Pakistani Nationals rounded up

[Fop 1]

Found nothing, nobody charged.

 

They are still searching and questioning aren't they?

 

 

Although it wouldn't be a surprise, especially given the ridiculous manner with which these operations were brought into play.

[N174Life 0]

...and the Government is...lyyying...

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040036_en_1

[Park Life 70]

...and the Government is...lyyying...

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2004/ukpga_20040036_en_1

 

 

What's that all about then?

[N174Life 0]

Well, obviously it's a huge document but the main part of it that gets me in the Act is that the Government can postpone any potential General Election in the event of an "emergency." Of course, The Supreme Leader and his henchmen would never use the Act unless they had another choice, and they'd *never* arrest a bunch of people on terrorism charges who were actually innocent and being simply used to further the aims of the Party. Oh, no. They'd never do that...

 

srsly.

[ewerk 26189]

You reckon that abusing the law to gain a short postponement of a general election would do them a lot of good in the polls?

[N174Life 0]

You reckon they'd be that blatent about it?

[ewerk 26189]

I reckon there'd be serious questions asked about whether it was necessary to postpone a general election.

 

Also, the delay wouldn't be long enough to help them much, they'd need a full on terrorist attack for there to be any real affect on the electorate.

[N174Life 0]

Once they've used it once, postponed an election and declared (for a lack of a better phrase) martial law, I'm not at all confident that we'd ever return to "the way things should be." Gordon Brown has waited over a decade to lead the country, and I'm not so sure he'll be too pleased having to give it up at his first election (which he undoubtedly will).

 

Or maybe I'm just a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic.

[Park Life 70]

Once they've used it once, postponed an election and declared (for a lack of a better phrase) martial law, I'm not at all confident that we'd ever return to "the way things should be." Gordon Brown has waited over a decade to lead the country, and I'm not so sure he'll be too pleased having to give it up at his first election (which he undoubtedly will).

 

Or maybe I'm just a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic.

 

 

Err...

[ewerk 26189]

Or maybe I'm just a tin-foil hat wearing lunatic.

 

That's probably closer to the truth.

 

At least you've got Parky to keep you company.

[N174Life 0]

It's not paranoia if they really are out to get you

[tooner 243]

Wonder if anyone will be charged this time

 

It's a tricky issue though.

 

 

 

 

Look at that guy the USA had in Guantanamo, because they were sure he was a major leader of the Taliban forces in the border regions.

 

They couldn't make much stand up legally and didn't know what to do with him, so they sent him to back to Afghanistan and they then released him.

 

He's now the leader of Taliban forces attacking (and killing) British troops in Helmand province.

 

 

 

 

 

Although this will undoubtedly incense some of the usual suspects, law does often fail to punish the guilty and/or protect the innocent..... but that is how it has to be (although it'd stand a better chance without muppets in charge that don't understand the concept of a briefcase or a folder).

Don't even think that bloke complaining about UK intelligence being complicit in his torture was remotely 'innocent' either fwiw. Not saying that makes torture alright or whatever btw.

 

More than 10% of people released from there have gone back into active terrorism/combat roles, probably a much, much higher percentage were in terrorism/combat roles even if it couldn't be legally upheld.

 

Having said that there's been a lot shocking issues with genuinely innocent people there too.

 

 

 

But that's why I think Obama is going to have the same issues eventually, unless he can keep the media off the massive new Afghan US prisons he's building to replace Guantanamo (which he has done so far).

 

We (the west) cannot detain people indefinetly, torture them to get "confessions" and then feign surprise when they are released and they turn to terrorist organizations.

FFS if anyone had been contemplating joining a terrorist organisation because of percieved injustices/immoralities of western culture, and that person was then apprehended and incarcerated indefinetly while being tortured and de-humanized. I would surmise that any humming and hawing about whether to join Osama and the boys would be thrown out the fucking window.

 

Any sort of cloak and dagger tactics used by the west only weakens our view that we have the 'model democracies' nations should follow as a proper society. IMO a civil society must ALWAYS take the high ground and treat those (especially the ones that act out terrorist attacks) as we would want to be treated, a fair and timely trial as per the rules we have set out for our own citizenry, and if found guilty lock them away.

Anything different would be hypocritical.

[Fop 1]

Wonder if anyone will be charged this time

 

It's a tricky issue though.

 

 

 

 

Look at that guy the USA had in Guantanamo, because they were sure he was a major leader of the Taliban forces in the border regions.

 

They couldn't make much stand up legally and didn't know what to do with him, so they sent him to back to Afghanistan and they then released him.

 

He's now the leader of Taliban forces attacking (and killing) British troops in Helmand province.

 

 

 

 

 

Although this will undoubtedly incense some of the usual suspects, law does often fail to punish the guilty and/or protect the innocent..... but that is how it has to be (although it'd stand a better chance without muppets in charge that don't understand the concept of a briefcase or a folder).

Don't even think that bloke complaining about UK intelligence being complicit in his torture was remotely 'innocent' either fwiw. Not saying that makes torture alright or whatever btw.

