Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: T Wake on 24 Jan 2007 10:57 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ep7p0e$8qk_003(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <qNedneB6CY-woCvYRVnyjQA(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45B61D27.BE19A06E(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> >When you say Italy let terrorists go, what country had already found >>>> >the >>>> >people guilty of terrorism? >>>> >>>> So, the only time the people, who have an intent to destroy Western >>>> civilization infrastructure and population, can be held in jail >>>> is after they have been convicted. >>> >>> Of course not. They can be remanded for trial if a criminal charge is >>> brought >>> against them. >>> >>> >>>> Italy had the same legal opinion and let them go. They disappeared. >>> >>> Who were these people ? >>> >>> >>>> If you insist on following your legalities that assume the nation >>>> is at peace, then you have to assume that a Muslim extremist >>>> is innocent until proven guilty. >>> >>> That is indeed the rule of law. >>> >>> >>>> But, wait! He hasn't made >>>> any messes yet. So you can't arrest him. If your police do >>>> manage to arrest him, he can pay the bail and be free to continue >>>> his plans to make a mess. >>> >>> No - the police can object to bail where there's a public risk and a >>> judge >>> may >>> not be willing to grant bail anyway. >> >>As is normally the case in terrorism trials. >> >>>> If you insist that these people be treated as criminals, then >>>> you should be ready to cope with an interruption in your >>>> life-style. >>> >>> 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?! Yes. You dont know what you are talking about here, you just felt the need to throw in a soundbite. How long do *you* think a suspected criminal should be detained before he or she is charged with a crime? > They don't care about jail. Incorrect. > Most see it as a recruitment opportunity. False assumption. > You keep assuming that these people are deterred by Western > civilization laws and the punishments associated with breaking > them. You have an invalid assumption. Nonsense.
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:00 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >> >T Wake wrote: > >> > > >> >> You see, here you demand that people be punished on the suspicion that > >> >> they intend to do harm. > >> >> > >> >> It is sad you do not see this is a morally wrong thing to do. > >> > > >> >Naive views. > >> > > >> >You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a > >> >criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. > >> >People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. > >> > > >> >Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that > >> >are the basis of these discussions. > >> > >> 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? > > > >In the UK you can't buy yourself out of jail by posting a bail bond. It's > >down to the police themselves in simple cases and a judge in more serious > cases > >whether bail will be offered. > > What if your judge has your opinion that there isn't any serious > threats by these terrorists? If the judge believes that, I'd be inclined to trust his opinion. You see in the UK there has to be a high standard of evidence before a charge is even brought in the first place. > >Terrorists would clearly be held ( and are so in fact ) on remand pending > >their trial. > > But only if your police can gather enough evidence to prove there > is a likelihood of guilt. That's how a decent justice system woorks. Correct. We don't lock ppl up on suspicion alone. > I think London escaped a mess by the skin of their teeth. Which supposed 'mess' did you have in mind ? > >You need to fix your legal system if ppl have to wait 2 years for a trial > >btw. > > Most of this is because the defense lays down legal roadblocks all > the way to after sentencing. After sentencing ? That has nothing to do with a trial date. Graham
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 11:01 In article <ep7p0e$8qk_003(a)s899.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: [.....] >They don't care about jail. Yes they do. They don't want to die of old age in prison. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Eeyore on 24 Jan 2007 11:03 jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>You've ignored that conspiracy to commit a "main crime" is a > >>>criminal act even before the "main crime" has been committed. > >>>People are sent to prison for this rather frequently. > >>> > >>>Conspiracy is the usual case in the forms of terrorism that > >>>are the basis of these discussions. > >> > >> > >> When someone is arrested for this, do they not get to post > >> bail and get out? > > > >That depends. If there are national security interests > >involved, given the world circumstances of today, I > >seriously doubt any judge would grant bail. > > Or the defense attorney produces a legal loophole. That's > what happened in Italy. Now, I have not heard if Italy's > legislatures (or whatever they call theirs) has plugged > the loopholes. England's response was holding people for 30 days. > This is not adequate. What's not adequate about it. If you can't find evidence to hold someone after looking for 30 days I don't think you're likely to find any evidence by looking longer ! Graham
From: Ken Smith on 24 Jan 2007 11:04
In article <45B766DF.30E71DA6(a)hotmail.com>, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [.....] >Excessively 'political' judges seem to be a uniquely US phenomenon. Ours seem to >be very rational and level-headed. It isn't really that much of a problem. When the law is against you argue the facts. When the facts are against you argue the law. When both are against you call the other guy names. When the outcome is not the one desired, people say it was political. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |