First sign of a major rift in the coalition?

[soloman]

Nick Clegg defends decision not to deport terror suspects



Whereas Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who yesterday said she was “disappointed” with the decision to allow the men to remain in Britain.

Are these differing views tenable? I think not.

[Don]

The Liberal Democrat leader defended laws blocking the removal of terror suspects if they faced torture or death abroad.

However he added that agreements needed to be sealed with states such as Pakistan to allow people to be sent there.

Someone needs to clue Mr. Glegg on the realities of the Pakistani ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) Deport known terrorists to Pakistan and ISI will do one of two things; 1.) let them go with their best wishes, or 2.) make any 'interrogation' the UK security services or the CIA may conduct, seem like a child's tea party, water boarding not withstanding. He apparently also needs to get a grip on the realities of coddling terrorists. I'm all for human rights but not to the point of appearing suicidal.

[uncon]

Nick Clegg defends decision not to deport terror suspects



Whereas Theresa May, the Home Secretary, who yesterday said she was “disappointed” with the decision to allow the men to remain in Britain.

Are these differing views tenable? I think not.

They are perfectly in allignment. Who wouldn't be disappointed to see that an acknowledged threat was allowed to remain here? But if we are going to apply human rights legislation across the board then it applies to all.

What confuses me more is the fact that while being in danger at home, they want to cause trouble in the place that is a haven to them...madness!

[Don]

They are perfectly in allignment. Who wouldn't be disappointed to see that an acknowledged threat was allowed to remain here? But if we are going to apply human rights legislation across the board then it applies to all.

Believing in the rule of law as I do, as opposed to some on here, I have to agree with you while admitting that i would prefer to see the law rewritten to address the realities of the situation, i.e. protect the weak, the innocent, and the defenseless while denying protection to those who would use the shelter extended to them to their own nefarious ends.

What confuses me more is the fact that while being in danger at home, they want to cause trouble in the place that is a haven to them...madness!

What you and I see as "madness" is to them nothing more than logical. They weren't seeking "a haven" at the time, they merely wanted a target and the UK perfectly served their needs, so much so that when they did need a haven the target protected them. It's a win/win situation for them. Had they pulled it off, they win. The instant the mullahs take over in Pakistan, which many think isn't that far off, they'll beg to be deported and the UK will most probably accommodate them, they win. For the UK it's lose/lose. If they'd been successful you'd have lost, they weren't successful so it costs millions to protect and support them and you still lose.