Justice is blind in Britain

[SpencerH]

Is it reasonable to release potential terrorists to the British and American legal systems that are not designed to deal with them (by virtue of the high standards of the burden of proof and the problems of evidence that may be classified)? Instead, I'd like to see some form of independent advocacy group working within the military tribunal system that actively seeks to free detainees who may in fact be unfairly imprisoned.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Is it reasonable to release potential terrorists to the British and American legal systems that are not designed to deal with them (by virtue of the high standards of the burden of proof and the problems of evidence that may be classified)?

Considering the fact that the Brits have been dealing with terrorism for years, I find it hard to believe that thier legal system is ill-equipped to deal with them.

[Cruddy]

Re: Justice is blind in Britain

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Reprinted from the blog.


Today's question- why is Home Secretary David Blunkett such a monstrously incompetent, bulging sack of monkey ****?

Blame the monkey.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Considering the fact that the Brits have been dealing with terrorism for years, I find it hard to believe that thier legal system is ill-equipped to deal with them.

Usually the SAS have shot the sh1t out of them before they go to court. Try a Google search on "Ulster shoot to kill policy".

Also, if they do get to court, they have to have had legal standards - which includes legal consul FROM THE MOMENT THEY WERE DETAINED.

Also, there's the problem of evidence. Being in Afghanistan is not, by itself, a crime.

[TheStinger]

Any confessions are going to be ruled inadmissable to.

[SpencerH]

The IRA, UDA, and other Irish terrorists were considered to be criminals and not POW by the Brits. Thats what all the hunger strikes etc in the 70's were about. Clearly, the Brits were aware of the legal problems of declaring war against terrorism (as the US has done) or nebulous terrorists. As a consequence of that Brit policy to avoid declaring 'war', ****** like Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley, walk around untouched despite their leadership and support of terrorist activities.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by SpencerH
The IRA, UDA, and other Irish terrorists were considered to be criminals and not POW by the Brits. Thats what all the hunger strikes etc in the 70's were about. Clearly, the Brits were aware of the legal problems of declaring war against terrorism (as the US has done) or nebulous terrorists. As a consequence of that Brit policy to avoid declaring 'war', ****** like Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley, walk around untouched despite their leadership and support of terrorist activities.

Close, but no cigar. Bobby Sands and Company were campaining for recognition as political prisoners rather than being criminals - AND THEY GOT IT.

Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are both political leaders, not terrorist leaders. Neither of them has any connection to any terrorist activity (because what they want is power, not the satisfaction of personally killing people).

I've said it many times - the problems lie in the use of the word "terrorist". You cannot compare the Provos and Al Qaeda - they use different methods, have different goals, and putting them in the same basket is like saying "all Jewish people have big noses."

Don't oversimplify - and don't believe the sound bites that flow from politicians.

[TheStinger]

I'm no supporter of Ian Paisley but he does not support terrorists.

Gerry Adams is a favourite with your congress so he can't be a terrorist can he

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Close, but no cigar. Bobby Sands and Company were campaining for recognition as political prisoners rather than being criminals - AND THEY GOT IT.

They got what? Thatcher refused to deal with them and 10 died-- Good ****ing riddance!

Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley are both political leaders, not terrorist leaders. Neither of them has any connection to any terrorist activity (because what they want is power, not the satisfaction of personally killing people).

If you think that the provos and the UDA are separate from those two, you're dreaming.

EDIT I'll admit that Paisley may not actively support the UDA.

I've said it many times - the problems lie in the use of the word "terrorist". You cannot compare the Provos and Al Qaeda - they use different methods, have different goals, and putting them in the same basket is like saying "all Jewish people have big noses."

Don't oversimplify - and don't believe the sound bites that flow from politicians.

It looks to me as if you're the one believing sound bytes. BTW, were you alive during those times?

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by TheStinger
I'm no supporter of Ian Paisley but he does not support terrorists.

its hard to tell

Gerry Adams is a favourite with your congress so he can't be a terrorist can he

Its not my congress

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by SpencerH


They got what? Thatcher refused to deal with them and 10 died-- Good ****ing riddance!

They got recognition as political prisoners. Suddenly the whole tone of activity went from "murderers" to "sectarian killings."

Originally posted by SpencerH
If you think that the provos and the UDA are separate from those two, you're dreaming.

Gerry Adams is a member of Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Provisional IRA. He has never been proved to have been involved in so much as holding someone down for a kneecapping - as stated, because he wants power, not to get his hands dirty.

Again, Ian Paisley is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, not the Ulster Defense Association. Again, while supporting "defensive actions against Republican aggression", he has no connections to violence at the sharp end.

Both of them, as stated, want the objective of political power - the wholesale sort that comes from the ballot box, not the retail variety that comes from a gun. In short, they think big.

Originally posted by SpencerH
It looks to me as if you're the one believing sound bytes. BTW, were you alive during those times?

Yes. Where you?

[East Street Trader]

It is self evident that neither Blair nor Bush - or any member of their two administrations - think there is any worthwhile evidence against those kept imprisoned without trial.

Because if there was any evidence there would be no need to treat them as a special case. They would simply be put on open trial.

To say "We have to keep them locked up outside the reach of courts because we do not have evidence to convict them" is simply acknowledging the obvious.

We must expect to hear worse things later. Because for these administrations the political embarassment which will follow when it becomes apparent that the imprisonment without trial is unfair as well as unjust is already considerable but its particular feature is that the longer the imprisonment lasts the worse that embarassment gets.

Typically those who have been willing to imprison without trial have solved this one by ensuring that those imprisoned never re-surface.

While Mssrs Bush and Blair contemplate that, what the rest of us need to be wondering is exactly what, if anything, prevents exactly the same thing happening to any of us?

Because once we are willing to see the rule of law relaxed in relation to one man its force is reduced, in some measure, for all.

The way Pastor Niemoller put it is well known -

"First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

In this case for "jews" substitute "terrorists".

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Cruddy


They got recognition as political prisoners. Suddenly the whole tone of activity went from "murderers" to "sectarian killings."

Not by me.

Gerry Adams is a member of Sinn Fein, the political arm of the Provisional IRA. He has never been proved to have been involved in so much as holding someone down for a kneecapping - as stated, because he wants power, not to get his hands dirty.

Again, Ian Paisley is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party, not the Ulster Defense Association. Again, while supporting "defensive actions against Republican aggression", he has no connections to violence at the sharp end.

I'm quite familiar with who they are. As for 'holding someone down', by your definition Bin Laden isnt a terrorist either. He hasnt killed anyone. Perhaps you dont find it strange that the IRA accede to whatever the leadership of Sinn Fein says? Did you forget Martin McGuinness?

Both of them, as stated, want the objective of political power - the wholesale sort that comes from the ballot box, not the retail variety that comes from a gun. In short, they think big.

They want power. Adams would certainly take it any way he could, its just that the terrorists have failed.

Yes. Where you?

I was a soldier in those days.

[SpencerH]

East Street Trader

Please feel free to present evidence of trials for shot-down German fliers held in Britain for the duration of WWII.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

These aren't Luftwaffe pilots. They are British citizens, and I can see no reason for not trying them in an English court.