Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Linky

This one seems to be running and running.
Personally I think this is quite a tricky situtation. While understandably a hard message has to be sent to any hijackers, these guys were motivated by a very genuine fear for their lives. They were democratic oposition members, and seem to be mainly academics who were arranging teaching for women - something which resulted in torture under the Taliban at the time. They also didn't intend any harm to come to the aircraft or its passengers - this was purely a desperate attempt to get the hell out before they were caught and killed.

What would you like to see happen to them?
I honestly can't decide. You can't appear to say hijacking is acceptable, whatever the circumstances, but at the same time these guys had a very good reason for doing what they did.

One thing I am certain of is that President Blair should shut the hell up and stop trying to interfere with the courts. Government and Justice are seperate.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

This was a commendable act of bravery, and if we lived in a country with saner immigration policies they would have been given citizenship rather than asylum.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I don't think you seem to understand that the phrase "they were afraid for their lives" could be applied to almost any hijacker from Palestine in the last thirty odd years.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I dont know myself I have mixed views on this one.

As mental as this sounds. Since the taliban are no longer in power shouldnt these guys go back to their country and continue what they have started?

After all Afghanistan need people like them in their country........
People who do the right thing even when it was "illegal" at the time.

Lawyers say what you will on this one.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Why not? You can't second guess the intentions of hijackers but once the situation is under control its utterly moronic to class all hijackers as evil scum. I hope they stay and i hope the courts fight the government and tabloids all the way.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Because if your country has a policy of granting asylum to hijackers then you're going to see a sharp increase in the number of hijackings.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Well, we could always shoot the next lot to show we shouldn't be ****ed with.

Speaking more generally, I think the long term we shouldn't have asylum policies since people should be able to live where they want. If our social-welfare arrangements can't handle that then we should probably alter them so they do. At present we encourage people to either try things like this, or to lie at every opportunity. So we have a wonderful system to filter out honesty, but I'm not sure that should be the goal in these cases.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

They're academics who fled a hateful regime in a desperate manner, i honestly think the overall reason for doing what they did and their personal circumstances are more important than automatically dismissing them because they broke the law.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

But the problem is that as soon as you set a limit on what is an acceptable hijacking and what isn't, rather than "all hijackings are unacceptable", you open the floodgates.

There are plenty of other people in this world in similar positions to the people in this case. If they get wind that Britain is granting asylum for their "demographic" even though they hijacked a plane, then there will be copycat attempts very shortly. This is why Blair is weighing in, although frankly he shouldn't be using his position to broadcast his personal opinions, trying to influence the courts.

It is hard, because the compassionate part of you can see that these people felt they had no other option, and that they meant no harm. This is why it's a difficult case in the first place.

The courts must consider the whether their decisions may encourage hijackings in the future. In this case, I think they are safe enough because the conviction has been overturned on a technicality (the original judge misdirected the jury or something like that) so is unlikely to be reproducable. Plus the group concerned has already spent substantial time behind bars.

Both sides have strong cases.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I'm not entirely sure why this is a bad thing?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I agree.
The trouble is that the current system is in a downward spiral.

1) It's incredibly random and unpredictable. People lie to make their case seem extra-compelling to be "certain" of getting asylum. Incoming criminals lie anyway.
2) A scandal breaks, someone who should have been deported wasn't, or someone turns out to be a mass murderer. People slip through in lorries, or hijack transport through desperation.
3) The BNP and right-wing MPs babble on about the need to tighten up immigration and asylum, because everyone trying to get in is lying their ass off. The Sun and The Daily Mirror have a field day.
4) Go to step 1.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

So you'd like the official method of getting to a safe haven to be the aircraft hijack in future?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

If thats the safest way that people have to escape an oppressive regime, then sure, good luck to them.

