Terrorist/criminal human rights

Spoken like a true christian, joe90.

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

So to summarise my second point, we need a new set of rules for dealing with terrorists and suspected terrorists. We need to abide by these rules. I thought that this discussion was about what these new rules might be. That is the point that Deane has so far overlooked. His view would appear to be that the current rules in the UK are appropriate and must not be changed.

Don

You've expressed a perfectly valid viewpoint. The problem with the new set of rules though, as I see it, is that some arm of government will be doing the enforcing.

I just said "government" there. Most of the threads about the UK government that I read on this Forum are extremely cutting. Very few people (I'm tempted to say nobody) here seems to like them or trust them one little bit. Given many of the posts on the smoking-ban thread, a lot of you resent them exercising power or removing even one little bit of your freedom.

Yet you, Don, would like them to write themselves some brand new discretionary powers.

Do you trust your government, Don? Do you think they do a good and fair job of exercising those powers they already have? Do you reckon they've done a fair job of, for instance, running the Health System? Would they get it right with some new powers for dealing with suspected terrorists? How many miscarriages of justice would be too many under these new powers? Would there be an end-date for these powers at which time the government would be forced to revisit the new rules and put the matter before the House again. Or would these new powers last for perpetuity?

Deane

quote:

Spoken like a true christian, joe90.

Which bit? The uncertainty?

The bigotry bit, joe90.

I thought doctrine was pretty clear - the only unforgiveable sin is blaspheming against the holy spirit.

Paedophiles are human beings. Paedophilia is only one of a number of human cruelties and, in my opinion, not the worst.

quote:

Yet you, Don, would like them to write themselves some brand new discretionary powers.

I never said anything about discretionary powers. What I said was "The important things are that the rules must be reasonable, clear, and enforced". There is nothing discretionary in that.

quote:

Do you trust your government, Don? Do you think they do a good and fair job of exercising those powers they already have?

The great thing we have over here is that Government/Parliament gets to write the new rules, but its up to others to impliment them (Police and Crown Prosecution Service) and yet others to interpret the rules (judges). [OK plenty of opportunity here for others to describe the system more accurately]

Every 4 or 5 years we also get to elect a new set of MPs/Government if a reasonable number of us don't like what the current bunch are trying to do.

So to answer your specific points, Nobody entirely trusts our Government, but on balance, they do a fair and reasonable job and we have some safeguards in place to ensure the essential balance between perfection and realism remains civilised.

Cheers

Don

quote:

quote:

Interesting post. I take it that God doesn't forgive paedophile pond-scrapings then?

He probably does.
But he also gave the rest of us the whit to arrange for that forgivness to be received sooner, rather than later.
Cheers
Don

The flaw with this argument of course is that it is the same argument that the terroists use.

It would be (relatively) straightforward to change the rules of evidence and the quality of proof required in terror-related criminal cases, but I really don't see why that should happen.

Why should the proof required for terror-related offences of conspiracy, attempted murder, and murder be different from "ordinary" murder? The reason for the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is to minimise the chances of people being wrongly convicted.

If terrible crimes are committed surely it is particularly important the the perpetrators are brough to book. If you make it too easy to convict the police might not be as rigourous in their endeavours to find the real culprits. Guilford 4 Birmingham 6 etc - and that was under existing rules.

quote:

The flaw with this argument of course is that it is the same argument that the terroists use

Whilst (some) terrorists might use this argument, the argument for capital punishment isn't flawed as a consequence.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Why should the proof required for terror-related offences of conspiracy, attempted murder, and murder be different from "ordinary" murder? The reason for the "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof is to minimise the chances of people being wrongly convicted.

In practice, I am of the opinion that the required quality of proof is too high at present. In the case of terrorist crime or attempted crime, I am of the opinion that the quality of proof could be reduced to "on the balance of probability" in which case the punishment should be life. This would safeguard, to some extent, anybody who could subsequently demonstrate their innocence. Where the quality of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt" the punishment should be death.

Perhaps the accused could choose the required quality of evidence and accept the consequential punishment if the case is proven.

If we really are concerned that the police and others "tamper" with evidence, perhaps we should introduce new rules to punish that crime in a complimentary way.

Cheers

Don

Just to muddy the waters further, what about David Cameron?

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

I never said anything about discretionary powers. What I said was "The important things are that the rules must be reasonable, clear, and enforced". There is nothing discretionary in that.

So you're not proposing any shortcuts of due process then? Just a lowering of the burden of proof?

Don

It would be interesting to know exactly how you'd separate terrorist crimes from other violent crimes. This is an important issue because every terrorist act that has been committed so far has offended against existing criminal law.

Is terrorism different only because of the motive or intent of the perpetrator?

quote:

So you're not proposing any shortcuts of due process then? Just a lowering of the burden of proof?

