House Arrest

Round and round we go,where we end up no one will know.....because it's a secret?Or it's scary and we might get frightened?It's inadmissable(will drop an informant in deep doo,doo)well why not keep informants names out of it.

I would rather 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be locked up indefinitely mainly because that person might one day be me or a member of my family.There but for the grace.....

[punky]

Originally Posted by clairey

did you understand the pount he was making about an ever changing enemy.

No matter who you are, you'll always have people disliking you, wether you are a person on a forum or a powerful country. Alliances tend to be tenuous at best. They get made, broken, made, broken.

Originally Posted by Scastle

So you can justify the government imprisoning who it wants because any evidence presented might scare the jurors?

NO! I clearly said in post #31 that I am against the indefinite house arrest, and I clearly said in the "What to do with the Guantanamo four" (post #11) that they should be given due process. FFS people, at least read my posts before pouncing on me. Let me be abundantly clear on this:

1) I am against indefinite house arrest, of the Guantanamo 4 without charge.

2) I believe they should have been given due process all the way.

They same applies to other alleged terrorists. As most of the alleged terrorists have been, they have been arrested and then released through lack of admissable evidence.

Originally Posted by soneil

I thought that they checked potential jurors for conflict of interest as part of jury selection. Your hypothetic juror should get "deselected" fairly early on in the process on that basis!

It doesn't get that detailed. For one thing you can't prejudice the jury. The questions they ask are things like, have you ever met the defendent before, etc. Reminds me of something funny

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by punky

I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.

If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.

And, Punky, Clairey's point about an ever-changing enemy judging by your riposte. We are talking about the same book aren't we?

[Graham F]

Just to make a point, I was under the impression that new laws brought in after 9/11 meant that terror suspects have a trail without jury. Just a panel of judges.

[ntluser]

The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by ntluser

The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.

My view is we will never know the truth about these guys because the americans made a hash of it. I feel the government has let them go because of the uproar people are causing who are claiming they are innocent. I guess if I was in charge of the case and members of the public were complaining about them being held, the best thing to do is let them go and say "told you so" when they plant a bomb to kill loads of people.

The security services is totally different these days from the days of the cold war, during the cold war certain countries were against others. There is more of a definate split these days with countries sharing intelligence information as the two superpowers are not now at loggerheads.

The release of sensitive information in court cases would be a big concern, I have had to in my job drive to a location to be verbally told some information that seemed petty. When I later found out the bigger picture when the project became widespread, I could see how that information along with other bits of petty information from Tom, Dick and Harry could be very dangerous in the wrong hands and threat to life.

I am sure anyone with a forces background will back that up. (I am not ex-forces by the way)

Originally Posted by ntluser

The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.

Doesn't matter if they are or are not guilty.They have already been tried and judged by the public as witnessed in this thread.But there you go what does it matter what the evidence is because it is in the papers and they were arrested they MUST be guilty.After all the authorities never get anything wrong and there are WMD's in Iraq.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread because it has become a pointless exercise in trying to reason with the unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Incognitas

Doesn't matter if they are or are not guilty.They have already been tried and judged by the public as witnessed in this thread.But there you go what does it matter what the evidence is because it is in the papers and they were arrested they MUST be guilty.After all the authorities never get anything wrong and there are WMD's in Iraq.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread because it has become a pointless exercise in trying to reason with the unreasonable.

For exactly the same reasons may I join you in the cyber wilderness. Parting shot: IN THIS COUNTRY PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY> IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. END OF CHAT.

[punky]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.

Well like I said, I haven't read it despite meaning to. I always thought that the book was about Orwell's disillusionment with communism, and points out the fallacies thereof during the book, about how it doesn't create an utopia of happiness and equality.

Originally Posted by andyl

And, Punky, Clairey's point about an ever-changing enemy judging by your riposte. We are talking about the same book aren't we?

If you honestly believe that the UK government deliberately causes a semi-state of animosity with other nations, to scare citizens into obedience and servitude to the Government, then you are far more cynical and paranoid than I.

For one thing looking at the protests and the current feeling of people, UK and abroad it doesn't seem to be working.

[Ramrod]

Just had an anti-terror expert in for treatment (ex-police, now employed by the govt, goes all over the world advising on terrorism vulnerabilities)......he said that he doesn't travel by tube anymore in London. Thinks the tube is the most probable location of the (inevitable) terrorist attack.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Just had an anti-terror expert in for treatment (ex-police, now employed by the govt, goes all over the world advising on terrorism vulnerabilities)......he said that he doesn't travel by tube anymore in London. Thinks the tube is the most probable location of the (inevitable) terrorist attack.

Last weeks Tsunami concert in Cardiff was a place to stay away from as far as I was concerned!

[Tezcatlipoca]

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...417566,00.html

Blair urged to compromise on house arrest

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Friday February 18, 2005

Charles Kennedy will today push the prime minister to rethink the government's contentious proposals for house arrest, as Downing Street hosts a highly unusual anti-terrorism summit with the three main party leaders.

Tony Blair will hold successive meetings with Mr Kennedy and the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, as the government seeks a cross-party consensus on how to deal with terrorist suspects who have not been charged with any crime.

The Tories and Lib Dems both oppose new plans from the home secretary, Charles Clarke, to issue "control orders" which would see untried suspects confined to house detention on the orders of politicians.

(snip)

[punky]

Tony Blair will hold successive meetings with Mr Kennedy and the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, as the government seeks a cross-party consensus on how to deal with terrorist suspects who have not been charged with any crime.

I think for once, either by sheer fluke or some good advice, Tony has done something right. It is everyone's problem, not jsut the government, so as many people as possible should have an input. I just hope that Kennedy will be a bit realistic and firm on the issue. Ultimately, I hope they can come to a mutual consensus.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I think they will come up with something.

Blair must know that it could be defeated in the Lords if they try & continue with the original plans.

Plus, I think Clarke has already suggested watering down the proposals.