mcmanus
Well-Known Member
I don't know if all those frothing at the mouth hate him more for being 'terrorist' or because he signed on.
mcmanus said:I don't know if all those frothing at the mouth hate him more for being 'terrorist' or because he signed on.
Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.samharris said:Skashion said:This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.samharris said:I asked the question as you seemed knowledgeable in this subject.
'research it' is not what I expected the reply to be..
I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
Skashion said:I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.
.
samharris said:mcmanus said:I don't know if all those frothing at the mouth hate him more for being 'terrorist' or because he signed on.
He fucking signed on ?????
Skashion said:Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.samharris said:Skashion said:This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.
I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
He was not detained and subjected to control orders due to his extradition case with Jordan, but alleged terrorist activities in breach of UK law. However, he was NEVER convicted. Despite this he spent many years in prison, and the rest subject to virtual house arrest. I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.
His extradition was a separate matter to do with whether he'd get a fair trial in Jordan considering that 'evidence' obtained by torture would be used against him. He was allowed to remain because the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, guarantees him a right to a fair trial (one of the conditions of that is that 'evidence' obtained by torture is not permissible). Jordan signed a treaty agreeing not to use that 'evidence'. The only issue I see with that is that you can't take a dictatorial oppressive regime at their word, and we probably wouldn't care if they broke that treaty, but on paper at least that issue has been overcome and I'm not as concerned over this as by the UK government robbing us of our civil liberties.
I'm a believer in there being public trials with evidence to ascertain guilt. I'm certainly not going to pronounce the man guilty without having seen any evidence.samharris said:Do you think him innocent or guilty of suspected terrorism??
Skashion said:Fine I'll answer you in short. However, I will point out that this case has gone on for twelve years and has concerned both UK law and civil liberties, and the European Convention on Human Rights, over two separate issues. It's hard to do it justice in a short post.samharris said:Skashion said:This might have been a valid response, were it not the part where you said, you're not bothered.
I lost interest and could no longer be bothered due to your reply mate.. I was initially interested ,hence why I asked the question.
He was not detained and subjected to control orders due to his extradition case with Jordan, but alleged terrorist activities in breach of UK law. However, he was NEVER convicted. Despite this he spent many years in prison, and the rest subject to virtual house arrest. I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.
His extradition was a separate matter to do with whether he'd get a fair trial in Jordan considering that 'evidence' obtained by torture would be used against him. He was allowed to remain because the European Convention on Human Rights, to which we are a signatory, guarantees him a right to a fair trial (one of the conditions of that is that 'evidence' obtained by torture is not permissible). Jordan signed a treaty agreeing not to use that 'evidence'. The only issue I see with that is that you can't take a dictatorial oppressive regime at their word, and we probably wouldn't care if they broke that treaty, but on paper at least that issue has been overcome and I'm not as concerned over this as by the UK government robbing us of our civil liberties.
Rascal said:Skashion said:I'm arguing that a government shouldn't be able to take your liberty off you without convicting you of a crime. This used to be a perfectly sane idea in Britain. You see, you had a trial and then whether you were found guilty or not decided whether you went to prison. It doesn't work like that now. The government can now do it pretty much at whim and without any transparency. Basically, the Home Secretary asks a judge, and they say, well, alright then.
.
A perfectly rational argument to any sane person surely.
But nutjobs dont care about civil liberties as long as they are safe from bogeymen