This is why they want out...

[Scouse]

The High Court has ruled that Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was wrong to stop the BBC filming a terrorism suspect held for seven years without trial

So now they get to film. That pesky European Human Rights legislation being used against governments who hold people without trial eh?

Lord Pannick QC...said that the refusal to allow an interview breached the journalist's freedom of speech as set out in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights....In their judgement, Mr Justice Singh and Lord Justice Hooper said: "The [interview ban] constitutes a disproportionate interference with the right to freedom of expression in Article 10

...

Scummy scummy UK.gov.

 

[throdgrain]

He probably did it anyway, extridite him to the U.S and let them sort him out.

 

[Gwadien]

The High Court has ruled that Justice Secretary Ken Clarke was wrong to stop the BBC filming a terrorism suspect held for seven years without trial

So now they get to film. That pesky European Human Rights legislation being used against governments who hold people without trial eh?



...

Scummy scummy UK.gov.

Or is it a failure of the British law system, we can only put them in prison if we have proof/they admit to it, if MI6, or what ever, know that certain people have been known to be a part of a terrorist plan, but cannot definitely prove it, perhaps Clarke was wrong to let the BBC from filming him, but what if they did, and he protested his innocence, and in response the British public had a uproar and started protesting to get him released, he leaves, then organises a huge bomb attack, what would be more of a red-face situation?

 

[Scouse]

No. It's a failure of a corrupt and authoritarian government.

Innocent until proven guilty. If we can't prosecute him, we don't get to lock him up.

 

[Raven]

Agree with Scouse. Regardless of whether we think he did something, without proof or a fair trial he should be freed.

 

[JBP|]

Scummy scummy UK.gov.

Which government are we talking about here?

 

[Gwadien]

Agree with Scouse. Regardless of whether we think he did something, without proof or a fair trial he should be freed.

Wether if you agree with the point is irrelevant, the point I was making was, if they think he could be the cause of up to hundreds of deaths, they've clearly arrested him for a particular reason, and they've obviously witnessed some threatening behaviour, it's not like the authorities would just go around arresting random Muslim men walking around the streets, because they have a hunch that they could maybe, possibly, but very unlikely, be a terrorist.

Bit of a dilemma to be honest, I'm all for freedom and such, but not when that person could potentially could be a threat to society.

As Throd said (If he's being serious or not) I'm sure the guys getting a pretty good treatment in the UK, it could be worse, he could be in America.

 

[Deebs]

Hate this, if he was not accused and tried for a crime then he should never have been locked up. This just reminds me so much of the Americans and their Guantanamo Bay detention centre.

 

[Deebs]

Wether if you agree with the point is irrelevant, the point I was making was, if they think he could be the cause of up to hundreds of deaths, they've clearly arrested him for a particular reason, and they've obviously witnessed some threatening behaviour, it's not like the authorities would just go around arresting random Muslim men walking around the streets, because they have a hunch that they could maybe, possibly, but very unlikely, be a terrorist.

Bit of a dilemma to be honest, I'm all for freedom and such, but not when that person could potentially could be a threat to society.

As Throd said (If he's being serious or not) I'm sure the guys getting a pretty good treatment in the UK, it could be worse, he could be in America.

The point is though there was no proof so how can you/they be certain that he was detained for the good of the people? Democracy allows us to err on the side of error, not caution.

 

[Tom]

Wether if you agree with the point is irrelevant, the point I was making was, if they think he could be the cause of up to hundreds of deaths, they've clearly arrested him for a particular reason, and they've obviously witnessed some threatening behaviour, it's not like the authorities would just go around arresting random Muslim men walking around the streets, because they have a hunch that they could maybe, possibly, but very unlikely, be a terrorist.

Bit of a dilemma to be honest, I'm all for freedom and such, but not when that person could potentially could be a threat to society.

As Throd said (If he's being serious or not) I'm sure the guys getting a pretty good treatment in the UK, it could be worse, he could be in America.

If you want to live in a free society then these are the risks you must accept. I do not trust the authorities to make such judgements - that's why we have trial by jury.

 

[Gwadien]

But why would they have any other reason to hold him there? To purposely piss people off?

 

[Deebs]

If you want to live in a free society then these are the risks you must accept. I do not trust the authorities to make such judgements - that's why we have trial by jury.

Totally agree. I would much rather have a jury of my peers make the decision to detain someone, even if they get it wrong. They represent a range of views from those that I live amongst.

 

[Deebs]

But why would they have any other reason to hold him there? To purposely piss people off?

The point is they had NO reason to hold him, if they did they would have taken him to trial.

 

[Embattle]

Totally agree. I would much rather have a jury of my peers make the decision to detain someone, even if they get it wrong. They represent a range of views from those that I live amongst.

Yeah although rather tragic at times believing in a jury of peers.

 

[- English -]

Either that or some knowledge not made known to public

 

[Deebs]

Yeah although rather tragic at times believing in a jury of peers.

At least believing in a jury of peers means that 12 people have reached that decision.

Edit: Well at least a majority.

 

[Chilly]

The point is they had NO reason to hold him, if they did they would have taken him to trial.

It's not no reason. It's a weighted decision by the cabinet and senior security services that, on balance, they'd rather keep their sources secret as they think they can get more out of them in the future and openly disclosing them would be the end of it.

In a pragmatic society, I rekon it's OK for this type of thing to occasionally happen but there needs to be a lot of oversight by people with no/few vested interests (like maybe a panel of top judges or peers or something who can be trusted to keep quiet). What I certainly do not want is politicians taking these decisions.

 

[Deebs]

It's not no reason. It's a weighted decision by the cabinet and senior security services that, on balance, they'd rather keep their sources secret as they think they can get more out of them in the future and openly disclosing them would be the end of it.

