**** Terrorists

quote:

Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:

The bigger the whole you did for yourself the more it is apparent that your have absolutely no idea what the point is that is being made about the current spate of terrorism in UK. When these terrorists are attempting to blow people up in NZ in the same way

Terrorism as experienced in New Zealand is nothing like what you've experienced in the UK. In our case it was carried out by French professionals...

quote:

and [and even succeeding on previous occasion] you may adopt a more pragmatic posotion.

I'll continue to adopt that viewpoint most consistent with my beliefs about restraints of Executive power and human rights.

quote:

He forfeited his rights by his actions and intentions, and disregard for his own responsibilities within society...

I'm not sure where you get this notion of forfeiture of rights. I rather suspect that in your country nothing much has changed and that a person's rights are forfeited only after due process - and even then are forfeited to only a limited extent.

quote:

Originally posted by Rasher:

We've done with PC crap, it's over. Noddy & Bigears were not gay. We took our eye off the ball and, fuck me, we're paying for it.

So terrorist attacks in the UK are about PC crap?

I kinda thought that the targeting had something to do with that whole British support for GWB and invading Iraq thing...?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
So terrorist attacks in the UK are about PC crap?

In a way it's a trickle down from the way we consider the welfare of the criminals and tried too hard to find the causes of this behaviour, while forgetting the needs and support of the victims. The result is now that there is a terrific backlash with the greater public feeling abandoned, and a dangerous undercurrent of people feeling that they will have to take matters into their own hands for their own safety. Sarah's Law is a perfect example. I think the situation regarding terrorists would have been different if the police hadn't been so terrified of admitting that they were looking at a particular community for the terrorists, and being accused of being racist as a result.

It has not gone unnoticed that the govenment statements regarding the attacks have not mentioned the words Muslim or Islam at all.

Right or wrong, this is the situation as it stands in the UK as I see it, with an almighty public rejection of the human rights argument being put forward in relation to all criminals.

I think we are going off topic here, so I suggest we continue this in a new thread.

Rasher

I'd argue that just when it seems most desperately necessary to ignore human rights for a greater good - is exactly when a Nation needs most to cleave to them unwaveringly.

Purely from an operational point of view, I have found that treating suspected terrorists as human beings and respecting their human rights is the most productive way of handling them. They expect to be mistreated and judge their captors accordingly. However if they are treated well it wrong-foots them. It plants a sead of doubt in their mind - maybe the infidels aren't exactly as we were told. Hence they are more likely to be co-operative. Of course some just see it as a sign of weakness but they are the ones that would take strength from anything that we do

quote:

Purely from an operational point of view...

Ahh, the voice of reason. That's no good. Where does being sensible, patient and clever about things ever get us eh? Ooops sorry that's the Americans I was thinking of (sorry guys...)

(Anyway, once we've got everything we need, then we can bang 'em up until one day they 'disappear' right? Nudge. Nudge. Wink. Wink.)

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
I kinda thought that the targeting had something to do with that whole British support for GWB and invading Iraq thing...?

Urm, no-one *I* knows wanted that sodding war. I think you'll find we had no actual choice in whether we went to war with Iraq or not. So why don't these terrorists go straight to the source and wax Tony Blair, or now, of course, Gordon Brown?

Bunch of cowards that they are, taking it out on innocent people. They should have left the terrorist in that jeep to cook - would have saved police time and/or a bullet.

I mean, what about OUR human rights to be able to live in peace without all this kind of crap? As a direct result of this, my employer has put in place lots of seemingly ridiculous extra security rules for what seems no reason whatsoever.

Any real terrorist'd either go for the government or some real target like a football match or blow up Spaghetti Junction during rush hour or something - not some fairly easy target.

Like it or not (and I do like it) every suspect of crime is presumed innocent until proved guilty by the rigorous process of the legal process.

Rasher

quote:

You come from the Highlands and now live in Illinois. I don't want to say you don't know what it's like, but you don't know what it's like

Sorry to rain our your parade but I am currently living and working in Glasgow and live less than 3 miles from Glasgow Airport so I do know what's it's like....and I know what the population density of the UK is but thanks for the reminder.

