The strange case of undesirable terrorists that cannot be deported

antocya

Ad Honorem
May 2012
5,744
Iraq
#12
We have one in Norway too - Mullah Krekar. He's not been tied to any terrorist acts, but he was an Islamist Kurd militia leader and the Norwegian Government has tried to get him out of the country for ages. Just like in the case mantioned above, he can't be expelled because he risks the death penalty in Iraq. Ir's a legal and ethical problem.
He’s a funny one. He’s made numerous threats against people including in Norway but is living in asylum there.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,899
Korea
#13
Is it fair that the population at large has to

1- foot the bill
2- be put at risk ?
It is fair that the population at large must do that, because the population at large both votes in the governments that pass such legislation, and tolerates the judiciary that enforces such norms.

If the people of Europe are collectively unhappy with these norms, then they need to rise up against them, not passively in private thoughts, but vigorously and in massive numbers. They need to push for legal changes, or even if need be alterations to their constitutions, to recalibrate their country's handling of such matters. If they are not willing to do so, then they essentially consent to the status quo. I can very much understand the desire to simply live one's own life without concern for such matters; I am an apolitical individual myself. Yet my choice to be apolitical means that it is very difficult for me to cry, "Oh, it's not fair," when I am faced with an outcome that may seem sub-optimal to me, since if even I myself am not willing to avail myself of the means of remedy available to me, how can I expect others to make efforts to remedy the situation for me, such that the lack of remedy is "unfair?" The people of Europe at large seem to have a particular conception of ethics which, if taken to its logical conclusion, results in these cases which draw complaint. So long as that conception of ethics persists -- so long as Europeans think in terms of "human rights" on an individual scale, really -- you're going to have results like this, because once you say something like, "No one should be tortured, ever," or, "The death penalty is never admissible," then saving people from potential torture or execution becomes an imperative. How can it be "unfair" for a populace to face the logical consequences of its own beliefs and ideals?

If anything, Europe has probably been shielded from facing the full brunt of those logical consequences through petty hypocrisy (e.g. purporting to accept refugees and asylum seekers while simultaneously acting to limit ingress in practical terms) and the actions of parties the E.U. seems to deem as implicitly deem to be "rogue actors" (e.g. countries like Italy beginning to refuse to accept more refugees from the sea, or the Hungarians engaging in serious border protection). Sweden might be an exception; their relatively low population and willingness to welcome refugees means that on a per capita basis, they've probably felt the "full brunt," and if they're collectively fine with it, then so be it.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,108
#14
It is fair that the population at large must do that, because the population at large both votes in the governments that pass such legislation, and tolerates the judiciary that enforces such norms.

If the people of Europe are collectively unhappy with these norms, then they need to rise up against them, not passively in private thoughts, but vigorously and in massive numbers. They need to push for legal changes, or even if need be alterations to their constitutions, to recalibrate their country's handling of such matters. If they are not willing to do so, then they essentially consent to the status quo. I can very much understand the desire to simply live one's own life without concern for such matters; I am an apolitical individual myself. Yet my choice to be apolitical means that it is very difficult for me to cry, "Oh, it's not fair," when I am faced with an outcome that may seem sub-optimal to me, since if even I myself am not willing to avail myself of the means of remedy available to me, how can I expect others to make efforts to remedy the situation for me, such that the lack of remedy is "unfair?" The people of Europe at large seem to have a particular conception of ethics which, if taken to its logical conclusion, results in these cases which draw complaint. So long as that conception of ethics persists -- so long as Europeans think in terms of "human rights" on an individual scale, really -- you're going to have results like this, because once you say something like, "No one should be tortured, ever," or, "The death penalty is never admissible," then saving people from potential torture or execution becomes an imperative. How can it be "unfair" for a populace to face the logical consequences of its own beliefs and ideals?

If anything, Europe has probably been shielded from facing the full brunt of those logical consequences through petty hypocrisy (e.g. purporting to accept refugees and asylum seekers while simultaneously acting to limit ingress in practical terms) and the actions of parties the E.U. seems to deem as implicitly deem to be "rogue actors" (e.g. countries like Italy beginning to refuse to accept more refugees from the sea, or the Hungarians engaging in serious border protection). Sweden might be an exception; their relatively low population and willingness to welcome refugees means that on a per capita basis, they've probably felt the "full brunt," and if they're collectively fine with it, then so be it.
Its not that simple, its the problem of representative democracy.... (which is one of the things the gilet jaunes in France are demonstrating against)

In a rep democracy you vote based on a limited platform (that has maybe a dozen items) for a candidate or a party. But that platform never covers all possible issues (that is just not possible)... For example in their respective countries people nevr actually voted for the war in Iraq or in Libya....

