Where is it stated that it is a human right to stay in a country where one is neither a citizen nor recognized as a refugee?
Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7. All are equal before the law and are entitled to equal protection of the law. Article 8. Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. It doesn't say directly, however, all humans have the right to be reckoned a person, be protected by the law and so on. Tourists who break the law are subject to the laws of the country in which they commit the crime. Normally that country will prosecute and imprison according to their specific laws and then expel after served sentence. That is the usual praxis in civilised nations. However, if their is a risk that the convicted felon will be subjected to anything that violate the UDHR or other International Conventions/Laws, they are usually not expelled back to their country of origin.
I guess this is the issue here - can a state expell undesired foreigners who are not recognized as refugees ? And does such expelling require a court decision or can it be done administratively ?
"Aministratively" does have the ring of "abitrary" to it, which for me is the hinge on which this hangs. Naturally, if someone has committed a crime, s/he may be expelled, but only AFTER due judicial process is completed and there is a legal conviction according to the laws of the contry in which the crime was comitted, and then only if the convicted does not run the risk of double jeopardy or other abuses of their human rights, such as torture, illegal imprisonment etc. ALL people have the absolute rights set forth in the UDHR. I suspect that planning a murder is a crime in Denmark, now if the would be assassins can be convicted on that charge, wouldn't the cartoonists rights be protected? And wouldn't throwing the criminals in Danish jail protect the criminals basic rights of a fair trial and not risking torture etc?
Same thing in Spain - if they view the Marrocan as a threat, but can't (or won't*) take him to court, how can they in your opinion then protect the rights of the Spanish citizens ? *They might actually have the neccesary evidence for a conviction, but taking it to court would get the source of the information killed - wouldn't that be a violation of the sources rights ? You might very well end up in a situation where ANY decision (including the decision to do nothing) will violate someones human rights.
I can't see any reason not to try and convict where the crime is committed. Other than a sense of wanting to exact extrraordinary punishment. Laws are not for that. That is not Justice. That Revenge. Not to try and convict where the crime is committed is not good Law. As for the sources - how about protecting the source? Isn't that protecting their rights? Most countries have some sort of witness protection program... I honestly don't see the problem, Carl, unless we are speaking about REVENGE and not Law and Human Rights.SoB
Hi Carl, Specifically with Farid Hilalis case, the issue is that Spain requested him on extradition based upon an erroneous charge ( please see the campaign pack for details produced by Helptheprisoners ) , and then when extradited do not charge him with that, but instead with a completely unrelated one. This is the issue - a breach of the rule of law. Anything else for the time being is superfluous, as he should not even be in Spain in the first place as he was sent there illegally.
Ok back to the specific situation in spain. Where is it stated that it is a human right to stay in a country where one is neither a citizen nor recognized as a refugee ? I guess this is the issue here - can a state expell undesired foreigners who are not recognized as refugees ? And does such expelling require a court decision or can it be done administratively ? We have a similar case here in Denmark, where the police intelligence service detected an assasination attempt against a Danish cartoon artist in the planning stage. Since they judged they couldn't predict when the attempt was to take place they decided to intervene before having enough evidence for a court conviction for any crime. Two of the would be assasins were Tunesian citizens, who were categorized as threats to the Danish state and it was decided to expell them to Tunesia administratively (the third - a Danish citizen couldn't be expelled). Now if the cartonist has an absolute right to the rights mentioned in the 30 articles, then how are we supposed to enforce them if we can't convict the threats for any crime and can't throw them out of the country ? If your answer is "nothing" then aren't you denying the cartonist his rights ? Same thing in Spain - if they view the Marrocan as a threat, but can't (or won't*) take him to court, how can they in your opinion then protect the rights of the Spanish citizens ? * They might actually have the neccesary evidence for a conviction, but taking it to court would get the source of the information killed - wouldn't that be a violation of the sources rights ? You might very well end up in a situation where ANY decision (including the decision to do nothing) will violate someones human rights.
Well said, However this looks like a very interesting topic which I would like to hear alternative views on, so I may well initiate a debate on another topic..."what is the war on terror"? Regards, Umar
If we are not at war, then what are Sweedish and Danish Troops doing in Afganistan ? Ok the Sweedes are staying in the relatively safe north, while the Danes (some of which happen to be friends of mine) are at the pointy end down south, but you are in Afganistan.
When young people are sent of to fight for our freedom and several of them are killed or maimed in the process, how can we then call it anything but war ?
I'd just like to pick up on the comment "we are at war".
I would disagree with this, even though many seem to have entered a war mentality of the "vietnam" type, in that war crimes are somehow justified in order to stop the threat of an evil menace.
However, what is a "war on terror"? Surely terrorism is a method, not an army, state, or ideology? In the phrase "War on terror", does this not just give carte blanche to anyone to go and attack whoever they want on the basis they are spreading "terror" ? This is preposterous, this is exactly what Al-Qaeda, etc may well say in their own statements and twisted justification surely?
I accept that in any forum there will be disagreement and you have a right to disagree with me. In fact, I'll fight for your right to do so.
Having said that, I do not believe in 'terrorism'. 9/11 was a vicious act of murder by radical fruitcakes but instead of hunting them down with the aid of Islamic moderates throughout the world and aiding the Islamic communities to class these murderers as an offence to Allah, we fed the ranks of terror by attacking Islam and Islamic targets.