With regards to these specific hijackers, its obvious that they are intelligent, talented, brave and almost certainly have a lot to offer our country. Its disgusting that they have spent the time since their arrival in jail, and they should be given an apology along with full, permanent citizenship. They deserve to be in Britain more than 99% of those who were born here, including the creatures who are currently calling for their deportation.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

How about the people on the aircraft and the pilot being threatened?
Yes, the hijackers might know they're not going to hurt anyone. No-one else does.

This is the same reason that the law treats an offense using a fake or deactivated firearm as if it was live - the victim has no way to know.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

You mean the 78 who apparently applied for asylum after landing here?

Its unfortunate that innocent people had to suffer, but the ultimate responsibility for this lies with the Afghanistan government, not those trying to escape it.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I was being more general (as in people on future hijacked planes), but I still think that to condone hijacking for any reason is a dangerous move for aircraft safety.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Desperate times call for desperate measures. These were people unquestionably fleeing for their lives who found hijacking an aeroplane to be their best option.


PS Personally I'd give them citizenship as an apology for the insult of throwing them in jail but that's me.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

It seems silly to be more concerned for the lives of the hijackers than the hijacked.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Its prompted another snap legislation to be written whereby the government wants to limit the rights of criminals under the human rights act.

Oh how much fun is THAT debate going to be.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I am concerned about the lives of the hijacked, which is why I wish that most of the 78 of them who applied for asylum had got it. How about you?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Don't strawman it dude :(

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

And leave the GD norm for discussions?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I left the GD norm for discussions to go and cum all over your mum.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Youve ruined my tuna casserole, bitch.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Hijackers put innocent people at risk. The implicit message is: it's OK to risk the lives of other random innocent people in order to save your own. While I can sympathize with those trapped in repressive regimes, I can't condone risking the lives of innocents to escape. I suppose one could imagine a scenario where the risk is negligible, but I don't think a airplane hijacking would qualify.

I'm glad no one was hurt (this time), but it could have gone down differently. That a number of passengers subsequently applied for asylum doesn't really change the fact that their lives were risked without their consent (and I have no problem giving the other passengers asylum if they want it--they didn't do anything wrong).

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Did you support the invasion of Iraq. Or for that matter any war ever?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I would partially agree this is the message being sent ou (although I'm not convinced that any lives were really in danger)t, but why is that a bad thing? It is ok to risk other people to save your own, and the ultimate responsibility for what happens to them lies with the people who's aggression you are fleeing - the ones who started the whole chain of events. If you want to say that harming innocents to save yourself isnt justified, then youre going to have serious trouble justifying warfare (as Jonny says), especially incidents such as Hiroshima and Dresden.

When you have an oppressive government, a lot of people are going to be end up being hurt/killed. You can hardly blame individuals for doing their best to ensure that they arent one of them.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I have read this thread and found myself in complete agreement with you gordon.

I even agree with this bit i've quoted.

I'm just not so sure that we should accept tactitus' hypothesis that being hyjacked necessarily puts the hyjackee at risk

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

There is no start to chains of events in countries like Afghanistan.
Afghanistan has been constantly ****ed over by just about every major country in existance. The Taliban only came to power after the majority of the elites and the scholars realised that the place wasn't worth trying to save, and bailed out leaving a leadership vacuum.
The British, the Americans, the Soviets and numerous others have all had a piece of the place, often multiple times. The Americans did some particularly impressive work in the Cold War; Along with Pakistan they financed, trained and armed most of the warlords who are still around today in order to kick the Soviets out. When you have warlords with CIA and Mujahideen training, and a history like that, its no surprise extremism takes hold.

So how far back do you want to go to decide who to blame? Depending on the year you pick, you could blame practically anyone - which is why there's no point in trying. Someone will always argue with you.

While it may be accepted that in some lawless survival-of-the-fittest scenario, people do risk the lives of others to save their own, the very foundation of civilised life is that this should not happen. Society protects the group from threats to the safety of group members, including those who would put people in harms way to further thier own interests.

