oxbeast Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Getting those few blokes back seems to have been the only tangible benefit from the 'special relationship' we have with the US. Ministers should accept that if they think it is wrong for British citizens to be interned there, then it is wrong no matter where you come from. The Americans have made a big deal of how they are giving mercy, and doing it as a favour to the British government. All the other countries with people there will have a snowballs chance in hell of ever seeing them again. On another note, why on earth do the Cubans put up with the US having a military base there anyway? They've spent decades trying to annoy Cuba in every way, to try to get it to amend its naughtiness... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slimsid2000 Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 If people (for whatever reason) go abroad to fight against British forces in time of war they are surley guilty of treason, which still tecnically carries the death penalty in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by slimsid2000 still tecnically carries the death penalty in this country. No it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ned Ludd Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Who says they were fighting British forces? If they were, would they have been released? What if the British forces themselves are in breach of International Law? Should Blair be charged with war crimes? Sad to see that some folks in this forum aren't concerned about limbless kids and of course it's not just the one shown on telly is it? I bet there are a few out there don't think he should have been treated on the NHS either. Good publicity for Tony though eh ? what a generous guy, he brings at ear to my eye. It's a pity that the media didn't film the hundreds of others and they may have had decent treatment as well. In a way Bush and Blair are worse than Al-Queda at least they don't try to disguise their motives, actions and opinions. Our elected representatives lie to us, put us in mortal danger and spend our money to promote US business interests in the guise of defending democracy. Their own high-profile religious views encourage Muslims to see the UK and US as modern Crusader States and whose to say they are wrong? I'm not sure what views Christ would have about lying, invading other countries and killing civilians. I do wish I believed in hell myself, as it would give me great pleasure to think of Tony, George, Osama and Sadaam being toasted together for eternity. Those people in Guantanamo should be charged or released from the barbaric conditions in which they are being kept. Is this civilised behaviour? The only thing this policy is achieving is a massive recruitment drive for extremists Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by Sidla No it doesn't. It does doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gizmo Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by t020 It does doesn't it? As i undertsand it there are only two crimes for which you can still be executed in this country,possibly a third in wartime(treason) that is killing the monarch and Arson in Her Majesties Dockyard. other information about the death penalty are contained in "Articles of war" specific to the armed forces. As ever i stand to give way on this should anyone have better information Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by t020 It does doesn't it? No. I can't be arsed googling because I know this is a fact. Even if there was some stupid 500 year old law that says you'll be executed for killing Liz or burning her favourite ship, I would imagine the law would be changed before the sentence could be passed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t020 Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by Sidla No. I can't be arsed googling because I know this is a fact. Even if there was some stupid 500 year old law that says you'll be executed for killing Liz or burning her favourite ship, I would imagine the law would be changed before the sentence could be passed. Doesn't change the fact that as it stands now, death sentences do exist for crimes such as treason. Theoretical or not, they do *exist*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBouncer Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 There is also a law that states on a certain fay of each year in a certain English town it is legal to kill a welshman. Doesn't mean you'd not get done for murder if you did it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidla Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by t020 Doesn't change the fact that as it stands now, death sentences do exist for crimes such as treason. No they don't. According to http://www.richard.clark32.btinternet.co.uk/timeline.html: 27th January 1999. The Home Secretary (Jack Straw) formally signed the 6th protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights in Strasbourg, on behalf of the British government formally abolishing the death penalty in the UK. It had been still theoretically available for treason and piracy up to then but it was extremely unlikely that even if anyone had been convicted of these crimes over the preceding 30 years that they would have actually been executed. Successive Home Secretaries had always reprieved persons sentenced to death in the Channel Islands and Isle of Man where the death sentence for murder could still be passed and the Royal Prerogative was observed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.