It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

'Astonishment' at terror verdicts

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Hey Guys,

Was wondering whats all your oppinions on this:


Counter-terrorism officials are said to be "dismayed" by the outcome of a trial in which eight men were accused of a plot to blow up transatlantic planes.


Link: news.bbc.co.uk...

Surely with the amount of evidence that they have our government could of come down alot harder on these terrorists.

What annoys me is the government is quick to jump and clamp down on minor offenders and imposes lengthy sentences however people commiting crimes of the worst nature seemingly get an easy ride?

[edit on 9/9/08 by Death_Kron]

[edit on 9/9/08 by Death_Kron]




posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:32 AM
link   
The high profile cases such as these end up getting really expensive lawyers wishing to make a name for themselves. The "average joe" who gets put away for a long time for "minor" offenses has to pay for representation, often winding up with a public defender who has nothing at stake in a long sentence for the accused. While it may be laughable the sentence imposed on these people, they were put in front of a jury. Leads me to believe the case wasn't as strong as the government thought, and it may have been hoping that the jury would just jump on the terrorism bandwagon, and convict on all counts because the government says these people were guilty.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis
The high profile cases such as these end up getting really expensive lawyers wishing to make a name for themselves. The "average joe" who gets put away for a long time for "minor" offenses has to pay for representation, often winding up with a public defender who has nothing at stake in a long sentence for the accused. While it may be laughable the sentence imposed on these people, they were put in front of a jury. Leads me to believe the case wasn't as strong as the government thought, and it may have been hoping that the jury would just jump on the terrorism bandwagon, and convict on all counts because the government says these people were guilty.


Agreed. I find it rather shocking though that these "high profile" lawyers make a living defending the rights of terrorists and those who wish to harm people.

Surely if you intend to take away another human beings life especially on such a scale that these suspects intended then you should lose all your rights?

In my oppinion, if you could prove beyond all doubt that these people are guilty then they shouldn't even be appointed a lawyer to defend them!



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron

In my oppinion, if you could prove beyond all doubt that these people are guilty then they shouldn't even be appointed a lawyer to defend them!



This is a lawyers job, to prove one way or the other.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 08:45 AM
link   
I believe that they got the verdict they did is because the men guilt was not prove 100 % by the prosecutors, the links were weak and everything was build around presumptions, something that the US has been good at it, but I guess in the UK people are more smarter.

Interesting, they may have been guilty but it was not enough reliable evidence.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
You must commit the crime before you can be punished for it. You can't punish people for planning a crime. I know these guys were bad but all they did was make some bombs, not kill anyone.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
You must commit the crime before you can be punished for it. You can't punish people for planning a crime. I know these guys were bad but all they did was make some bombs, not kill anyone.


Didn't the book 1984 contain "thought crimes" where people were punished for merely thinking something contrary to the government? George Orwell foretold a lot in that book.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
You must commit the crime before you can be punished for it. You can't punish people for planning a crime.


Erm what? 'Conspiracy to murder' and 'preparing acts of terrorism' are what they were charged with.
If the US hadn't waded in, we could have caught them at the last stages red-handed, with hopefully enough evidence. Now we could have these nutcases free in the UK to plan other stuff.


[edit on 9-9-2008 by Xeros]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   
Actually leaving them "free" will be a more easier way for the UK authorities to keep a closer watch on them and perhaps get them again and this time with enough evidence.

I imagine that it will not be that easier for them to travel and board a plane without been cavity searched
and DNA tested.


I think life for those men is going to be very difficult.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
Hey Guys,

Was wondering whats all your oppinions on this:


Counter-terrorism officials are said to be "dismayed" by the outcome of a trial in which eight men were accused of a plot to blow up transatlantic planes.


Link: news.bbc.co.uk...

Surely with the amount of evidence that they have our government could of come down alot harder on these terrorists.

What annoys me is the government is quick to jump and clamp down on minor offenders and imposes lengthy sentences however people commiting crimes of the worst nature seemingly get an easy ride?

[edit on 9/9/08 by Death_Kron]

[edit on 9/9/08 by Death_Kron]


Hi Death_Kron
Yea I couldn’t agree with you more m8 on that one. You can get less than half a life sentence (out early, good behaviour, early parole etc, you get the picture) for plotting to blow up airliners killing untold hundreds of people.

Yet Gary McKinnon could get 70 years for hacking Gov computers. It just doesn’t add up. What gives?

Peace
Kirky



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Xeros
 




Erm what? 'Conspiracy to murder' springs to mind, as I'm sure there are others.
If the US hadn't waded in, we could have caught them at the last stages red-handed. Now we could have these nutcases free in the UK to plan other stuff.


I think that if everyone had waited nothing would have happened, because same sort thing happened in Australia. Big terrorist stories a year or two ago are now showing to be based on such flimsy evidence, such hear say evidence AND that intelligenmce agencies had a big hand in actually supplying equipment, plans and money to get these things happening.

Who was the informant in this case, I'll bet its this guy:




Rashid Rauf, a dual citizen of Britain and Pakistan, was arrested in Bhawalpur, Pakistan in connection with the transatlantic aircraft plot in August 2006, a day before some arrests were made in Britain.


The Pakistani Interior Minister, Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, claimed he was an al-Qaeda operative with links in Afghanistan. He was also said to be one of the ringleaders of the alleged plot.


In December 2006 the anti-terrorism court in Rawalpindi found no evidence that he had been involved in terrorist activities, and his charges were downgraded to forgery and possession of explosives.

One of Rauf's brothers, Tayib Rauf, was among those arrested in Britain, although he was later released without charges.

Rauf mysteriously escaped from jail in December 2007 and has not been recaptured. Authorities say that he escaped after freeing himself from handcuffs.



source

How friggin dodgy is that! Although he's involved, they can't find any evidence on him except some 'minor' stuff (yeah actual explosives are really minor!), his brother was also involved but released and then he himself escapes from jail and is never heard of again!

Think about it! A high value potential terrorist in a UK jail escapes because he got out of his handcuffs? And they never found him?

That definitely looks dodgy to me. I think it was a set up all along. And if I was in the jury and that was mentioned I would start to see the inconsistencies in the government information straight away!

And I think the real reason they did this was in fact to stop drug smuggling using liquids and gels on airplanes but they needed something bigger to get the public to go along with such restrictions to how we all travel in the air these days!





[edit on 2008-9-9 by primamateria]

[edit on 2008-9-9 by primamateria]

[edit on 2008-9-9 by primamateria]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
I seem to remember various scientists turning up on TV at the time describing the planned attacks as unworkable and interesting hocus pocus! They were saying that you simply could not get the required explosion to bring down a plane by mixing volatile chemicals in a small bottle and sending a tiny electric charge through it.
I've seen film of explosions, supposedly of what the explosions would have looked like but it all appears so false. I'm reminded of the idiot, Richard Reid (I think that was his name) who put explosives in his shoes and used fuse for his laces. Laughable! You couldn't make it up. . . Or could you?
I think the general public, not just the British but world-wide, are beginning to get wise to the governments tricks and false terror attacks.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by primamateria
Think about it! A high value potential terrorist in a UK jail escapes because he got out of his handcuffs? And they never found him?


Rashid Rauf was never extradited from Pakistan:-



December 13: The terrorism charges on Rauf Rashid are dropped. The Pakistani court recognize there is no evidence that he is involved in terrorism. The British government has stated this makes no difference to their proceedings against the other suspects whom they hold.[9]

December 14 2007: Rashid Rauf mysteriously escaped from jail. Authorities say that he escaped after freeing himself from handcuffs. The two police officials on the duty are currently under arrest by Islamabad police. The police have also tightened security at public transport routes and especially in Rauf's native town, Mirpur.


en.wikipedia.org...

Hmmm... Still, nothing dodgy going on there then.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Well spotted, reading the other article I mistakingly thought it was a UK jail.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthman4
You must commit the crime before you can be punished for it. You can't punish people for planning a crime. I know these guys were bad but all they did was make some bombs, not kill anyone.


You can't punish someone for planning a crime? So, your saying that if someone was convicted of planning to kill, torture and rape your mother you wouldn't punish them for it?

Wake up!

All these guys did was make bombs? And your missing the point, they made the bombs with the intention of killing people!

[edit on 9/9/08 by Death_Kron]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ninthaxis

Originally posted by Death_Kron

In my oppinion, if you could prove beyond all doubt that these people are guilty then they shouldn't even be appointed a lawyer to defend them!



This is a lawyers job, to prove one way or the other.


No, A Lawyers job it to convince a court that someone is either guilty or not guilty. Not to prove it mate.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Death_Kron
No, A Lawyers job it to convince a court that someone is either guilty or not guilty. Not to prove it mate.


I think n-axis was referring to the US Legal right The Presumption of Innocence. The Presumtion of Innocence States: The indictment or formal charge against any person is not evidence of guilt. Indeed, the person is presumed by the law to be innocent. The law does not require a person to prove his innocence or produce any evidence at all. The Government has the burden of proving a person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so the person is (so far as the law is concerned) not guilty.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:48 PM
link   
round_eyed_dog you stated my intentions better than I (obviously) could. My basic point was that to not give a guy a lawyer because of overwhelming evidence would be to toss out due process (in America anyways) which I think is heading down a scary road.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join