 

More than 10% of people released from there have gone back into active terrorism/combat roles, probably a much, much higher percentage were in terrorism/combat roles even if it couldn't be legally upheld.

 

Having said that there's been a lot shocking issues with genuinely innocent people there too.

 

 

 

But that's why I think Obama is going to have the same issues eventually, unless he can keep the media off the massive new Afghan US prisons he's building to replace Guantanamo (which he has done so far).

 

We (the west) cannot detain people indefinetly, torture them to get "confessions" and then feign surprise when they are released and they turn to terrorist organizations.

FFS if anyone had been contemplating joining a terrorist organisation because of percieved injustices/immoralities of western culture, and that person was then apprehended and incarcerated indefinetly while being tortured and de-humanized. I would surmise that any humming and hawing about whether to join Osama and the boys would be thrown out the fucking window.

 

Any sort of cloak and dagger tactics used by the west only weakens our view that we have the 'model democracies' nations should follow as a proper society. IMO a civil society must ALWAYS take the high ground and treat those (especially the ones that act out terrorist attacks) as we would want to be treated, a fair and timely trial as per the rules we have set out for our own citizenry, and if found guilty lock them away.

Anything different would be hypocritical.

 

 

Except it's not that, it's (in that 10%) people going back to what they were doing before.

 

(much like the fella leading the Taliban in Hellmand - he wasn't some grocer wrongly accused that suddenly and utterly inexplicably got command of 1/3 of the Taliban when he was released because he was a bit pissed off ).

 

 

 

The fact is a lot of the people in there are very dangerous, but can never be (successfully) prosecuted in a court of law (which takes nothing away from the people that were innocent - and there were plenty).

 

Which leaves a bit of a no win situation.

 

 

 

The big irony is that Obama is following the same course as Bush (he'll be doing it in Afghanistan not Cuba and hoping no one catches on, plus he has arguably more legal deniability there).

[Park Life 70]

It would be a good start just to follow a good legal route in England. Belmarsh anyone?

[tooner 243]

Wonder if anyone will be charged this time

 

It's a tricky issue though.

 

 

 

 

Look at that guy the USA had in Guantanamo, because they were sure he was a major leader of the Taliban forces in the border regions.

 

They couldn't make much stand up legally and didn't know what to do with him, so they sent him to back to Afghanistan and they then released him.

 

He's now the leader of Taliban forces attacking (and killing) British troops in Helmand province.

 

 

 

 

 

Although this will undoubtedly incense some of the usual suspects, law does often fail to punish the guilty and/or protect the innocent..... but that is how it has to be (although it'd stand a better chance without muppets in charge that don't understand the concept of a briefcase or a folder).

Don't even think that bloke complaining about UK intelligence being complicit in his torture was remotely 'innocent' either fwiw. Not saying that makes torture alright or whatever btw.

 

More than 10% of people released from there have gone back into active terrorism/combat roles, probably a much, much higher percentage were in terrorism/combat roles even if it couldn't be legally upheld.

 

Having said that there's been a lot shocking issues with genuinely innocent people there too.

 

 

 

But that's why I think Obama is going to have the same issues eventually, unless he can keep the media off the massive new Afghan US prisons he's building to replace Guantanamo (which he has done so far).

 

We (the west) cannot detain people indefinetly, torture them to get "confessions" and then feign surprise when they are released and they turn to terrorist organizations.

FFS if anyone had been contemplating joining a terrorist organisation because of percieved injustices/immoralities of western culture, and that person was then apprehended and incarcerated indefinetly while being tortured and de-humanized. I would surmise that any humming and hawing about whether to join Osama and the boys would be thrown out the fucking window.

 

Any sort of cloak and dagger tactics used by the west only weakens our view that we have the 'model democracies' nations should follow as a proper society. IMO a civil society must ALWAYS take the high ground and treat those (especially the ones that act out terrorist attacks) as we would want to be treated, a fair and timely trial as per the rules we have set out for our own citizenry, and if found guilty lock them away.

Anything different would be hypocritical.

 

 

Except it's not that, it's (in that 10%) people going back to what they were doing before.

 

(much like the fella leading the Taliban in Hellmand - he wasn't some grocer wrongly accused that suddenly and utterly inexplicably got command of 1/3 of the Taliban when he was released because he was a bit pissed off ).

 

 

 

The fact is a lot of the people in there are very dangerous, but can never be (successfully) prosecuted in a court of law (which takes nothing away from the people that were innocent - and there were plenty).

 

Which leaves a bit of a no win situation.

 

 

 

The big irony is that Obama is following the same course as Bush (he'll be doing it in Afghanistan not Cuba and hoping no one catches on, plus he has arguably more legal deniability there).

 

Fair enough, I would suspect that they have given the taliban and al Qaeda even more willing fodder for the fight against the infidels.

 

The prison in Afghanistan had already been operating throughout the conflict, so i don't know if you can place the blame on Obama here, although i guess he would have to close the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan to totally absolve himself of any hypocrisy, which isn't probable or feasible

[Fop 1]

Wonder if anyone will be charged this time

 

It's a tricky issue though.

 

 

 

 

Look at that guy the USA had in Guantanamo, because they were sure he was a major leader of the Taliban forces in the border regions.

 

They couldn't make much stand up legally and didn't know what to do with him, so they sent him to back to Afghanistan and they then released him.

 

He's now the leader of Taliban forces attacking (and killing) British troops in Helmand province.

 

 

 

 

 

Although this will undoubtedly incense some of the usual suspects, law does often fail to punish the guilty and/or protect the innocent..... but that is how it has to be (although it'd stand a better chance without muppets in charge that don't understand the concept of a briefcase or a folder).

Don't even think that bloke complaining about UK intelligence being complicit in his torture was remotely 'innocent' either fwiw. Not saying that makes torture alright or whatever btw.

 

More than 10% of people released from there have gone back into active terrorism/combat roles, probably a much, much higher percentage were in terrorism/combat roles even if it couldn't be legally upheld.

 

Having said that there's been a lot shocking issues with genuinely innocent people there too.

 

 

 

But that's why I think Obama is going to have the same issues eventually, unless he can keep the media off the massive new Afghan US prisons he's building to replace Guantanamo (which he has done so far).

 

We (the west) cannot detain people indefinetly, torture them to get "confessions" and then feign surprise when they are released and they turn to terrorist organizations.

FFS if anyone had been contemplating joining a terrorist organisation because of percieved injustices/immoralities of western culture, and that person was then apprehended and incarcerated indefinetly while being tortured and de-humanized. I would surmise that any humming and hawing about whether to join Osama and the boys would be thrown out the fucking window.

 

Any sort of cloak and dagger tactics used by the west only weakens our view that we have the 'model democracies' nations should follow as a proper society. IMO a civil society must ALWAYS take the high ground and treat those (especially the ones that act out terrorist attacks) as we would want to be treated, a fair and timely trial as per the rules we have set out for our own citizenry, and if found guilty lock them away.

Anything different would be hypocritical.

 

 

Except it's not that, it's (in that 10%) people going back to what they were doing before.

 

(much like the fella leading the Taliban in Hellmand - he wasn't some grocer wrongly accused that suddenly and utterly inexplicably got command of 1/3 of the Taliban when he was released because he was a bit pissed off ).

 

 

 

The fact is a lot of the people in there are very dangerous, but can never be (successfully) prosecuted in a court of law (which takes nothing away from the people that were innocent - and there were plenty).

 

Which leaves a bit of a no win situation.

 

 

 

The big irony is that Obama is following the same course as Bush (he'll be doing it in Afghanistan not Cuba and hoping no one catches on, plus he has arguably more legal deniability there).

 

Fair enough, I would suspect that they have given the taliban and al Qaeda even more willing fodder for the fight against the infidels.

 

The prison in Afghanistan had already been operating throughout the conflict, so i don't know if you can place the blame on Obama here, although i guess he would have to close the prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan to totally absolve himself of any hypocrisy, which isn't probable or feasible

 

He's building a new mahooosive one, it was basically Bush's plan but he's continuing it, it's probably where all the ones from Guantanamo that can't be released or palmed off onto other countries will end up.

 

So he'll get all the PR of "closing" Guantanamo when in reality he'll just be shifting it.

[Fop 1]

Taleban 'kill love affair couple'

 

The Taleban in Afghanistan have publicly killed a young couple who they said had tried to run away to get married, officials say.

 

The man, 21, and woman, 19, were shot dead on Monday in front of a mosque in the south-western province of Nimroz.

 

Nimroz is an area where the Taleban have a strong influence.

 

Governor Ghulam Dastageer Azad told the AFP news agency the killings followed a decree by local religious leaders and were an "insult to Islam".

 

Dangerous region

 

Mr Azad said: "An unmarried young boy and an unmarried girl who loved each other and wanted to get married had eloped because their families would not approve the marriage."

 

Officials said the couple were traced by militants after they tried to go to Iran. They were made to return to their village in Khash Rod district.

 

"Three Taleban mullahs brought them to the local mosque and they passed a fatwa (religious decree) that they must be killed. They were shot and killed in front of the mosque in public," the governor said.

 

He said there were some reports that the families of the young couple could have links with the Taleban. The Taleban could not be immediately reached for comment.

 

Correspondents say that the killings took place in a remote and dangerous region, where the government has no access.

 

The Taleban ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001 and during that time implemented its austere interpretation of Islamic Sharia law, carrying out public killings and floggings.

 

Unmarried men and women were forbidden from talking or meeting in public and women were not allowed out of their homes without a male relative. Girls were discouraged from going to school.

 

Extrajudicial "honour killings" have been widely carried out in Afghanistan since then by conservative families angered by a relative who has brought them shame - usually by refusing to marry a chosen partner.

 

The Taleban have widened their influence over the past three years and now control many remote districts where there are not enough coalition forces to establish a permanent presence.

 

 

 

 

Plus in all honesty I don't really think you can radicalise people like this, they are going to try and destroy you and your way of life because it's an utter anathema to them, not because of anything you do or don't do.