Justice is blind in Britain

[SpencerH]

British citizens fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan? Why dont we allow the Afghani to try them? Thats generally the system used for other mercs.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Well if you have proof of that, would you mind dropping it off to the CIA or MI5? They seem to be struggling.

[SpencerH]

Proof of what? Mercs? What else would you call a foreigner running around Afghanistan with Al Queda and carrying a gun, a bandit maybe? Fine, let the Afghanis deal with it. Its their country.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Why shouldn't it be dealt with by a British court?

[SpencerH]

I'm not sure what British law they've broken. They've broken Afghani law though.

Lets look from the opposite perspective. An armed christian fundamentalist group takes over part of England by force. Later they are overthrown and some of the members were found to be Canadian. Would they be tried in England or in Canada?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

There are plenty of precedents for trial in Britain. There were treason charges applied to British citizens for crimes committed in Europe during WW1 and 2.

[SpencerH]

Of course treasonous citizens should be tried by their home country. What treason did Brit Al Queda commit?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If British citizens went abroad to fight against British troops with the Taliban, a treason case could be made. That's fairly unlikely, however, as it would be a lot easier to get a case together under the Prevention of terrorism acts if they were with Al-Qaidr.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
If British citizens went abroad to fight against British troops with the Taliban, a treason case could be made. That's fairly unlikely, however, as it would be a lot easier to get a case together under the Prevention of terrorism acts if they were with Al-Qaidr.

I dont know what your prevention of terrorism act deals with.

I think the John Walker Lindh case here highlights some of the problems with these kinds of laws. Lindh was a low level member of Al-Queda. Therefore, he did give support to a terrorist group that attacked the US. Beyond that though, taking into account such things as motivations, what he knew or should have known, its pretty tenuous, so more serious charges are hard (if not impossible) to prove. I assume its pretty similar under British law. There's no doubt though, that Lindh and the other foreigners fighting in Afghanistan including the Brits and Saudi's broke Afghani law and it seems to me that the legal situation is much more clear in that case. Of course the penalty in Afghanistan for what they did is death.

[East Street Trader]

In a society which acknowledges the rule of law it is for the person who effects an arrest to explain what law he believes the person arrested to have broken and it is for those who retain the accused in custody promptly to bring him before a court.

The court then considers the charge and makes decisions as to whether there is sufficient evidence for the accused to stand trial and whether he should remain in custody pending trial or not.

Assuming only that the court is honest - not a puppet - this is a fundamental characteristic of the rule of law. All free societies have these arrangements, no dictatorship does.


In this case no charge has been made against those deprived of their liberty nor have they been brought before a court.

Bush is a somewhat diffident dictator as yet. He is not yet confident enough to defy US courts. So he is keeping his prisoners outside the jurisdiction of those courts.

He is not uncommon in this. When a society abandons the rule of law the process is typically incremental rather than instantaneous.

Special arrangements are made about prisoners of war. But neither Bush/Blair nor anyone else says that is what these people are.

[DanS]

Putting these people under criminal law is asking for trouble precisely for the reasons that Laz mentioned. When our boys were removing bad guys from the field of battle over there, they didn't stop to dust for prints.

Because of this, Western countries shouldn't ask too hard for their citizens from Guantanamo, unless they want to set them free. We may kvetch about the human rights implications of doing this, but these folks at Guantanamo put themselves in this situation by acting in such a way that precious little law protects them. They put themselves under a band of pirates/terrorists/whatever in a country with no law.

The biggest question for me, and leaving human rights aside, is that the UK government seems to have a duty to ask for custody of its citizens in this situation. On the other hand, it also has the duty to protect its citizens by convicting bad guys. What duty is fulfilled when everyone is set free?

[DanS]

In this case no charge has been made against those deprived of their liberty nor have they been brought before a court.

Well now, this is hardly an "arrest" in the sense that the term is typically used. Your branding of Bush as a dictator is laughable, since even a quick look over the facts of the matter would suggest that these are very difficult questions over which people of good will may disagree. It's a mess.

The Supreme Court is going to hear a case on this. Should be interesting. I hope they allow the argument audio to be taped.

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by SpencerH
British citizens fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan? Why dont we allow the Afghani to try them? Thats generally the system used for other mercs.

Go ahead. They're your responsibility - you nicked 'em, you try 'em.

Except, of course, they aren't guilty of any crimes against the United States (we ARE proceeding along the lines of innocent until proven guilty).

To be quite honest, I really don't understand why the US took any prisoners; most captured fighters were shot, so why didn't you make a clean sweep of it?

And don't ever think any sort of a trial will be seen as credible by any civilised state.

Except possibly one at an International Criminal Court - but wait, the US thinks that a bad idea.

You want to have your cake and eat it. Sorry, can't be done.

Originally posted by SpencerH
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.

Aren't you overlooking a helluva lot of people back when the Soviets were in Afghanistan? Of course, he was your friend back then. Just like Saddam was back in the early 80's.

As an ex-soldier, you should know better than to underestimate and be ignorant of your enemy.

Originally posted by SpencerH
Perhaps you dont find it strange that the IRA accede to whatever the leadership of Sinn Fein says? Did you forget Martin McGuinness?

No, you've got the tail wagging the dog. The Army Council of the IRA decides policy - it's then up to Sinn Fein to sell it. If Sinn Fein tell the Provos they can't sell it, then a new policy might arise - but don't ever think Sinn Fein gives the IRA orders. It's the other way around.

As for Martin McGuiness - he's an example of a fighter who abandoned the gun and the bomb. I didn't forget him at all - you did, which is why you're trying to put him into the argument now.

Fact is, we are not going to change our legal system to cover your fvck ups. Sorry.