Exactly

Cheers

Don

quote:

It would be interesting to know exactly how you'd separate terrorist crimes from other violent crimes.

We don't seem to have a problem in recognising which is which. 9/11; 7/7; 21/7; Madrid; Bali; London's West-End last week and Glasgow Airport. All clearly terrorist actions. Apply terrorist rules.

If during the course of the investigation or trial it becomes clear that a case isn't a terrorist crime, then normal rules apply.

I'm sure you can work out for yourself the difference between a murderer, a terrorist and a soldier. Perhaps you would like first shot at drafting a deffinition for each. For me, I'm happy to leave that to the Parliamentary Draughtsmen to create and for the Judges to interpret.

Cheers

Don

I am a patriot

He is a guerrilla fighter

They are terrorists

Sort that out Don!

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

In practice, I am of the opinion that the required quality of proof is too high at present. In the case of terrorist crime or attempted crime, I am of the opinion that the quality of proof could be reduced to "on the balance of probability" in which case the punishment should be life. This would safeguard, to some extent, anybody who could subsequently demonstrate their innocence. Where the quality of evidence is "beyond reasonable doubt" the punishment should be death.

[...].

If we really are concerned that the police and others "tamper" with evidence, perhaps we should introduce new rules to punish that crime in a complimentary way.

Cheers, Don

Two points I completely agree with. This precisely defines how rhe UK gov't should go about introducing the death penalty for fatal or potentially fatal acts of terrorism. And planning or aiding and abetting them.

Sincerely, Fredrik

So how would you have tried the guy who nail bombed a pub in London a few years ago cos he ha a grievance against gays.
Terrorist or violent criminal?

Terrorist.

In my view, mayhem pitted against unspecified, and unknown victims is an act of terrorism. The fact that some of them may have a common cultural back-ground [disliked by the terrorist(s)] is not significant in my view. That is the answer to the question, which you asked...

However, my definition of a terrorist is not especially important. It has been defined in the UK before for legal purposes, and no doubt the legislature and the judiciary can once more find a working definition in terms of administering justice.

Sincerely, Fredrik

I for one am grateful that some of you have no influence in framing the laws of the land.

Derek, Bob, Nigel,

Fredrik already provided the answer. Looks like the Government already defined terrorist. Might be worth looking it up Derek, just in case it includes Patriots.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

I'm sure you can work out for yourself the difference between a murderer, a terrorist and a soldier. Perhaps you would like first shot at drafting a deffinition for each. For me, I'm happy to leave that to the Parliamentary Draughtsmen to create and for the Judges to interpret.

Don

Definitions are exactly where the shit hits the fan. The drafters of the legislation and the judges aren't the problem. Nor are the lawyers. By the time it gets to judges and lawyers the rules have already been stretched to fit whatever the police or other arm of government wanted the rule to fit.

You couldn't answer my question and that's ok. It seems you haven't thought that deeply about the implications of your ideas.

Deane

In terms of the rules concerning the use of Diplock courts, for terrorist justice, these existed, and even in those days normal cases were generally put to trial by jury. Therefore I think we can take it that what a terrorist is, and what an act of terrorism is are both well defined in terms of the law, the way the judiciary functions, and indeed how the security services act when it is suspected or discovered...

It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that new rules to suite current terrorism can be defined and made to work in future.

I am sure that we are all miles behind what has already been considered. Cobra was called in the last few days. I don't suppose they discussed Wimbledon. I would be very surprised if we don't see that some measures will be brought in to counter the threat as it exists today at the appropriate time. There is not a chance that terrorism will be allowed to take the upper hand.

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

Therefore I think we can take it that what a terrorist is, and what an act of terrorism is are both well defined in terms of the law, the way the judiciary functions, and indeed how the security services act when it is suspected or discovered...

Which all means that you don't know either.

I know it in the sense that juryless trials became the norm for terrorism cases after recomendations by Lord Diplock. There was considerable controversy over it at the time, and I am old enough to remember that. But fortunately the rights of the majority of peaceful and good citizens caused a sensible way to be found in dealing with the terrorist threat, and this set the path for the political settlement in Northern Ireland, which would never have been possible had the situation not been stabilised...

May I suggest you look up some references about Diplock? I don't have any to hand, but I am sure you have the time and inclination to find out.

Sincerely, Fredrik

It's not difficult; a terrorist is someone who attempts violence for political purposes indiscriminately & illegally. If I remember correctly during the troubles in NI, a targeted victim was called murder (or political murder), not terrorism, so I think it has to relate to indiscriminate attacks on random civilians. I know what is coming, so I'll guess that an act of war differs only in that it is carried out by a government (?). Anyhow, let's not get sidetracked into talking about Blair/Bush again because we've done that to death.