08-12-2003 19:02									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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.

	08-12-2003 20:50									#32
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

	08-12-2003 21:07									#33
	Re: Justice is blind in Britain Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	08-12-2003 21:09									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	08-12-2003 21:14									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Any confessions are going to be ruled inadmissable to.

	08-12-2003 21:24									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	08-12-2003 21:31									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	08-12-2003 21:31									#38
	Support Apolyton

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

	08-12-2003 21:49									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: 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!

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

	08-12-2003 21:51									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

its hard to tell

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

Its not my congress

	08-12-2003 22:04									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: 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."

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

	08-12-2003 22:15									#42
	Remove this text

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".

	08-12-2003 22:22									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: Yes. Where you?

I was a soldier in those days.

	08-12-2003 22:25									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

East Street Trader

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

	08-12-2003 22:29									#45
	Got spare money?

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

	08-12-2003 22:35									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	08-12-2003 22:46									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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

	08-12-2003 22:49									#48
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	08-12-2003 22:51									#49
	Got spare money?

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

	08-12-2003 22:58									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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?

	08-12-2003 23:01									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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.

	08-12-2003 23:04									#52
	Support Apolyton

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

	08-12-2003 23:07									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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.

	08-12-2003 23:37									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	09-12-2003 21:32									#55
	Tired of ads?

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.

	09-12-2003 21:54									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

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?

Last edited by DanS on 09-12-2003 at 22:37

	09-12-2003 22:06									#57
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	10-12-2003 19:56									#58
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.