Quote:
|
I am going out on a limb here, as there will be the inevitable outpourings from the "human rights" brigade, but am I alone in thinking that this is one case where the death penalty would have been the best thing?
|
I take it you're opposed to human rights then? Why? You're a human, presumably.
Several things struck me about this case:
1) the 'terrorism' he was allegedly engaged in was extremely minor - he didn't manage to create anything dangerous, was evidently unsupported by al-Qaeda (he had to shoplift to keep himself going, and got nicked for it), plus everyone else brought to trial with him was acquitted or the case dropped.
2) Ricin isn't something you'd expect to cause major casualties - while extremely nasty, it's much less dangerous than a conventional bomb.
3) By far the most serious aspect of the case was the murder of the police officer - this, as a crime, is to my mind far more serious than the 'terrorism' and I'd like to see anyone argue to the contrary. So why was the bringing to justice of a particularly vicious cop killer forcibly kept quiet and the ricin case splashed over the papers?
4) Why did a senior Met anti-terrorism rozzer and the deputy Chief Medical Officer say that ricin had been found in the flat when none had - that's called 'lying', in my book.
5) Why did Colin Powell *in front of the UN* attempt to link the case to Iraq, when there's no evidence for it being anything other than a lone nut who was trained in Afghanistan by a group opposed to Saddam Hussein's regime on ideological grounds?
6) ID cards wouldn't have stopped him killing the policeman or obtaining ricin recipes and it's dishonest to suggest it would for political points scoring.