Since the above topic is not the most important its hard to find a candidate that will be aligned with voters opinions on evertything else that is more important AND this... Between a candidate that promises to -say- decrease taxes and unemployement and one who does not but addresse this issues, who are people going to vote for ?

But really this seems more like a common sense issue, so it should really not need to be part of a platform... It is assume that whoever is elected will exercise common sense... unfortunately they do not or at least not on all issues
For example another lack of common sense law in several european countries is protection for squatters.... In extreme cases, you go on vacation, soneone occupies your house/appartment and it will take about 2 years to have them expelled.... Where YOU live in the meantime is no one's problem (presumably you are expected to break into soneone else's home)
 

Grimald

Ad Honorem
Nov 2011
5,892
Hercynian Forest
#15
The problem discussed here is very relevant - and I think almost every Western country has made experiences in that matter.

In Germany, we even had a problem that can only be described as grotesque: A well-known islamist from Tunisia who served as bodyguard for Osama bin Laden and was assessed as at risk of planning and executing terrorist attacks could not be deported for a very long time, that is from the time the investigation started in 2006 until 2018. Instead, he lived with his family on social welfare.

When he was finally deported to Tunisia, the authorities made a mistake and did not wait for the decision of a court, and so the court actually ordered the islamist to be brought back to Germany. This move was supported by the UNHCR, which saw it as evidence for the rule of law in Germany.

For several reasons, this fortunately did not occur. However, there are still hundreds of thousands of people in Germany who have no residence permit, but cannot be deported, and of these hundreds of thousands, several thousands are common criminals or considered islamist threats.

The reason for not deporting them are varied, e.g. the country of origin is not known and/ or the country of origin refuses to prepare documents for its citizen, or the deportee could face punishment in his country of origin that would not be consistent with the rule of law in Germany (e.g. torture or the death penalty), or the country of origin is not considered safe and therefore no deportations are possible at all (e.g. Syria).

Ironically, there are even cases of people who claim to have committed crimes (e.g. acts of terrorism) in order to avoid deportation from Germany, since as terrorist suspects, they may face torture or death in their country of origin.

Ultimately, we pay a price for the rule of law that may be very high. On the other hand, should we do away with the rule of law in specific cases, thus maybe proceeding to a slippery slope that in the end could endanger the rights of every citizen?
 
Likes: tomar

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,899
Korea
#16
Its not that simple, its the problem of representative democracy.... (which is one of the things the gilet jaunes in France are demonstrating against)

In a rep democracy you vote based on a limited platform (that has maybe a dozen items) for a candidate or a party. But that platform never covers all possible issues (that is just not possible)... For example in their respective countries people nevr actually voted for the war in Iraq or in Libya....

Since the above topic is not the most important its hard to find a candidate that will be aligned with voters opinions on evertything else that is more important AND this... Between a candidate that promises to -say- decrease taxes and unemployement and one who does not but addresse this issues, who are people going to vote for ?
I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, using France as an example, Marie Le Penn was on the ticket, and she lost; France had its opportunity to choose her and shift more in the direction of resolving the issues you're describing, and chose not to do so. If the people of a country vote for someone based on a set of promises and then those promises go unfulfilled despite being achievable, then perhaps that could be fairly called betrayal, but they voted for Macron, so they got Macron. By contrast, the Hungarians voted in Victor Orban (despite what seems like the entire western world trying to convince them not to do so), so they got Orban, and Orban is taking the issues you describe seriously enough. I don't want to minimize the problem you're describing; representative politics have some real flaws. But on a broad scale, most of the electorate in the countries where the issues you describe exist seem to be somewhere between apathetic regarding and supportive of the general principles which cause them to exist, which means that even if they occasionally dislike the particular outcomes, they're ill-situated to do anything about it, as the moment a Marie Le Penn or Victor Orban comes along saying, "I agree that this is a problem, so let's fix it by amending our principles," the electorate says, "Go to Hell, racist/sexist/islamophobe/whateverist," and rejects them. Contrast this with Israel, where they built up an effective border wall and take serious action against what Europeans call "refugees and asylum seekers," but Israelis call "illegal infiltrators," deport them if possible, and lock them up until they accept money for leaving if not possible. Why does representative politics produce this result in Israel (or South Korea, or Japan, or so forth) but not in Western Europe? Probably because it's actually functioning to a reasonable extent.

