Shaker Aamer £1m Compo

[harvey19]

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 ----------

 

 

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.

 

You have justified everything I have said.

By anonymously reporting a terrorist you would be supplying intelligence.

How would you expect this to be acted on ?

Without you giving evidence it would not be sufficient to charge them.

[999tigger]

You have justified everything I have said.

By anonymously reporting a terrorist you would be supplying intelligence.

How would you expect this to be acted on ?

Without you giving evidence it would not be sufficient to charge them.

 

No you fail to understand what evidence is hence your posts making little sense.

 

Example.

 

I know my neighbour is going to plant a bomb.

 

I tip off the police that his weapons and the bomb are in his garage. For the purpose of your argument I do it annonymously.

 

The police decide I wasnt a prankster becayse ive given them sufficient information to take it seriously.

 

They come and arrest the man, with the bomb etc.

 

My tip off has allowed that to happen. I dont need to provide other evidence if they have caught the person with a bomb along with anything else they find, such as on his computer ,mobile phone evidence etc. That would be plenty and enough to charge them on.

Edited November 4, 2015 by 999tigger

[harvey19]

No you fail to understand what evidence is hence your posts making little sense.

 

Example.

 

I know my neighbour is going to plant a bomb.

 

I tip off the police that his weapons and the bomb are in his garage. For the purpose of your argument I do it annonymously.

 

The police decide I wasnt a prankster becayse ive given them sufficient information to take it seriously.

 

They come and arrest the man, with the bomb etc.

 

My tip off has allowed that to happen. I dont need to provide other evidence if they have caught the person with a bomb along with anything else they find, such as on his computer ,mobile phone evidence etc. That would be plenty and enough to charge them on.

 

You base your assumption on the terrorist having incriminating evidence in their possession.

What if there is no material evidence to be found what action would you expect to be taken.

[999tigger]

You base your assumption on the terrorist having incriminating evidence in their possession.

What if there is no material evidence to be found what action would you expect to be taken.

 

If I cant provide anything and they dont find anything then they cant do anything. Without additional evidence then you cnat prove they have done anything wrong can you.

 

I wouldnt expect anyone to be charged on this basis, so i cnat see your problem.

 

The police would be unlikely to act unless they checked out the situation and felt there was a good chance of finding soemthing. Ynless it was an immediate risk then they would make a decision to monitor and gather further intelligence.

[harvey19]

If I cant provide anything and they dont find anything then they cant do anything. Without additional evidence then you cnat prove they have done anything wrong can you.

 

I wouldnt expect anyone to be charged on this basis, so i cnat see your problem.

 

The police would be unlikely to act unless they checked out the situation and felt there was a good chance of finding soemthing. Ynless it was an immediate risk then they would make a decision to monitor and gather further intelligence.

But we are not talking about the niceties in the Uk we are talking about an area where there is civil war.

The authorities have been reliably informed a person has carried out murderous acts and is going to carry out more.

Should he be allowed to kill and maim when this is his/her known intention ?

Not clear cut as you seem to think.

[999tigger]

But we are not talking about the niceties in the Uk we are talking about an area where there is civil war.

The authorities have been reliably informed a person has carried out murderous acts and is going to carry out more.

Should he be allowed to kill and maim when this is his/her known intention ?

Not clear cut as you seem to think.

 

what the hell are you talking about harvey? Make some sense by outlining in a clear fashion what your points are in a rational manner.

 

Have another go at making your point. Are you trying to relate this back to the detention of shaker? If so why couldnt you just address that issue without all this messing about then you could have gotten a direct answer.

Edited November 4, 2015 by 999tigger

[harvey19]

what the hell are you talking about harvey? Make some sense by outlining in a clear fashion what your points are in a rational manner.

 

Have another go at making your point.

 

Sorry if I have not made myself clear.

The hypothetical terrorist scenario I have debated centres on the following points.

Basically my point is that a person will not be convicted of a crime if there is no evidence but intelligence may provide sufficient reason to intern them to prevent them becoming involved in future activities.

[taxman]

But we are not talking about the niceties in the Uk we are talking about an area where there is civil war.

The authorities have been reliably informed a person has carried out murderous acts and is going to carry out more.

Should he be allowed to kill and maim when this is his/her known intention ?

Not clear cut as you seem to think.

 

Would you be OK about me sending you a Revenue Assessment for, say, £500,000 based on intel I'd had about you but which was suspect and not allowed to be disclosed to you?

 

I can if you want, just PM me your NI number.

 

If you think that would be a gross violation of your civil liberties then you know how Shaker Aamer must feel.

[harvey19]

Would you be OK about me sending you a Revenue Assessment for, say, £500,000 based on intel I'd had about you but which was suspect and not allowed to be disclosed to you?

 

I can if you want, just PM me your NI number.

 

If you think that would be a gross violation of your civil liberties then you know how Shaker Aamer must feel.

 

It was an hypothetical situation I was debating, but I do admit that I did go off the topic title.

[JFKvsNixon]

Sorry if I have not made myself clear.

The hypothetical terrorist scenario I have debated centres on the following points.

Basically my point is that a person will not be convicted of a crime if there is no evidence but intelligence may provide sufficient reason to intern them to prevent them becoming involved in future activities.

 

So if I ring up the authorities and say that you're planning a bombing campaign, and after investigation the authorities cannot find any evidence. You'd expect to be left alone to get on with your life wouldn't you.

 

If the authorities locked you up for, was it 13 years? You'd expect the authorities to compensate you.

 

I'd have no problem with Shaker Aamer being thrown in prison for the rest of his days if it could be proved he was up to no good. For some reason the government of the day decided not to pursue this angle. It is them that the anger should be directed at.