My fear is not that I will get blown up by a bomb - I have more chance from dying from beestings. My fear is that forums such as these will be classed as 'aiding the enemy' and I'll disappear into some dark cell.
If this is a war, then what is the strategy? Will the signing of peace terms be in Geneva or New York? Who will sign for the enemy? What are their grievances that led them to war? Do we care?
To often I've heard the excuse that rendition and torture are necessarry to gain information to prevent another attack. The "I'd do it to locate a ticking bomb" argument. My answer to this is "yes you would but we wouldn't here about it." It would come under the same 'silence' as the millions of doctors who end the lives of newborn 'vegetables' and we turn a blind eye.
The problem is that out of the the thousands of renditions, it hasn't been to find a ticking bomb but to get 'names' from a growing sea of discontent - a hatred that grows with each kidnapping.
It happened before. The idea that a majority in America, Australia, or the rest of the Western world would want to be 'equal with factory workers' and adopt communism should have stayed on the funny pages - it was a joke and McCarthy should have been laughed out of office. We didn't need propaganda to see that the communist nations weren't communist at all but totalitarian regimes. But, we embraced the 'War on Communism'.
I ask people to consider that they are being conned again. Islam is here to stay and the average Musim is more concerned about his daughter's wedding than whether Western women wear revealing clothes or not. This is a problem where fundamentalists in all religions and political spheres are gaining power and the solution is to aid the moderates to maintain their majority and to return balance, harmony and stability.
Are We? I haven't noticed. What I have noticed is that some leaders of the world have used certain events as an excuse to go on a warmongering rampage around the world, clearly in violation of the wishes of the International Community and International Laws.
What about the rights of the Spanish people to defend themselves?
Defending oneself is one thing, violating another's human rights while doing so is quite another.
Aren't you violating article 30 if you refuse the Spanish to enforce their rights based on the convention ?
No. The convention is there to guarantee ALL people's human rights. The Spanish must find a way to enforce their defence that does not violate the articles in the convention.
Basically all they have to do, to do that, is try Farid Hilali fairly in a court of law and apply whatever laws they have that does not violate any of the articles in the UDHR.
This is being done all the time all over the world, so why couldn't the Spanish do this?
What about the rights of the Spanish people to defend themselves ? Aren't you violating article 30 if you refuse the Spanish to enforce their rights based on the convention ?
When our intelligence services get information about pending attacks, do you the really demand that they wait until the enemy executes the attack in order to take it through the courts, rather than prevent the attacks before enough evidence for convictions are gathered.
And do you demand that the intelligence services must reveal their information to the public, thus risking the lives of their sources and destroying their ability to prevent further attacks ?
We ARE at war you know.
It really doesn't matter what connections this guy has - Farid Hilali has rights, one of them is NOT to be subjected to torture according to Article 5 of the UDHR:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
If there is the slightest risk that he will have his human rights violated, protecting him is an ethical, moral and human obligation. His alleged crimes has no bearing on this whatsoever.
This post was modified from its original form on 25 Feb, 4:37
We must uphold the rule of law. Innocent until proven guilty and any use of legal corner cutting cannot be supported.
I signed this petition not because of what Hilali may or may not believe or because of what or who he may or may not be but because of what I believe and who I am.
Im afraid I strongly disagree with your statement that there are "al-qaida connections", presenting a neocon site as evidence.
The "evidence", if one can call it that, is an alleged phonecall between a gentleman named "shakur" and Imad Yarkas. The Spanish government have never presented this alleged phonecall to the court, and have never proven that Farid Hilali is Shakur. There is doubt that the phonecall even exists, as no charges have been brought relating to this phonecall and it has never been heard by a court.
If you read the campaign packs and other material available, you will see that this whole case is a miscarriage of justice.
I cannot - in all good conscience - sign this petition. This individual has al-Quida connections.
If you could find some time to forward this, I would be more than grateful. Many thanks! Eleanor
Please consider signing this petition to free Farid Hilali.
REGARDING THIS EXTRACT FROM THE ALERT IN THIS POST:
This was in spite of a number of irregularities with the warrant, not least that it was reliant upon phone evidence that had previously been deemed inadmissible within the Spanish judicial system.
BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW THROUGHOUT EUROPE... A CRIME CANNOT BE DEAMED SO,
OR EVIDENCE USED TOWARDS SUCH,
IN ANY LEGAL MATTER,
UNLESS THE PROOFS ARE PROVIDED FROM THE DATE THE NEW LAW IS ESTABLISHED...
THIS LEGAL TECHNICALITY CAN SERVE TO RELEASE ANY DEFENDANT!
Take a look at this Share:
hi, i am from the uk...i am against the new extradition laws and terrorism laws that have entered the uk...i think they are not just hasty and basic retaliation but also and more importantly, that they disseminate any form of justice that the british nation has been build on and fabricated with...
these new laws are not only suspectly open to corruption and abuse but have already been proved to be very open wide to both...secret flights, arrests, tortures and so on...all of these contravene established british and european law...
they are also the main reasons that other european and international communities oppose sending troops to support any war involving these measures...
i am interested as it is america that is pushing and pursuing these laws more than any other country and there are a lot of americans in this group and would love their feedback...
do any members have input that they can contribute on the aspects of progressive measures in both peace and war?
regarding the global and national treaties and agreements that are supposed to serve security and humanity...why is america so far behind on issues like torture and humane intervention, in comparison to some other nations that are having there evolved laws depleted?