Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:38 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7jd1$8ss_006(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45B64130.D6F8E740(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: <snip> >>In the UK it's a crime to belong to an illegal organisation or aid/abet >>one. >>Additionally it's apparently a crime also to fail to disclose/report > knowledge >>of such things. >> >>That would seem to cover pretty much what's required. > > Are people, who are arrested for that crime, able to post bail > before they are tried in your country? Anyone who is arrested _may_ be released on bail, however if they are considered a danger then it is unlikely. Most people charged under the various Prevention of Terrorism Acts we have had over the years have been refused bail. Are you worried that a guilty person may be offered bail? Is it worse if a guilty rapist is offered bail?
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:41 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7j7k$8ss_005(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... <snip> > > When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post > bail and get out? Why would such a person stop making > plans to make a mess just because he's been arrested and > may have a trial in two years? First off, does two years count as a "right to a speedy trial?" More importantly, your argument here is nonsense. Rapists, child molesters, murderers, thieves et al., all get the chance to post bail in your system. You want to remove this from a _suspected_ terrorist (who may be completely innocent remember). However, in the UK we have a system where people considered to remain a danger do not get released on bail. We certainly do not remand people for two years on terrorism charges.
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 10:51 In article <ep53fi$8qk_002(a)s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <ep40mt$fib$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <ep2l1n$8ss_003(a)s889.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>[....] >>>So you are telling me that the green bean pickers are getting >>>minimum wage? >> >>Yup. > >That would explain why a 12 oz can of green beans costs $1.29. No, it wouldn't. The cost of picking the beans is likely less than the cost of the paper label on the can. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:54 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7p44$8qk_004(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <MYSdnR7JjtAo2yvYnZ2dnUVZ8turnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45B642AB.3192B3CC(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> T Wake wrote: >>> >>>> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>> > >>>> > The Police [in the UK] have powers to hold terrorist suspects for up >>>> > to >>>> > 30 >>>> days ( IIRC > ) without charge subject to regular judicial review. >>>> After >>>> that >>>> time they must indeed be >>>> > released or charged. >>>> > >>>> > Any longer was rejected by Parliament. >>>> >>>> IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. >>> >>> It's too long for someone who's innocent for sure. Hopefully the >>> judicial >>> review >>> element will prevent abuses of that possibilty. >>> >>> The 60 days the police were asking for was totally over the top though. >> >>It is a difficult problem. If you are the innocent person being detained, >>I >>suspect 30 minutes is long but if you are the SOCA officer trying to >>gather >>evidence on some one (s)he *knows* is a criminal, 60 days may not be long >>enough. > > Especially if the action that criminal is planning will result > in killing thousands and shutting down your metro system. > Or something else just as deadly. You conflate justice with revenge. If the action the criminal is planning is illegal, and the police have enough evidence then they charge the person and he is remanded (held) awaiting trial. In the UK terrorist trials don't take long to convene. Holding him for 30 days to question is largely pointless. Now, if the police do not have enough evidence, then the scale of the "crime" is irrelevant as they may have the wrong person. If I was detained under suspicion of planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in London, when I was totally innocent, what would the extra time I spent in the cell do other than delay officers from looking for other people (they would be spending time trying to "break me") and, when I was finally released, leave me with nothing but resentment against the government. [*] Would you be happy to be detained in a cell for 30 days if you were innocent? Or is most of this OK, as it will tend to be Moslems and people with a Middle Eastern descent who suffer? I am sure parents whose children fall prey to child abusers, family of women who are raped and / or murdered feel that people suspected of those crimes are "just as deadly" and should be detained for months until the police can charge them. Where do you draw the line? Is it only people who are suspected of planning to kill more than 5 people who get the "special treatment?" -- [*] and as this resentment would be fuelled by no democratic process with which I could seek justice (the police are not elected, I could vote for a new government but it is unlikely the security systems in place would be changed), no access to legal recourse (the detention was legal) and more than reasonable chances that this was happening to me because I was part of a "profiled" minority the chances are _more_ than good that I would easily fall under the sway of radicals. Kind of makes it a self fulfilling prophecy.
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 10:54
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: > >"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message. > > > >> It's been discussed here and voted on in the UK Parliament. The Police > >> have powers to hold terrorist suspects for up to 30 days ( IIRC ) without > >> charge subject to regular judicial review. After that time they must indeed > be > >> released or charged. > >> > >> Any longer was rejected by Parliament. > > > >IMHO 30 days is too long, but I suspect I am in a minority there. > > These people take years to plan their attacks. And you think 30 days > is too long?! It is for someone who's innocent ! > They don't care about jail. Most see it as a recruitment opportunity. > > You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western > civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking > them. You have an invalid assumption. And you keep thinking the answer is to lock up ppl on *suspicion* alone ! That's unacceptable in a civilised society. Graham |