|
fiat_lux -> RE: Another Sign Europe is Doomed: Brit Judges Free Terrorists (7/3/2008 11:47:36 PM)
|
quote:
fiat_lux wrote: "If you can't actually prove in court that they're terrorists, then how do you know that they're terrorists?"
Look, I am not interested in arguing legalities or semantics with you. I frankly don't care whether or not they have "been convicted in court." The article said that these men belong to al Qaeda, so to me, they are terrorists.
Well, someone told you they belonged to al Qaeda. That someone must have some evidence to back up that belief. If they want them locked up, then that evidence ought to be presented in a courtroom in order to get a conviction. According to the article linked to, there was in fact evidence to do so, but the British preferred to go for the deportation route. I think that was a mistake. I think they should have been convicted there. If they were already restrained in jail, then the British could go about worrying about whether Jordan wants them afterwards to try them for some other crime. This would seem to prevent the problem of spending enormous amounts on police surveillance while they walk around on the streets.
I find the notion that civil rights are mere "semantics" to be rather worrying. I find the fact that you consider jailing someone without a conviction to be "semantics" to be equally worrying. But then, I'm a smaller-government, pro-civil rights sort of person.
quote:
But if if makes you feel better, maybe we can refer to them as "walking pieces of Islamo-Fascist garbage". Is that better?
I would first and foremost refer to them as human beings. If it makes you feel better to come up with derogatory slurs, that of course is your privilege.
quote:
Correction: Samina Malik is not a man, she is a woman, which to me is worse. Please go to the following link to read some of poetry written by this follower of "the Religion of Peace":
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17954
Why is it worse that she is a woman? Women can be convicted, too. I don't see how this changes anything. That literature is, I agree, disgusting. However, it is poetry. It's fairly tough to charge someone for writing poetry.
Some of the terrorist literature advocating and prescribing killing, however, would be illegal, as the appeals court itself actually stated in its decision:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2145506/'Lyrical-Terrorist'-Samina-Malik-cleared-on-appeal.html
On this basis it suggested that the prosecutors re-try the case focusing on that material rather than on the poetry, but at this point the prosecutors haven't decided to go forward yet. Personally I would not complain if they do. At the end of the day, they pointed out, the only thing that Malik is guilty of is possession of terrorism-inciting materials, not actually being a member of a terrorist organization or of plotting terrorist acts. And for that reason, if they did re-try her, the offence would probably result in a sentence of time already served, covering the time she's already been jailed.
quote:
This is my question: why was this writing not enough to have this women be put in prison for a hate crime? After all, we all know that if a Christian wrote such inflammatory poetry while living in the EU, and if it was directed at Muslims, he or she would be put on trial for a hate crime and be put in prison before the day was out - just like Mark Steyn in Canada
I think you may have some exaggerated ideas about foreign legal systems. For one thing, no one is putting Steyn in prison.
That said, if this is a hate crime, then it should certainly be prosecuted as such. Apparently we agree on that point.
quote:
I can see the wisdom of Gitmo, I do not wish some fool with a bomb to kill my family or me, just because he thinks he is getting to have relations with 72 virgins. That ia perverted to say the least anyway. Can they not find seventy two in their country. Why blow yourself up, and when they are not virgins anymore then what do you do in muslim heaven? Yes, keep them locked up.
Not to justify the terrorists, but most of them aren't motivated by this. That's a bonus for a few, I guess, but we're dealing with a lot more serious movement here than just some fools who think they're going to get virgins as payment. And you're right, they can surely be "locked up." Once we prove they're terrorists and convict them of that, because, yes, anyone plotting to kill your family with a bomb is definitely committing a very serious crime.
However, our system of justice is based on evidence, not on accusation alone. Until that evidence is presented so that there can be a conviction, I think it is extremely dangerous as a precedent for us to simply accept that these individuals are dangerous terrorists. Try them, convict them, lock them away. That's how our system works. If you're going to let the government take away basic judicial rights of the citizenry, then we are not winning this war.
quote:
They are a world wide network of militaristic style terrorist organizations that honor no flag or leader other than the one immediately over them. They wear no uniform and hold all kinds of legitimate jobs.
THey are not criminals.
They do not commit criminal acts. They commit acts of war.
Excellent. Then let's treat them as prisoners of war. We have laws for those, too.
quote:
Evidence of their connections and acts can not be easily obtained because that evidence is either in war zones or is protected by contries and governments that are either being propped up by terrorists, or house and support terrorists.
The people in question lived in Britain for many years. And if the government can't summon evidence to support the charge that they're a terrorist, then it can't convince me that the individual in question is a terrorist.
I think the problem here is simply the level of trust we're willing to place in big governments. I simply don't trust big governments very much. The legal system, and the rights people possess within that system, is a check on their power that makes sure that power won't be abused. Historically, out-of-control governments have killed a lot more people than out-of-control terrorists.
quote:
As another Wall Street Journal Opinion piece stated; if we in the West continue to demand that terrorists be treated as criminals you are going to see a lot more of these "criminals" killed in action.
I'm not sure what the WSJ is driving at here from what you've said, but if it's suggesting that the terrorists be killed "in action" to avoid the technicalities of the legal system, that in my opinion that would be summary execution, ergo murder.
quote:
Islamic extrmeists have identified our weakness and aim to turn our strengths-our liberties and sense of justice- against ourselves because they see our liberties and our way of life in opposition to their God, and the way their God intends for life on Earth to exist.
The solution to a war on my way of life, surely, is not to abandon that way of life, but to continue to practice it in the face of any adversity.
|
|
|
|