For the record I never at any point in my post said that we needed to be PC - I simply challenged the point that the erosion on rights can lead to a slippery slope. You said

quote:

draw the line at the removal of human rights at the point it needs to be drawn in order to protect the people that live here

Fair enough...but who decides and when? Is it left to the discretion of local officials, standards set by Government or can any Tom, Dick or George simply decide on the spur of the moment....that was my point. You also ignored my comment about the likelihood that the individual in hospital was more than likely to have been questioned and that speculation on here (from Fredrik in this case) that he wasn't was just that - speculation.

Cheers

Jim

There I was thinking you were going from a remote Highland region to an equally remote Naperville, and there you are in Glasgow all the time! You've set me up.

quote:

Fair enough...but who decides and when? Is it left to the discretion of local officials, standards set by Government or can any Tom, Dick or George simply decide on the spur of the moment....that was my point. You also ignored my comment about the likelihood that the individual in hospital was more than likely to have been questioned

I agree that absolute removal of human rights would lead to the disintegration of society, but at the time when a suspect..no... absolutely no-doubt guilty individual has been caught red handed, and that lives are in danger and can be saved by extracting information, then there must be an acknowledgment of priority to get that information. My point has always been with regard to the immediate period during the attack, and I thought I was clear in this with my original posting, but this seems to be misrepresented as my view overall long-term.

quote:

Purely from an operational point of view, I have found that treating suspected terrorists as human beings and respecting their human rights is the most productive way of handling them. They expect to be mistreated and judge their captors accordingly.

That's good to hear. It isn't about deliberately mistreating suspects but finding the most productive way of getting what you need when you need it above all else, without the suspect being given the right to just walk away.

It's a bit of a shame the original post that heated this up has been removed and it's now landed on my lap!

Rasher

I can understand why you thought i was removed from everything....and just FYI, Naperville is not remote. It forms part of the western suburbs of the greater Chicago conurbation which is approximately 15 million people, so I know something about population density I think. :-)

Anyway, all done now.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

He forfeited his rights by his actions and intentions, and disregard for his own responsibilities within society...

Is'nt that the point though. They ARE human rights and a terrorist or not we ALL should expect to be treated in a method that is not unduly cruel. If WE, a civilised country (no mention of Guantanamo here)do not uphold the rights of the human, then all society fails. I've never understood the argument that state sponsored execution teaches anyone that it is wrong to kill for example.

I agree, execution is no deterrent. However human nature also demands retribution if not rehabilitation.

The victims of crime and their families suffer from these crimes for the rest of their lives. That poor mother of the 2 year old girl who was tortured and murdered and had an appauling last few hours of life will live with that for the rest of her own life. This is an unfair and harsh punishment on an innocent person.

Question: Should the perpetrator not also suffer similar levels of mind numbing distress and punishment for the rest of his life and be forced to somehow make good to the little girls family and/or the nation for the rest of his life too?

quote:

Question: Should the perpetrator not also suffer similar levels of mind numbing distress and punishment for the rest of his life and be forced to somehow make good to the little girls family and/or the nation for the rest of his life too?

No. Two wrongs never make a right. This is the awkward position that justice puts us in. It is justice that we seek not vengance. If vengance becomes the norm then I have to agree with Ghandi " An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind"

quote:

Originally posted by JamieWednesday:
I agree, execution is no deterrent.

Ironic that you would capture someone trying to kill themselves (and others) so you can ....err...kill them yourself. It doesn't really seem to be a punishment, does it!

quote:

Should the perpetrator not also suffer similar levels of mind numbing distress and punishment for the rest of his life and be forced to somehow make good to the little girls family and/or the nation for the rest of his life too?

What is done is done and no-one can repair that.
What could be more punishment than putting this pathetic excuse for a human being in a cell with the full knowledge that they will never again be free until death, especially at his age with what was his whole life ahead of him. If he has the mental capacity to fully appreciate that, which I personally doubt, then that must be the greatest punishment you can give. It's just a shame that it will cost the taxpayer an enormous amount to do it. I am sure also that his life will be made pretty miserable when he gets inside, as it's well known that there is an unwritten code in the sub-culture of the netherworld beyond the high walls and barbed wire.

quote:

Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
It is justice that we seek not vengance.

Justice is a funny word, isn't it. In the case of the raped and murdered 2 year old, there is no justice; nothing can compensate so punishment as revenge is all the justice system can do.
I don't know the answer.

There's a lot more to judicial sentencing than revenge.

The imposition of the punishment holds the offender to account for their actions.

