Quote:
|
Originally Posted by me283
whether it can be proven that they are going to commit a terrorist crime could be difficult. I guess it's down to how you rate the risk, and whether you are willing to take that risk. If they have even one reason to suspect a person (and remember, they aren't about to make those reasons public), then it is the only real option to detain them.
Now, I know this doesn't fit in with the thinking of our "PC brigade",
|
me283, if you *want* a reasonable debate, please can you *try* to debate reasonably.
Petty sniping and using phrases like "our PC brigade" add no credibility to your arguments.
Quote:
|
but that's the reality; there ARE people who would destroy this country if they had the chance.
|
And *what* do they want to do to "destroy" this country? Why they want to get rid of the fundamental liberties and rights to fair trials, to freedom of expression, to the presumption of innocence etc that we have so they can impose their own version of the rules.
But, hell, they don't even need to *do* anything now, because our "lock 'em all up Brigade" (see, I can sling mud too) are quite happy to do the job *for* them!!
Quote:
|
By suggesting that anyone who looks like a Muslim debases the hard work and fine results that come from the security services.
|
That is being referred to elsewhere in this thread, so I don't think I need to shoot that one down again...
Quote:
|
Of course, we could just sit back and wait for people to let the security services know of impending acts of terrorism, but I personally wouldn't have a great deal of faith in that.
|
Of course we *could* put people on trial if we actually have *evidence* that they're going to commit acts of terrorism instead of just locking them away and hoping nobody notices...
__________________
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
Hmmm, remember this story?
|
You can't just take one example make it the rule because it fits your agenda. |
Funny, I thought that was exactly what *was* being suggested!!