Jump to content

Shaker Aamer £1m Compo


Recommended Posts

1. It might not reach court.

2. His incarceration is a separate issue. Thats mostly down to the Americans.

3. Its not just in my eyes, its in the eyes of the law, that he is innocent till proven guilty.

4. You can have suspicions. but without evidence thats all they are. You cna have an opinion, but its no different if someone acuses you of being up to no good, but then is unable to come up with sufficient evidence. i wouldnt be judging you guilty. Thats logic and rationality, not conjecture. Fortunately the government and everyone making the decisions understands the issues and support the rule of law.

 

If ypu start taking shrotcuts, locking up people without charge or evidence or torturing thm then you start to go down the path to make yourselves as bad as the people you are fighting.

 

Yes but that is a load of garbage for those that believe in the legal stance as 'morality' rather than the legal stance as justice. scania has no rational argument when he uses 'morality' in this instance..it's just a personal stance/opinion/conjecture, which is myopic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but that is a load of garbage for those that believe in the legal stance as 'morality' rather than the legal stance as justice. scania has no rational argument when he uses 'morality' in this instance..it's just a personal stance/opinion/conjecture, which is myopic.

 

Morality is not such a bad tool to use cassity. Totally off topic, but what are your thoughts on Jimmy Savile? I personally hate the bloke, but sadly he has never been found guilty.

 

Does that make him innocent, and would you happily plead his case if someone dared to proclaim that he was a pervert, in the absence of a trial?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not such a bad tool to use cassity. Totally off topic, but what are your thoughts on Jimmy Savile? I personally hate the bloke, but sadly he has never been found guilty.

 

Does that make him innocent, and would you happily plead his case if someone dared to proclaim that he was a pervert, in the absence of a trial?

 

 

Well you dig him up and kiss life back into him and we'll see. Duh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It might not reach court.

2. His incarceration is a separate issue. Thats mostly down to the Americans.

3. Its not just in my eyes, its in the eyes of the law, that he is innocent till proven guilty.

4. You can have suspicions. but without evidence thats all they are. You cna have an opinion, but its no different if someone acuses you of being up to no good, but then is unable to come up with sufficient evidence. i wouldnt be judging you guilty. Thats logic and rationality, not conjecture. Fortunately the government and everyone making the decisions understands the issues and support the rule of law.

 

If ypu start taking shrotcuts, locking up people without charge or evidence or torturing thm then you start to go down the path to make yourselves as bad as the people you are fighting.

 

He was locked up, but he was "not detained in the same way as a criminal trial, as he was detained on the battlefield as an unlawful combatant. As far as the torture issue goes, its his say against his captors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morality is not such a bad tool to use

 

Then use it rationally not subjectively. It is immoral to detain an individual indefinitely whether you suspect or not, without due course.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 19:46 ----------

 

Again, most adult of you, but you can't answer it, can you?

 

If you did answer it honestly, you would come to the same conclusion about a potential terrorist suspect.

 

Answer what specifically? A dead man being brought to justice? what are you waffling on about..talk some sense man fcs!

Edited by cassity
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then use it rationally not subjectively. It is immoral to detain an individual indefinitely whether you suspect or not, without due course.

 

How do you define a rational subjective view of a potential terrorist. You look at what evidence or witness information that is available, and make a judgment.

If its wrong to be subjective, can you tell us all why Beggs passport was removed?

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 19:51 ----------

 

Then use it rationally not subjectively. It is immoral to detain an individual indefinitely whether you suspect or not, without due course.

 

---------- Post added 22-11-2015 at 19:46 ----------

 

 

Answer what specifically? A dead man being brought to justice? what are you waffling on about..talk some sense man fcs!

 

Answer whether or not you think he is guilty. Simple question really, fcs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How do you define a rational subjective view of a potential terrorist. You look at what evidence or witness information that is available, and make a judgment.

 

And making that judgement is done in the form of a criminal trial.

 

At least for states that want to act on it and incarcerate people it's supposed to be.

 

Otherwise it's an illegal detention.

 

And if whilst detained you happen to be tortured, states have a legal system to which you can (perhaps, when released) use to get recourse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its wrong to be subjective,

 

In your case yes..you have contempt for judicial process. How many more times...

 

Answer whether or not you think he is guilty. Simple question really, fcs.

 

Irrelevant. He hasn't been to trial..how in the hell am I supposed to answer that? He may be guilty, he maybe innocent..who knows?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.