There is some attempt to provide for any victims of the crime.

The imposition of the sentence in open court is a public denouncement of the crime.

The imposition of punishment in open court attempts to deter the offender from committing the same crime again and to deter others in the community from committing that crime.

Custodial sentences protect the community from the offender.

A custodial sentence allows some opportunity to rehabilitate the offender or a controlled opportunity to reintegrate them into the community.

There are, and should be, more interests at play in a criminal justice system than just the victims of a crime.

Well, I'm not sure that much acts as a deterrent against these sort of crimes. Does a child raper or a terrorist stop to think "Hang on, I might get caught and punished for this, I better stop even thinking about doing it"?

I don't think so. I think it's more likely your your own moral judgement, the sense of right and wrong that determines which way you jump. So the only deterrent is the physical one to that offender alone, one of confinement.

So if deterrent is not an issue for would be offenders, that leaves the other two fundamentals of a justice system, rehabilitation and retribution.

I have no data on re-offending levels but we do seem to hear about an awful lot of re-offenders and I'm not sure many religious zealots intent on killing and maiming large sections of the population, or child murderers can actually be succesfully encouraged to change their ways, for ever. As there is clearly something else going on inside their heads. Some do seem to change their ways, at least publicly vis. Gerry Adams, Nelson Mandela for example but I fear they are the minority.

Which leaves the last point. Retribution. An offender must be punished and must be seen to be punished in the eyes of the state and the mob. It's the degree of punishment inflicted that is the only issue.

If we are not ourselves to kill a child killer in revenge because that makes us barbaric, do we lock him up for the rest of his life? 50 Years? 10? A couple of weeks? A fine? Community service? Do we string up by his testicles while he's there or do we remove his television rights for the duration? When in past history an offender was stockaded, ducked or hung, drawn and then quartered, it would be in public to satisfy the need to see 'justice' done and rightly or wrongly, that need was satisfied.

Perhaps we just need to be able to see the offenders suffer?

quote:

Justice is a funny word, isn't it. In the case of the raped and murdered 2 year old, there is no justice

I'm thinking more about the word; the definition of "justice" rather than the "judicial system" itself.
For instance, if someone drives into another car and drives away, but is subesquently caught, taken to court and made to pay for the damage - well, that is justice. But that type of justice cannot be done in the case of a murder. Of course the judicial system can lock someone up, but they can't undo the damage.
Maybe I misunderstand the word, or want it to mean too much, like everything is put right, but anyway, it's a red-herring to this thread so let's forget it.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:


or another bogus 'terrorist' attack to keep us all fearful and show the new PM's stamp of 'quiet authority'?

Erik

What brand of tinfoil do you use for your hat?

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
Isn't it great that the English Legal Tradition has evolved? Treats all thugs the same - even vigillantes...

Can you justify calling the man that detained the bomber a "thug"?

What would you suggest in similar circumstances: the use of harsh language, sarcasm and hyperbole?

Your geographic distance goes some way to excusing your sanctimonious point of view, but I'd expect you are very much in a minority here.

Mike

I suggest you read my original post a little more carefully. I didn't call the man that detained the bomber a "thug".

Deane

"treats all thugs the same... even vigilantes"

I assumed that the vigilante you refered to was the man that detained the crap bomber, and you include them as a subset of "thug".

Just found this...

Twas doon by the inch o’ Abbots
Oor Johnny walked one day
When he saw a sicht that troubled him
Far more that he could say
A fanatic muslim fatherless
Wiz doin what he’d planned
And intae Glesca’s departure hall
A Cherokee he’d rammed.

A big Glaswegian polis
Came forward tae assist
He thocht “a wumman driver”
Or at least someone half-pissed
But to his shock nae drunken Jock
Emerged to grasp his hand
But a flamin Arab loony
Frae Al Qaeda’s band

The mad Islamist nut-case
Had set hissel’ on fire
And swung oot at the polis
GBH his clear desire
Now that’s no richt wur Johnny cried
And sallied tae the fray
A left hook and a heid butt
Required tae save the day.

Now listen up Bin Laden
Yir sort’s nae wanted here
For imported English radicals
Us Scoatsman huv nae fear
Oor hame grown Glesca Asians
Will have nae bluidy truck
So tak yer worldwide jihad
An get yersel tae F***

www.johnsmeaton.com
_________________