Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
|
So what it's really saying is "we say they're guilty, but we're not going to let anyone actually *see* the evidence to prove the fact".
Hmm, sounds very "just" to me...
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Damien
It may sound nice but freedom, democracy and the moral highground are not good tools against terrorism. They will commit their acts and kill and many people as possible to strike fear into the country and hopefully undermine the freedom and the rule of law.
|
So they want to undermine freedom and the rule of law and what do we do?
Remove people's basic rights, deny them fair trials and lock them up and throw away the key...
Civilised society 0 - Terrorists 1
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
|
Sure. Like nobody wasted time locking people up in Guantanamo Bay or HMP Belmarsh...
