Government loses Abu Qatada appeal

[west didsblue]

I was explaining it to the Romanian nurse here yesterday: Abu Qatada is regarded as a danger to our country and despite not doing anything illegal he has been arrested, detained without trial and then held under virtual house arrest. She couldn't believe it.

So what did the Romanian nurse think should have been done?

 

[Plaything of the gods]

Either charged and tried or left alone, the same as anyone else. I guess the principles of Romanian law are pretty much like our own.

 

[i kne albert davy]

I was explaining it to the Romanian nurse here yesterday: Abu Qatada is regarded as a danger to our country and despite not doing anything illegal he has been arrested, detained without trial and then held under virtual house arrest. She couldn't believe it.

So what did the Romanian nurse think should have been done?

Perhaps Romania will offer him and all his hanger on's asylum with free bed and board indefinitely,if I was him though I wouldn't count on it.

 

[west didsblue]

Either charged and tried or left alone, the same as anyone else. I guess the principles of Romanian law are pretty much like our own.

So should everyone who is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring charges just be left alone until they kill a few people?

 

[i kne albert davy]

Either charged and tried or left alone, the same as anyone else. I guess the principles of Romanian law are pretty much like our own.

Dream on

 

[Irwell]

So should everyone who is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring charges just be left alone until they kill a few people?

Yes. There is a reason that 'ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat', the presumption of innocence, is a cornerstone of our legal system. The right to trial by jury is also an important cornerstone for a reason. Where there is insufficient evidence it should be presumed that the person is innocent. Once enough evidence is gathered there should be a trial to evaluate it and determine that person's guilt.

 

[west didsblue]

So should everyone who is suspected of being involved in terrorist activity where there is insufficient evidence to bring charges just be left alone until they kill a few people?

Yes. There is a reason that 'ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat', the presumption of innocence, is a cornerstone of our legal system. The right to trial by jury is also an important cornerstone for a reason. Where there is insufficient evidence it should be presumed that the person is innocent. Once enough evidence is gathered there should be a trial to evaluate it and determine that person's guilt.

So how do you gather evidence if they are left alone?

 

[Irwell]

So how do you gather evidence if they are left alone?

There are limitations on how evidence should be obtained here. Authorities should be allowed to gather evidence within those limitations, with a presumption of innocence the whole time, but once they have exhausted those avenues in a timely fashion they should either press charges or walk away.

 

[west didsblue]

So how do you gather evidence if they are left alone?

There are limitations on how evidence should be obtained here. Authorities should be allowed to gather evidence within those limitations, with a presumption of innocence the whole time, but once they have exhausted those avenues in a timely fashion they should either press charges or walk away.

..and wait for innocent people to die.

 

[Irwell]

..and wait for innocent people to die.

The assumption you are making is that the 'terrorist' actually is a terrorist. A person can be suspected of something they are completely innocent of. The reason that there is insufficient evidence may not be that they simply haven't found it yet but that it doesn't exist because the person didn't do it. Placing the burden of proof on the prosecution is a deliberate act to prevent people from being wrongly imprisoned.

This will probably come across like reductio ad absurdum, but bear with me. Imagine if some people accused you of trying to make the moon collide with the earth using some very long wires. Then lets say it just so happens that you have a pile of those wires in your garden. There's no actual evidence you are trying to make the moon collide with the earth, just some people accusing you of it and a pile of wires that fit with their story. If you were to actually make it happen you would be ending all life on earth. Should we invade your life indefinitely, locking you up, taking away your possessions, restricting your movements, despite there being insufficient evidence you are actually going to do it? Should we maybe lock you away forever? Should we leave you alone and potentially wait for billions of innocent people to die?