What Nod is accepting is basically a pre-civilised set of values - me first, me above all else and anyone. I agree that in a survival situation this is often what people revert to. It could also be argued that in Taliban Afghanistan, that's pretty much how it worked. That doesn't mean to say that it should be condoned, or go unpunished. Our laws reflect and uphold the values of our civilisation, and one of the most basic principals we have is that people should not harm others for personal gain.


Sorry for the slightly off-topic Afghanistan bit.
It just pisses me off when we **** with other people's countries, then turn round and look surprised when it falls apart a couple of decades down the line.
The USA is currently dealing with just that situation (say hi to Iran for me guys), and if we haven't had some serious issues with Iraq by 2030 I'll be amazed. Democracy isn't something you can ship out flatpacked to another country.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Whilst the transfer of guilt from one party to another (particually morally questionable) group sounds fine, i seriously question it as in my opinion it would be the tip of the slippery slope that makes conflicts never-ending. Taking responsibility away from one's own actions and sending it to someone else, i believe, is definately not the type of mentality that should be placed on a criminal matter - regardless of whether it is justified or not. I believe that you are always* responsible for your own actions and must face the consequences (or glory) that results from it in all cases.

*The obvious exception is to those who are incapacitated in same fashion such as through insanity or disease etc.

Whilst i admit that those two 'incidents' are questionable morally, i think that the case of Hiroshima/Nagasaki at least has much basis in tactial and strategic thinking insofar as the action 'saved' thousands of lives on both sides - top Japanese military figures (who ruled the country at the time) were willing to sacrifice "the hundred million" in defence of the home islands - whilst sounding callous, the questionable killing of ~200 000 is imo better than the totally legitimate killing of 120 million+. As for Dresden, i am less knowledgeable - i would mention though that it seems (imo, again) History has judged Sir Arthur Harris harshly.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

technically one could argue some (perhaps slightly lame) form of duress. Which I think is a pretty fair point made on this thread.

I suppose the problem is that encouraging people to hijack planes is never a good idea, even if there might be people with sufficiently pressing reason to make it justified considering there are numerous who wouldn't be able to justify their action.

Although I think
1) punishing the hijackers
2) protecting their human rights

are two very seperate categories.

While they should be punished for their crime (and it is a crime), the question of whether they are deported is a seperate one. If they have a genuine reason to stay why shouldn't they, if like every other criminal in the UK, they have served their punishment? I would see a probationary period as some kind of ideal compromise. The clear question is whether we want to make any such behaviour acceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

you are seriously saying that people should sacrifice themselves rather than redirect a plane full of people who will benefit from the plane being redirected

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I was pointing out the difficulty.

Afghanistan (at that time) was "some lawless survival-of-the-fittest scenario".
The UK isn't, with the possible exception of Slough.

There is no easy way to reconcile the fact that the act committed with good reason in Afghanistan is a serious offense here because our laws protect those who were the victims of the hijack.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Yes there is. It's why it's okay to shoot at people during wartime but not while you're on the way to the shop in the morning. Location.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Not everyone that gets hijacked is an asylum seeker, rather obviously.

I do not believe that putting innocent people in danger can be allowed to pass without punishment. Society (by which I mean any community of human beings) cannot, and does not, function at the level of the individual. You care for the lives and the rights of the hijackers; it would be illogical to discard the rights of the hijacked.
We could take this chain of responsiblity you seem to advocate to implausible, and possibly infinite, lengths. Why stop at the government? What about the President's mother? Responsibility lies with any individual who breaks the law. Whether the action was justifiable in any sense is another issue.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Would people stop people confusing punishing people for criminal acts and deciding whether people should be granted asylum.

If some commits a crime, but did it for a very good reason, then there is no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be punished and then allowed to stay in the UK if their status warrants it. The problem in this case is that they haven't been adequately punished.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Yes, i would be guilty of shooting/murdering that one individual, though perhaps under duress. Additionally, i would also be guilty of saving net 99 people.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

what exactly were they put in danger of?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

You merely have causal responsibility, not moral.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

You think hijacking involves flowers and sponge balls?

