sgtkate Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 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. Difficult one I guess. I can see your argument but I don't agree with it. The reasons for killing are different yet we have the same evidence required to prove it. In short our current laws probably don't reflect the state of play in the world now. Same as our surveillance laws. Things change far faster than governments can legislate for. Perhaps things need massively updating to reflect what evidence is needed to convict on terrorism grounds, what we can do in the interim etc. The current laws of we can hold someone for 28 days without charge isn't good enough. In my opinion there just has to be some evidence of wrongdoing, not just suspicion unless you want all our laws to become guilty until proven innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I think most of us think the same that ideally a suspect is put through the courts. The problem arises when there is not the evidence to put a person before a court and yet believe they have or will commit dreadfull acts which will kill or maim innocent civilians to achieve their aims. It may be a case of weighing up the odds in favour of keeping someone in custody or allowing innocent people to be killed indiscriminately. Anyhow I am glad I do not have to make these decisions and fully appreciate we are only told a fraction of the story. Permission to fall out ma'm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassity Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 I think most of us think the same that ideally a suspect is put through the courts. The problem arises when there is not the evidence to put a person before a court and yet believe they have or will commit dreadfull acts which will kill or maim innocent civilians to achieve their aims. It may be a case of weighing up the odds in favour of keeping someone in custody or allowing innocent people to be killed indiscriminately. Anyhow I am glad I do not have to make these decisions and fully appreciate we are only told a fraction of the story. Permission to fall out ma'm. How can you believe something without evidence and confine on that basis without due process (a look)? If you confine someone for several years without judicial process, based on your fear that if released they may do serious harm to others, then it stands to reason that the suspect should never be released..judicial process or not. Which underminds the whole legal process of innocent until proven guilty. Thieves on average re-offend..do we lock them up based on the possibility of re-offending? It seems in this case as well as others, confining is based on possibilities rather than hard evidence...or any evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon 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. It does make you wonder if some of the poster would be more suited to living in Saudi Arabia or Iran than in a liberal democracy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It does make you wonder if some of the poster would be more suited to living in Saudi Arabia or Iran than in a liberal democracy? It's Shaker Aamer who should be living in Saudi Arabia following his release , without any compensation from UK Tax payers . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 It's Shaker Aamer who should be living in Saudi Arabia following his release , without any compensation from UK Tax payers . Yoy obviously havent listened or taken anything thats been said. Until the UK govt has legal cause to reject his residency, then he can continue living in the UK with his wife and kids. As he hasnt been charged with anything, then he's innocent until proven guilty. He is seeking compensation from the UK govt because its the UK govt he is claiming have done him harm by the acts of its agents. If someone accused you of something and the police arrested you then youd expect them to charge you and provide evidence or let you go. If the police beat you up whilst in custody you would make a claim against the police for their behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 Yoy obviously havent listened or taken anything thats been said. Until the UK govt has legal cause to reject his residency, then he can continue living in the UK with his wife and kids. As he hasnt been charged with anything, then he's innocent until proven guilty. He is seeking compensation from the UK govt because its the UK govt he is claiming have done him harm by the acts of its agents. If someone accused you of something and the police arrested you then youd expect them to charge you and provide evidence or let you go. If the police beat you up whilst in custody you would make a claim against the police for their behaviour. No body has said anything to change my thoughts about the subject . There have been plenty of comparisons between apples and oranges though . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted November 4, 2015 Author Share Posted November 4, 2015 Is this wonderful, charity-giving, selfless individual going to be using legal aid or other taxpayer funded vehicle to sue the government here? Do you think if he was resident in his own country, they would provide that service for Saint Shaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 How can you believe something without evidence and confine on that basis without due process (a look)? If you confine someone for several years without judicial process, based on your fear that if released they may do serious harm to others, then it stands to reason that the suspect should never be released..judicial process or not. Which underminds the whole legal process of innocent until proven guilty. Thieves on average re-offend..do we lock them up based on the possibility of re-offending? It seems in this case as well as others, confining is based on possibilities rather than hard evidence...or any evidence. Let me put an hypothetical scenario to you. If you knew someone had planted bombs which had killed and maimed innocent people and you had information as to the identity of that person although the informant would not go to court. If the terrorist was fully committed to their cause and so would be carrying out further acts of killing and maiming innocent people would you want him/her in custody or free to kill and maim. Consider this in the context that it was one of your relatives that had had both their arms and legs blown off and the terrorist was operating in an area where you and your loved ones lived. Easy to sit in a safe place and talk about justice but some people have to make decisions in extraordinary situations. Regarding the release of terrorists it usually occurs when there is an end to hostilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted November 4, 2015 Share Posted November 4, 2015 No body has said anything to change my thoughts about the subject . There have been plenty of comparisons between apples and oranges though . But this shows why you are completely illogical and do not appreciate what the rule of law means in this country. Obviously youd be quite happy to be detained without trial or evidence as well as partial to a bit of torture. ---------- Post added 04-11-2015 at 21:22 ---------- Let me put an hypothetical scenario to you. If you knew someone had planted bombs which had killed and maimed innocent people and you had information as to the identity of that person although the informant would not go to court. If the terrorist was fully committed to their cause and so would be carrying out further acts of killing and maiming innocent people would you want him/her in custody or free to kill and maim. Consider this in the context that it was one of your relatives that had had both their arms and legs blown off and the terrorist was operating in an area where you and your loved ones lived. Easy to sit in a safe place and talk about justice but some people have to make decisions in extraordinary situations. Regarding the release of terrorists it usually occurs when there is an end to hostilities. If I knew someone was a terrorist and they had either planted bombs and or intended to carry out bombings then I would report them. If I was scared then I woudl do so annonymously. Your post makes little sense. Have another go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts