaiting trial" and "send him somewhere and lose him" it's obvious what's worst.

27

u/Organic_Lab6262 22h ago

Aren’t most of these people immigrating to countries that they’ve never been to, know nobody, have no connections, or speak the language anyways? That’s basically cancels out that argument for you.

-15

u/Ordinary-Care-5867 21h ago

Not really. My girlfriend was dragged to the uk 10 year ago by her mother who was coming here to be a nurse and she hated every second and wanted to leave, to this day she feels lost and not at home.

You’re suggesting that sending her to snother country against her will for being born in Croatia wouldn’t affect her simply because she’s been through it before? Oh great! I’ll tell all the rape victims not to worry about getting raped agin 👍👍👍👍

-14

u/Successful-Yak-5537 21h ago

Aren’t most of these people immigrating to countries that they’ve never been to, know nobody, have no connections, or speak the language anyways?

No, that isn't the case at all. Not even for migrants crossing in small boats.

8

u/banzighug 21h ago

Why do you care about the wellbeing of these animals?

1

u/Northwindlowlander 9h ago edited 9h ago

"Animals"- the US has deported 25000 people to third party countries and most have never even been accused of any criminal offence, let alone convicted. Many are guilty of nothing more serious than overstaying, or working while on a visa that doesn't allow working (you know, the same offence that Melania Trump committed)

Meanwhile, actual terrorists? Let's not just send them off somewhere out of our control and then let them go, I hope I don't need to tell anyone how stupid that is.

That's the other half of this madness- normal people get cast adrift, no support, no chance, it's a way to destroy people. But terrorists have networks, they'll be straight back in the game and we won't have the slightest idea where they went til their next atrocity.

Like, I don't think we should be ruining people's lives like this especially for so little and I don't think we should be sending people to countries we tell our own population are unsafe to visit, and I don't think we should be getting in bed with corrupt oppressive governments.

But at the same time I also think we shouldn't be basically catch-and-release fishing terrorists so they can go back in their pond and do it again. And I don't get why anyone would think that's a good idea?

Meanwhile, this guy should be in jail as far as I'm concerned but instead he's on bail but we at least are tracking him, that's weak as piss but it's stiill better than just sending him off on a new adventure.

1

u/banzighug 8h ago

Then we need to bring back capital punishment, or build an enormous prison on a far flung island in the Hebrides, no prison guards, just endless encirclements of barbed wire and electric fences powered by wind turbines, and a couple of drone boats patrolling the shores who shoot anyone coming in or out unless specifically programmed not to (to allow new prisoners in), no interactions, just robots controlling the gruel from tubes they are served three times a day, all in isolation, pre fabricated cells, stacked on top of each other, tens of thousands of them, no books, no TV, no music, just nothing, and they simply exist in this horrific dystopian cage until they all perish.

One single startup cost to build the thing and then it's set and forget. You murder someone, in you go. You commit a terrorist attack. In you go. You come here illegally. In you go. You overstay your visa. In you go.

You are late for an appointment. In you go. You undercook fish. In you go. You overcook chicken. Believe it or not. In you go.

Watch how fucking fast people start behaving again when there's a real consequence to an action.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 4h ago

This guy's out on bail, we don't need to change anything, the existing system could have just kept him inside til his actual trial

9

u/PA2SK 22h ago

Well the countries they send them to agree not to mistreat them. They aren't US citizens, they have no legal right to be in the US. If another country is willing to take them for a price and not mistreat them I don't see what the issue is really.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 9h ago

There's no meaningful protections. Cecot is your perfect example, people accused of trivial crimes none of which have been proved get sent there

-11

u/kingsuperfox 22h ago

Then you have a big moral blind spot.

11

u/Agile-Candle-626 21h ago

Interesting take saying a guy complicit in child murder deserves our sympathy. Something's are inexcusable. If he was a member of ISIS then there is a none 0% chance he'll do something similar again

-6

u/kingsuperfox 21h ago

Who's take is that?

0

u/Agile-Candle-626 21h ago

Replied to the wrong post

2

u/PA2SK 22h ago

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm entitled to mine. Cheers.

3

u/BuzzVibes 21h ago

I don't give a fuck at this point.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 4h ago

And that's a shame. I hope you get better

1

u/BuzzVibes 4h ago

And I hope you do too. Suicidal empathy is an unfortunate condition.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 2h ago

Nothing suicidal about not wanting to destroy humans for little gain, and even less suicidal about thinking we should <jail> terrorists instead of doing catch-and-release like they were fish and sending them back out into the world.

Like, do you not get this? I'm not sure how anyone can not get this. If instead of putting them through the proper judicial processes you instead just deport a terrorist to some third country, they are free to hook up again with the network. If you <investigate them> and if proven guilty jail them, they can't do any more atrocities.

And that's the weirdest thing of all about this idea. It'll utterly destroy the lives of people who've done very little wrong. And it'll help terrorists.

But it may apparently make some people hard so I guess there's that.

1

u/BuzzVibes 2h ago

You know what we used to do to people who invaded our countries? Kill them. Sending them away is the merciful option. We shouldn't be paying to house these people in prison, nor to investigate them.

3

u/reckless-rogboy 20h ago

Seeing as you care so much about Yasmeen, maybe you could put him up in your house? You would be able to treat him with the tender care you feel he is entitled to - just think of all the virtue you could signal.

1

u/Northwindlowlander 9h ago

I don't give a shit about him, he should be in jail. But we're not just talking about him. The US has been exporting people wholesale to 3rd countries, 25000 so far, and many of them have never been accused of anything except immigration offences. Fewer still have been convicted of anything.

Meanwhile, you want to deport actual terrorists? Just send them to another country and let them go? That's... not smart.

3

u/MrSoapbox 16h ago

I could not care less if their country is unsafe. They are unsafe. They broke the contract by committing crimes, that should automatically remove any responsibility on our part. Without this, it sends the message that they can do what they want and we'll continue to fund their lifestyle.

If their country was really that scary, they'd think twice.

It's time we sent them back. I don't care what happens to them, I care what happens to my countries citizens.

2

u/_ahrs 21h ago

I'm not sure that helps with the costs much though. It'd still probably cost a lot to keep him in immigration detention (although maybe not the quoted ÂŁ85,000 since you aren't paying for accommodation).

Also, do we even have room in the immigration detention? The whole "Housing migrants in hotels" thing happened precisely because we don't have the capacity to keep them detained so they have to be moved elsewhere.

The only way to solve this is to somehow build larger facilities that can handle the massive amount of people arriving at this country.

-3

u/Mesiya90 21h ago

Presumably this is the great and virtuous Human Rights Act striking again?

-4

u/slamjam25 21h ago

It says “human rights” right there in the name, don’t you know that makes you a fascist if you disagree with it?

2

u/jkthruglass 19h ago

"But I didn't mean for you to take away MY human rights"

1

u/slamjam25 12h ago

I’m entirely fine to sign away my “human right” to not be extradited to a country where I’ve committed acts of terrorism to be prosecuted.

0

u/PsychologicalBend508 Brit 🇬🇧 20h ago

"Some ideas are so stupid only intellectuals believe them."