But really this seems more like a common sense issue, so it should really not need to be part of a platform...
"Common sense" doesn't mean anything on a national political scale, though. When I was young, anyone would have said it was "common sense" that marriage was a heterosexual institution, for example, while now it's increasingly "common sense" that it's not. Quite a while before I was born, it was "common sense" that women couldn't be entrusted with the vote; now, it's "common sense" that voting not be based upon sex. Once, it was "common sense" that enemies could be tortured or killed; now, it's "common sense" that such prisoners be treated humanely and provided at least some measure of legal recourse, medical care, and the like. We could go on and on: "common sense" is a fiction to justify the status quo. That's not to say that I disagree with you that deporting deportable criminals makes sense. I saw an article the other day, for example, in which the Swedish Supreme Court blocked the deportation of an alien rapist simply because he had lived in Sweden for a reasonably long time, and "there should be a point where a foreigner has the right to feel secure in Sweden." That seems somewhat absurd to me; if that's how the Swedes want to run their system, fine, but it's clear that whatever "sense" they possess, and whatever "sense" I possess, finds no "common" point in this regard.

For example another lack of common sense law in several european countries is protection for squatters.... In extreme cases, you go on vacation, soneone occupies your house/appartment and it will take about 2 years to have them expelled.... Where YOU live in the meantime is no one's problem (presumably you are expected to break into soneone else's home)
And the laws which underlie this system could be overturned if there were sufficient demand. How many people do you know who are willing to demand it become a major political issue, to the point of engaging in political activism, and possibly either running themselves, or at least funding people who run on the issue? It's easy enough to answer an opinion survey where they call you with, "I support a change in laws," but that means very little, really. Yes, to some extent this is a problem of representative democracy, as there are too many potential issues to seriously focus on all of them, but if so, that means an electorate who wants reform would be well served to demand more effective and flexible public referendum laws, such that one can vote for a candidate on the basis of agreeing with 90% of his platform, and still influence society regarding the other 10% of the issues if necessary. Yet California in the United States has referendum laws, and they're a "sanctuary state," despite the fact that one might reasonably say it's "common sense" that states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, so I'm not entirely sure even more direct democracy would produce the results you want.

Ultimately, no matter how we frame it, in a representative democracy, citizens get, if not the government they desire, then at least the government they are willing to tolerate.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,108
#17
Ultimately, we pay a price for the rule of law that may be very high. On the other hand, should we do away with the rule of law in specific cases, thus maybe proceeding to a slippery slope that in the end could endanger the rights of every citizen?
I think that its not a question of doing away with the rule of law but of applying it sensibly... People want laws that make sense and are flexible enough to address different cases.... not "one size fits all" laws.....

Lets take the less emotional example of the squatter situation... A law was made to protect tenants from arbitrary expulsion by landlords... That was the intent..... And that intent is a noble one and shared by all except a few crooked landlords.... But the law was twisted and abused by squatters to seize property , basically stealing from the rightful owners (who in some cases are themselves in a difficult situation having little or no income)... Clearly what people want is for tenants to have a reasonable level of protection but at the same time for owners to be protected from squatters.... The law is unable to achieve that...

We talk often about tax loopholes, but there are many legal loopholes as well...... Each such loophole is a nail in the coffin of the rule of law... In other words by insisting on upholding a law that clearly is absurd in certain cases, we are undermining the rule of law..... Its fairly obvious to most people that a law that protects squatters is wrong.... from there its a fine line for people to start thinking that the "rule of law" is something they no longer want...

Likewise when a terrorist who was not expelled commits a terror attack , its pretty clear to most people that something is "rotten in Denmark" .. This was the case with the perpetrator of the Nice attack (who was a foreigner with a criminal past) as well as several others across Europe... When this sort of thing happens the argument that "ah but the rule of law prevented us from expelling him" simply no longer flies (perhaps one reason why the media lied at least initially calling these perpetrators "french" or "german" as the case may be).... And if and when a more massive attack will occur with similar individuals there could a very serious backlash .... againts the authorities...
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,108
#18
I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, using France as an example, Marie Le Penn was on the ticket, and she lost; France had its opportunity to choose her and shift more in the direction of resolving the issues you're describing, and chose not to do so. If the people of a country vote for someone based on a set of promises and then those promises go unfulfilled despite being achievable, then perhaps that could be fairly called betrayal, but they voted for Macron, so they got Macron. By contrast, the Hungarians voted in Victor Orban (despite what seems like the entire western world trying to convince them not to do so), so they got Orban, and Orban is taking the issues you describe seriously enough. I don't want to minimize the problem you're describing; representative politics have some real flaws. But on a broad scale, most of the electorate in the countries where the issues you describe exist seem to be somewhere between apathetic regarding and supportive of the general principles which cause them to exist, which means that even if they occasionally dislike the particular outcomes, they're ill-situated to do anything about it, as the moment a Marie Le Penn or Victor Orban comes along saying, "I agree that this is a problem, so let's fix it by amending our principles," the electorate says, "Go to Hell, racist/sexist/islamophobe/whateverist," and rejects them. Contrast this with Israel, where they built up an effective border wall and take serious action against what Europeans call "refugees and asylum seekers," but Israelis call "illegal infiltrators," deport them if possible, and lock them up until they accept money for leaving if not possible. Why does representative politics produce this result in Israel (or South Korea, or Japan, or so forth) but not in Western Europe? Probably because it's actually functioning to a reasonable extent.



"Common sense" doesn't mean anything on a national political scale, though. When I was young, anyone would have said it was "common sense" that marriage was a heterosexual institution, for example, while now it's increasingly "common sense" that it's not. Quite a while before I was born, it was "common sense" that women couldn't be entrusted with the vote; now, it's "common sense" that voting not be based upon sex. Once, it was "common sense" that enemies could be tortured or killed; now, it's "common sense" that such prisoners be treated humanely and provided at least some measure of legal recourse, medical care, and the like. We could go on and on: "common sense" is a fiction to justify the status quo. That's not to say that I disagree with you that deporting deportable criminals makes sense. I saw an article the other day, for example, in which the Swedish Supreme Court blocked the deportation of an alien rapist simply because he had lived in Sweden for a reasonably long time, and "there should be a point where a foreigner has the right to feel secure in Sweden." That seems somewhat absurd to me; if that's how the Swedes want to run their system, fine, but it's clear that whatever "sense" they possess, and whatever "sense" I possess, finds no "common" point in this regard.



And the laws which underlie this system could be overturned if there were sufficient demand. How many people do you know who are willing to demand it become a major political issue, to the point of engaging in political activism, and possibly either running themselves, or at least funding people who run on the issue? It's easy enough to answer an opinion survey where they call you with, "I support a change in laws," but that means very little, really. Yes, to some extent this is a problem of representative democracy, as there are too many potential issues to seriously focus on all of them, but if so, that means an electorate who wants reform would be well served to demand more effective and flexible public referendum laws, such that one can vote for a candidate on the basis of agreeing with 90% of his platform, and still influence society regarding the other 10% of the issues if necessary. Yet California in the United States has referendum laws, and they're a "sanctuary state," despite the fact that one might reasonably say it's "common sense" that states cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, so I'm not entirely sure even more direct democracy would produce the results you want.

Ultimately, no matter how we frame it, in a representative democracy, citizens get, if not the government they desire, then at least the government they are willing to tolerate.
well you make several good points

in general you can see the same issues in even small communities , such as a condo... the most active owners push their agenda (i.e. they get their favorite trees planted or whatever) while those who are too busy working and who are not committed enough to fight their battles will see their pets banned from the property etc....

I disagree though with you on common sense... you are right that it changes over time, but still for a given time its generally pretty clear... we are not talking about very complicated issues here.... on the deportable terrorists case, only a very few NGOs oppose that... and there is no reason why they should have a disproportionate say in the matter.... in the OP I gave the example of the swiss who seem to have woken up to the issue

Swiss parliament backs expelling militants to states that use torture - Reuters

The motion stems from discontent among lawmakers over the ability of Iraqi jihadists convicted in Swiss courts of aiding Islamic State (IS) to avoid being sent home because of the ban on exposing people to torture or other inhumane treatment.

Conservative critics say the ban has cost taxpayer money to care for convicted militants and angered citizens who say Switzerland should not have to host such people on its soil.
 

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,108
#19
Ultimately, no matter how we frame it, in a representative democracy, citizens get, if not the government they desire, then at least the government they are willing to tolerate.
True, but this is the case with all regimes, is it not
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,899
Korea
#20
I disagree though with you on common sense... you are right that it changes over time, but still for a given time its generally pretty clear...
In retrospect was speaking too strongly when I said, "'Common sense' doesn't mean anything on a national political scale, though." What I was wanting to communicate is that it's flexible in character and that politicians will naturally treat it that way, but my sentence here took that idea too far and dismissed it entirely, which I admit is wrong; general "common sensical" views definitely hold at least some meaning in national politics at any given time. Thank you for raising this objection and giving me the impetus to reconsider what I wrote.

True, but this is the case with all regimes, is it not
If so, that simply suggests that (barring massive oppression funded and supported by an outside power, at least) the citizenry as a collective is often complicit in non-representative-democracies as well.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions