posted on February 11, 2004 01:26:56 PM new
The Us and England have responded very closely to the terror threat. What one does the other often has mirrored.
Their emergency act runs out 2006 and pondering what to do they would like to extend the ability to charge their own citizens with less basis that in other legal issues just as they have already foreigners and are keeping them in indefinite lock up.
So don't be surprised if they want a freer hand here in the same regard.
" Last week Mr Blunkett suggested that principles used against foreign nationals under the ATCSA could be extended to Britons, lowering the burden of proof in terrorism prosecutions.
Britain opted out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights to be able to lock up indefinitely suspected terrorists without charge or trial."
Isn't it amazing that to protect and project freedom in the Middle East you have to become less and less free here?
posted on February 11, 2004 01:49:22 PM new
Yeah, Gravid; Iraq will become a democracy while we become a dictatorship...
Okay, unless I misread that article you linked, it looks to me like there's something really screwy about the sixteen people that were rounded up and detained as "terror threats" because two of them were allowed to leave the UK and the other fourteen don't want to go 'home' due to fears of retribution. Which begs the obvious question: what were they incarcerated for if they're now free to go?
Also, if they really are "terrorist threats" why the heck are the Brits letting them back loose into the world?
posted on February 11, 2004 02:50:01 PM new
They are free to go if they go back home. Places most of them come from they figure being locked up indefinitely without being charged beats the custom at home of being dragged out back and shot in the head without being charged. Hell holes they came from that's what happens if they have any hint you are trouble. Hell - in Saudi Arabia when my uncle went over there in the 80's if there was an auto wreck and you smelled of booze when the cops got there they'd take you off to the side and shoot you in the back of the head. And that is a civilized place compared to a lot of them over there.
They prepared a seperate facility for them - isn't that interesting? Why do you figure they all turned that down too? Because it would be easier to make it permenant?
posted on February 11, 2004 03:55:02 PM new
I'd give my eye-teeth to see actual photos of the facility. Do you suppose it's a cordoned-off "neighborhood" , with individual houses, or a well-appointed barracks-style block?