In a pragmatic society, I rekon it's OK for this type of thing to occasionally happen but there needs to be a lot of oversight by people with no/few vested interests (like maybe a panel of top judges or peers or something who can be trusted to keep quiet). What I certainly do not want is politicians taking these decisions.

I could say that you are a terrorist and hold you (only because of things you said in the past). That is not enough in a democratic society that we decide to vote for and live in.

 

[Chilly]

I could say that you are a terrorist and hold you (only because of things you said in the past). That is not enough in a democratic society that we decide to vote for and live in.

And it wouldnt be enough to hold this guy, either. It's not about someone unilaterally deciding to put someone away because he shagged his nan, it's about senior intelligence peeps being forced to compromise.

 

[Deebs]

And it wouldnt be enough to hold this guy, either. It's not about someone unilaterally deciding to put someone away because he shagged his nan, it's about senior intelligence peeps being forced to compromise.

That is the issue though. Senior intelligence staff should HAVE done something after 7 years. That is what I find unacceptable. Think about it, the time he spent being detained for nothing he did.

 

[Gwadien]

That is the issue though. Senior intelligence staff should HAVE done something after 7 years. That is what I find unacceptable. Think about it, the time he spent being detained for nothing he did.

Fact is, no-one knows, it could end terrorism roots in the UK if they keep him for a little bit longer, he could've done nothing, and they simply forgot about him.

I can't believe that intelligence staff have just arrested him, chucked him into a cell for all this time, for nothing, there MUST be something, otherwise it's gonna be a pretty weird + fucked up Zietgiest video.
The longer he stays, the longer the UK lessens their relationship with Islamic Countries, because im sure they're questing why is he still in prison. So there HAS to be a reason behind him staying this long.

 

[Deebs]

Fact is, no-one knows, it could end terrorism roots in the UK if they keep him for a little bit longer, he could've done nothing, and they simply forgot about him.

I can't believe that intelligence staff have just arrested him, chucked him into a cell for all this time, for nothing, there MUST be something, otherwise it's gonna be a pretty weird + fucked up Zietgiest video.
The longer he stays, the longer the UK lessens their relationship with Islamic Countries, because im sure they're questing why is he still in prison. So there HAS to be a reason behind him staying this long.

Still my point is that he should have been charged or let free within the 7 years.

 

[Gumbo]

One reason they haven't tried people before, is that trying them would give away assets which they have in place to find more of the evil bastards.

Just saying, you know, devils advocate and all.

 

[Gwadien]

Still my point is that he should have been charged or let free within the 7 years.

But how? - If they're doing a 'stinger' mission (if that's the right word) and we have to have a Jury, how is this possible, to give evidence, that could ruin the stinger mission?

 

[Deebs]

But how? - If they're doing a 'stinger' mission (if that's the right word) and we have to have a Jury, how is this possible, to give evidence, that could ruin the stinger mission?

Oh fuckoff. How many missions have lasted 7 years? That is total bollox. Christ how could you say such a thing. The point is, regardless of how long the mission is, is that HE WAS NEVER charged. I hope he sues the government for all he is worth and more. Wrongful justice in our "democratic" society.

 

[Gwadien]

Oh fuckoff. How many missions have lasted 7 years? That is total bollox. Christ how could you say such a thing. The point is, regardless of how long the mission is, is that HE WAS NEVER charged. I hope he sues the government for all he is worth and more. Wrongful justice in our "democratic" society.

Because what other reason would they have for holding him?

 

[throdgrain]

Fact is, I bet the bloke is a terrorist.

 

[Deebs]

Because what other reason would they have for holding him?

That is my point, show me a valid reason for holding someone for seven years without putting them in front of an English Court of Law.... Oh, and point me to the law that says you can hold someone for seven years without charge.

 

[Gumbo]

Oh fuckoff. How many missions have lasted 7 years? That is total bollox. Christ how could you say such a thing. The point is, regardless of how long the mission is, is that HE WAS NEVER charged. I hope he sues the government for all he is worth and more. Wrongful justice in our "democratic" society.

12 years for this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Scappaticci and God knows how many others.

I think it is bad that this fella has been held for 7 years without trial. I passionately believe in our right to trial by a jury of our peers. However.

There is a hole in what despite George W's idiocy is a War on Terror. I don't think that this fella was held, by two completely different governments don't forget, for 7 years just for shits and giggles. There was a reason.

We just don't have a mechanism to deal with whatever this reason is in our arsenal, and it means that we have this kind of issue.

We need to come up with a better solution. Perhaps we need a panel of top top Judges who can hear evidence behind closed doors and consign certain individuals to incarceration without people ever knowing why. It's distasteful, but then it's out of the hands of politicians. I don't know, it's a tough tough thing.

 

[Deebs]

12 years for this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freddie_Scappaticci and God knows how many others.

I think it is bad that this fella has been held for 7 years without trial. I passionately believe in our right to trial by a jury of our peers. However.

There is a hole in what despite George W's idiocy is a War on Terror. I don't think that this fella was held, by two completely different governments don't forget, for 7 years just for shits and giggles. There was a reason.

We just don't have a mechanism to deal with whatever this reason is in our arsenal, and it means that we have this kind of issue.

We need to come up with a better solution. Perhaps we need a panel of top top Judges who can hear evidence behind closed doors and consign certain individuals to incarceration without people ever knowing why. It's distasteful, but then it's out of the hands of politicians. I don't know, it's a tough tough thing.

That is fine, make a law and pass it. You cannot just decide to hold someone indefinately for no "public" reason. It is not democratic which is how I have been brought up. It goes against all my values and what I believe in.

Personally I could not give a fuck if he is/was a terrorist, all I want is that he was treated in the same way I expect to be treated, ie. I would be held, and then if enough evidence was forthcoming charged, otherwise released.