sgtkate Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 What if there was intelligence about his past behaviour and intentions but no one was willing to make a statement to the effect because of fear of revenge ? No different to someone accused of any crime. No conviction relies solely on testimony. So if there was other evidence then the lack of testimony shouldn't be a deciding factor. What if he declared his intentions to indulge in terrorist activity if released from custody ? Again what would have happened if someone upon leaving prison stated they will commit murder. Honestly, I'm not sure. It's not a crime to say that, but if he directly made threats to kill, then that would be a crime. Has keeping him in custody saved lives ? Doubtful. Some of the Islamic terrorist groups have stated his imprisonment is partly why they've carried out some campaigns. Not sure I believe them, but there is evidence that more people are joining these organisations as a direct result of Guantanamo Bays treatment of people. Have these scenarios been considered by posters ? Cleary as I've just given answers. Or was he in the wrong place at the wrong time ? I don't know and it's not relevant. The problem I see for people supporting his incarceration is that they treat terrorists as some how different from other criminals. Imagine for one minute he is someone accused of murder instead of terrorist offences and how you would expect him to be treated as a result. In fact imagine he's a British, white, Christian accused of murder with some circumstantial evidence of guilt but not enough for CPS to press charges. However you think we should treat that hypothetical man is how we should treat 'accused' terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I dont think we should be paying compo the American government should. It was appalling what they did imprison people without charge. If he and everyone eles in Guantanamo was guilty of something they should have had a trial and then punished them accordingly. If you read about his case then he is making a seperate claim against the Americans. His case against the UK is due to the torture he claims to have received from MI5 officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 The problem I see for people supporting his incarceration is that they treat terrorists as some how different from other criminals. Imagine for one minute he is someone accused of murder instead of terrorist offences and how you would expect him to be treated as a result. In fact imagine he's a British, white, Christian accused of murder with some circumstantial evidence of guilt but not enough for CPS to press charges. However you think we should treat that hypothetical man is how we should treat 'accused' terrorists. With respect, I think terrorists should be treated different from other criminals . Terrorism is the biggest threat to World peace at the moment which justifies why different rules should be applied to these people . Convicted murdering Irish terrorists were released from prison early as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement to help bring peace . It made me sick when our Queen shook hands with Martin Mcguinness, but for the sake of peace I accept this is a necessary evil just as it is necessary to keep suspected terrorists in places like Guantanomo for years without trials . Regarding evidence , it would be dangerous and helpful to our enemies if the authorities revealed all the evidence they had on terrorist suspects, so I accept our allies the Americans had good reason to detain Shaker Aamer without any need to see evidence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No different to someone accused of any crime. No conviction relies solely on testimony. So if there was other evidence then the lack of testimony shouldn't be a deciding factor. Again what would have happened if someone upon leaving prison stated they will commit murder. Honestly, I'm not sure. It's not a crime to say that, but if he directly made threats to kill, then that would be a crime. Doubtful. Some of the Islamic terrorist groups have stated his imprisonment is partly why they've carried out some campaigns. Not sure I believe them, but there is evidence that more people are joining these organisations as a direct result of Guantanamo Bays treatment of people. Cleary as I've just given answers. I don't know and it's not relevant. The problem I see for people supporting his incarceration is that they treat terrorists as some how different from other criminals. Imagine for one minute he is someone accused of murder instead of terrorist offences and how you would expect him to be treated as a result. In fact imagine he's a British, white, Christian accused of murder with some circumstantial evidence of guilt but not enough for CPS to press charges. However you think we should treat that hypothetical man is how we should treat 'accused' terrorists Your theory is flawed as you are comparing terrorism with non terrorist behaviour. Reasons and aims of such behaviour are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgtkate Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No different to someone accused of any crime. No conviction relies solely on testimony. So if there was other evidence then the lack of testimony shouldn't be a deciding factor. Again what would have happened if someone upon leaving prison stated they will commit murder. Honestly, I'm not sure. It's not a crime to say that, but if he directly made threats to kill, then that would be a crime. Doubtful. Some of the Islamic terrorist groups have stated his imprisonment is partly why they've carried out some campaigns. Not sure I believe them, but there is evidence that more people are joining these organisations as a direct result of Guantanamo Bays treatment of people. Cleary as I've just given answers. I don't know and it's not relevant. The problem I see for people supporting his incarceration is that they treat