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

It seemed to involve a lot of medical supplies and ill hostages being released.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

i refuse to side with the nationalist right, so by all means let them stay.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

There have been other hijacks, you know, with less admirable motivations and vastly different outcomes.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

I would imagine that it would most likely be found in court that i acted in the best interests of the collective, i upheld a duty of care to the survivors, i was under duress via your actions, and i'm sure clever lawyers would be able to describe additional mitigating circumstances, so in all likelihood, i would be found not guilty of murder and potentially dismissed (though perhaps guilty of Manslaughter). I wouldnt expect a long prision sentence if that were the case, but indeed i would be mildly irked.

Mind, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I should still definately stand trial, however.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

that doesn't mean that these hyjackers put anyone in danger this time.

you really are a spastic.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Why on earth should a discussion of the rights and wrongs of hijacking be limited to one (rather extraordinary) incident? Just because your point is served by ignoring the context doesn't mean you should insult me for not doing so.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

We were discussing this event. You raised an argument that these specific hyjackers ought to be puniched because they put the people they hyjacked However they in fact did not. Ergo it follows that they ought not to be punished.

You are now apparently claiming either:
a) that these hyjackers should be punished because other hyjacks put people in danger (even though this one didn't)
OR
b) that you weren't discussing this specific event.

IF a) is correct THEN you are a spastic. IF b) is correct THEN you are a spastic.

THUS you are a spastic.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

No. I replied to Nodrog's suggestion that 'it is ok to risk other people['s lives] to save your own'. I did not refer specifically to these hijackers.

From this it can be surmised that you did not read my post.

I have yet to hear any reasonable proof that this hijack put noone at risk.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/632721.stm

a) I did not orginally claim that these specific hijackers should be punished. However, it appears to me that these hijackers did put people at risk of danger.

b) I was discussing the issues raised by this specific event, as was megla, and as every other person replying to this thread has been.

Shush.

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

Don't worry everyone!


The Government's going to give itself the power to veto judicial rulings that it doesn't like. Hurrah!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...774399,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4770231.stm
Even better, David Cameron would repeal the act anyway! So we really have nothing to worry about! Yay for democracy and the basic freedoms!

Re: Those hijackers granted temporary asylum
 

without any kind of massive knowledge of the facts, they get out on a technicality, when generally getting caught red handed with a plane would suggest you hijacked it and should serve the appropriate term in jail.

Any hijack puts others at risk. This is not in doubt. I do not doubt that some kind of moral and legal wrong has been committed and that the people involved should be punished.

But then there is the asylum issue. The fact is these people arrived in the UK, for their own (allegedly good) reasons. In deciding whether someone should stay in the UK, the person/body determining it should look at all the circumstances of their arrival in the UK (including the fact that they performed a criminal act to achieve it) and whether they are any threat to others in the UK and whether they have any good reason to stay in the UK. This is something that can only be judged on a case by case basis, all we can do is lay down are basic rules and procedures to abide by when these situations happen.

It appears they have a good reason to stay, however "desperate" it may be.

They do not appear to be a threat to others; they've achieved their aim to get to the UK and are unlikely to hijack planes again considering they are already here and want to contribute to our nation. The point is that if they had no good political reason to stay and were likely to be dangerous if they stayed, then of course, they would be deported. But here this is not necessarily the case - a probationary period would be ideal to confirm this.

There is nothing seriously wrong with the Human Rights Act as it stands - the courts provide for the balancing of rights and often one persons right is found to outweigh another. Tony Blair talks about common sense yet he claims we live in fear. If we live in fear, Britain does not exist and I do not live in fear. I am sure there are millions who do not live in fear. Yes like generations before us we have challenges that must be faced but that doesn't mean we should be scared of the difficulties we face. To me it seems that this government are just very bad losers when courts rule against them, on what is generally an impartial basis.