First things first: I don´t want to defend the guy, just shed a light on the journalism and the laws.
The first sentence, actually the headline, is already technically wrong: As we learn later in the article the guy was made a British citizen in 2000. In 2007 his citizenship was revoked, and the current legal battle was around the question whether this revocation was legal. So he is not made a British citizen now, he would "only" be allowed to keep his citizenship.
telegraph.co.uk wrote:...
allegedly helped an explosives expert travel to Iraq...
Seems like it can´t be proven?
telegraph.co.uk wrote:He was also
accused of being a terrorist recruiter. He was arrested in Iraq in 2004 and held for three years before being
released without charge.
Sounds like he was illegally detained w/o trial or proof?
telegraph.co.uk wrote:...stripped him of that citizenship in 2007 on the grounds that it was “
conducive to the public good” to do so...
Again, no proof...?
telegraph.co.uk wrote:But the Court of Appeal yesterday ruled that decision was flawed because it made him “stateless”, which is illegal under an international convention.
It transpired that Al-Jedda
automatically lost his Iraqi citizenship when he was given the British one.
I´ve been supporting the idea that everyone who is granted citizenship should be
obliged to retain his original citizenship. In rare cases (where guilt is proven), it would then be possible to strip citizenship w/o rendering anyone stateless... (Of course impossible where loss is automatic through accepting another citizenship, but in most cases this would/could work)
telegraph.co.uk wrote:In an added blow, it emerged that the last Labour Government could have avoided such cases by implementing a special clause in law ten years ago but failed to do so.
It would be key to learn what that change would have done?
telegraph.co.uk wrote:...
it was believed that he had recruited and aided terrorists...
He was suspected of conspiring...
British intelligence services also believed he had conspired with...
He was
released from detention without charge...
What did they actually prove, and on what basis was he detained for 3 years?
telegraph.co.uk wrote:Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former Army officer, said: “It sticks in the craw that someone who might be attacking our soldiers
will be given British citizenship.”
Again: He is not given citizenship, it´s "just" not taken away from him. The corresponding decision of 2007 is overruled, as such he has technically been British since 2000, and continues to be British.
(My) summary:
- Citizenship law should provide for stripping citizenship in extreme cases, and in a way that can be enforced.
- No-one should be held for extended periods without charge.
Just an idea: If a Western citizen is "suspected" of terrorism, it could be made possible to lay a travel-ban on them. Idea: If you want to be a Westerner, stay in the Western world. If you still have business in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the like, you have to get an "exit visa" or "special permission" from our side before you go... If you enter any of these countries w/o that, we will assume you have something to hide from us, which in itself could be declared a crime. Like this there could be a proven wrong, which could be made punishable...
...and I´m not saying this being totally unaffected: I have regular business in Lebanon, which in my case is visiting the parents in law...