terrorists as some how different from other criminals. Imagine for one minute he is someone accused of murder instead of terrorist offences and how you would expect him to be treated as a result. In fact imagine he's a British, white, Christian accused of murder with some circumstantial evidence of guilt but not enough for CPS to press charges. However you think we should treat that hypothetical man is how we should treat 'accused' terrorists Your theory is flawed as you are comparing terrorism with non terrorist behaviour. Reasons and aims of such behaviour are different. I'm not trying to be ignorant or belligerent, but I really don't understand why. I suppose you could say it's 'normal' crime on a larger scale, but all the main aim of terrorism is to change a countries culture (I am guessing as thankfully I really don't get terrorism or what it hopes to achieve) through fear. No different really to someone targeting people from different cultures threatening them saying this isn't their area. If they kill someone who is a civilian then they are a murderer. Everything they do is just a crime on a different scale and I honestly don't think we need any additional laws to deal with it at all. Just apply the current laws better. If they haven't broken any of the current laws then they aren't being particularly 'terrifying'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 With respect, I think terrorists should be treated different from other criminals . Terrorism is the biggest threat to World peace at the moment which justifies why different rules should be applied to these people . Convicted murdering Irish terrorists were released from prison early as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement to help bring peace . It made me sick when our Queen shook hands with Martin Mcguinness, but for the sake of peace I accept this is a necessary evil just as it is necessary to keep suspected terrorists in places like Guantanomo for years without trials . Regarding evidence , it would be dangerous and helpful to our enemies if the authorities revealed all the evidence they had on terrorist suspects, so I accept our allies the Americans had good reason to detain Shaker Aamer without any need to see evidence . You make an exception like that for one group, and soon you could find political opponents labelled as terrorists and held without charge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 You make an exception like that for one group, and soon you could find political opponents labelled as terrorists and held without charge... I'm sure many of the posters on here would be more suited to living in a dictatorship. They seem to have lost all concept of modern judicial process. I'm sure Gamston (if given the opportunity) would have us back in the middle ages..which is ironic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I'm sure many of the posters on here would be more suited to living in a dictatorship. They seem to have lost all concept of modern judicial process. I'm sure Gamston (if given the opportunity) would have us back in the middle ages..which is ironic. You are confusing me with ISIS , it's them who want to take the World back to the middle ages . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 (edited) I'm not trying to be ignorant or belligerent, but I really don't understand why. I suppose you could say it's 'normal' crime on a larger scale, but all the main aim of terrorism is to change a countries culture (I am guessing as thankfully I really don't get terrorism or what it hopes to achieve) through fear. No different really to someone targeting people from different cultures threatening them saying this isn't their area. If they kill someone who is a civilian then they are a murderer. Everything they do is just a crime on a different scale and I honestly don't think we need any additional laws to deal with it at all. Just apply the current laws better. If they haven't broken any of the current laws then they aren't being particularly 'terrifying'. I see the difference in the situation is that in the majority of murder cases the reason is anger or greed etc. And the murderer usually acts as an individual. A terrorist kills to achieve a political aim and is part of a group. The aim of a terrorist is to demonstrate by terror and propaganda that the government/authorities can not protect the population and make them lose confidence in their elected leaders hoping that the population will turn to the terrorist organisation for safety. Indiscriminate bombings/killings will also be used. Regarding the gathering of evidence. There are areas in all cities where the people will not pass on information to the police because of peer pressure imagine what it must be like if a person gave evidence in an area of terrorist activity. Edited November 4, 2015 by harvey19 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 You are confusing me with ISIS , . Not a lot of difference really. IS have an archaic and undemocratic way of dishing out justice...just like the ideals you propose in your following garbage.... With respect, I think terrorists should be treated different from other criminals . Terrorism is the biggest threat to World peace at the moment which justifies why different rules should be applied to these people . Convicted murdering Irish terrorists were released from prison early as a consequence of the Good Friday agreement to help bring peace . It made me sick when our Queen shook hands with Martin Mcguinness, but for the sake of peace I accept this is a necessary evil just as it is necessary to keep suspected terrorists in places like Guantanomo for years without trials . Regarding evidence , it would be dangerous and helpful to our enemies if the authorities revealed all the evidence they had on terrorist suspects, so I accept our allies the Americans had good reason to detain Shaker Aamer without any need to see evidence . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts