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.

 

Britain bangs up youth for visiting the wrong places on the Web

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Convicting based on just possession of knowledge seems a bit harsh.

They ought to allow entrapment to act as evidence in court (only in terror cases). They should get infiltrators to see if they can "recruit" the suspect into a bombing raid... except on the day when he shows up to conduct what he thinks is an act of terror, he is captured by the police and then put before a trial.


That is a good idea. That is what they would likely do in the U.S.

If someone tries to hire a hitman they send a wired FBI agent over to play the hitman and gather evidence. The kid is only 18, it would have in all likelihood been easy to gather stronger evidence.




posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Convicting based on just possession of knowledge seems a bit harsh.

They ought to allow entrapment to act as evidence in court (only in terror cases). They should get infiltrators to see if they can "recruit" the suspect into a bombing raid... except on the day when he shows up to conduct what he thinks is an act of terror, he is captured by the police and then put before a trial.


That is a good idea. That is what they would likely do in the U.S.

If someone tries to hire a hitman they send a wired FBI agent over to play the hitman and gather evidence. The kid is only 18, it would have in all likelihood been easy to gather stronger evidence.

This is already in effect. I tested this theory by typing "suicide" into Google and got, on the FIRST page, an advertisement for bombers ensuring your "family will be taken care of"...entrapment. The thing is, it traps people who are not very bright or just curious and not everyone can smell a trap a mile away, most people trapped by these baits are probably young people seeking help with their depression. I wonder where the lines are drawn when it comes to online entrapment. It seems to me people are guided into ideas that would never have crossed their minds in a million years, without sickos leading them there.
(I never clicked the link, btw, oh hell no)

[edit on 21-9-2008 by mmariebored]



posted on Sep, 21 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Silly UK justice.

They should have sentenced the boy in social service for a time period like helping disabled persons in similar institutes or kids with a a down syndrome, making him learn that there is an alternative to violence for changing the ways society functions, if he didn't like it. Some hours of his day while a final verdict would be pending and then have experts decide from observing his later behavior if he indeed deserved his current penalty to be implemented.

I can not understand these laws and sente4nces, it is like they really want to manufacture terrorists out from 15 year olds. They just made this kid a martyr for the other young sympathizers with similar ideas.

This kid needed to be educated in positive thoughts not thrown in to jail for Christs sake. Is this a Christian society or just the opposition to a radical Islam? If they chose to function like this then how is this making them better from the extremists of Islam? Kids supposed to have a choice living in a better society capable of understanding. Where is their difference if they just behave like the opposite side? Kid had probably felt the same too. He wanted to change something or show his disgust and ended up being recruited by radicals.

[edit on 21-9-2008 by spacebot]

[edit on 21-9-2008 by spacebot]



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mmariebored
This is already in effect. I tested this theory by typing "suicide" into Google and got, on the FIRST page, an advertisement for bombers ensuring your "family will be taken care of"...entrapment. The thing is, it traps people who are not very bright or just curious and not everyone can smell a trap a mile away, most people trapped by these baits are probably young people seeking help with their depression. I wonder where the lines are drawn when it comes to online entrapment. It seems to me people are guided into ideas that would never have crossed their minds in a million years, without sickos leading them there.
(I never clicked the link, btw, oh hell no)

[edit on 21-9-2008 by mmariebored]


Yeah but then its not a question of concept, but of Modus Operandi.

Which serious terrorist would sign up via a google link?!

Thats not how they should run any entrapment snare... it should be via intelligence officers placed in positions within Wahhabi mosques in particular, and also in underground IRC chatrooms where all sorts of malfeisance occurs.

Also dont forget that those most likely to be brainwashed are those with weak minds and frail intellects. As such, targeting the stupid via such moves may not be a bad idea.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The root of the problem is the so called war on terror.

1 million iraq people been killed in the last years.

What would you do if they killed 1 million of your brothers and sisters?

As long as the west tortures and kills so many people around the world this problem will stay.

Not trying to say that terrorism and killing people is a good thing to do, but it is something you can expect.



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Merriman Weir
What I found the most intriguing is that Munshi's grandfather is a well-known Islamic scholar.

It's strange and more than a little sad that someone who is obviously well-versed in Islam, and whose views are obviously respected amongst the Muslim community, wasn't more of an influence than two idiots on Munshi. Now, to an extent, most teenagers are easy prey to older, forceful personalities, but it doesn't say much for Munshi if he was still influenced despite his grandfather's standing.

I bet the grandfather feels especially bad about this. Imagine being a respected scholar in a particular field and a member of your family would rather take up a stranger's ideas on the internet than yours. That's a kind of helplessness I wouldn't want to experience.


100% Agree! And brilliant post, starred!



posted on Sep, 22 2008 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Also dont forget that those most likely to be brainwashed are those with weak minds and frail intellects. As such, targeting the stupid via such moves may not be a bad idea.

You mean like children? Because I'm sure you're aware, children have long been the majority of users on the web.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


Better to convict a kid who signs up for a terrorist act rather than one who is "merely" in possession of dubious materials.

This is an interesting question though. I know that universally, children are deemed to have lower mental capacity than adults and subsequently cannot "consent" in a legal sense.

Does this apply to terrorism? I don't think it should. There are certain activities which are so far out of the norm that age cannot be used as a defence.

For example:

1. A 15 year old boy steals something from a shop. While reprehensible, his age does mean that his mental faculties are not entirely developed and so he may be given the benefit of doubt. We, as a society, reproach him but understand that he may grow up to be a decent person.

However, 2. A 15 year old boy signs up for a terrorist act, seeks out indoctrination and recruitment by extremists. Can society ever take the risk of giving such a child the benefit of doubt? Also despite the child's purported lack of mental development, we have to acknowledge that his behaviour was entirely out of the norm of what is an "acceptable deviance".

I think a few crimes committed by underage children cannot be mitigated by age. Amongst them are murder, rape, paedophilia (depending on age gap, not statutory law) and terrorism.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 11:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
A 15 year old boy signs up for a terrorist act, seeks out indoctrination and recruitment by extremists. Can society ever take the risk of giving such a child the benefit of doubt? Also despite the child's purported lack of mental development, we have to acknowledge that his behavior was entirely out of the norm of what is an "acceptable deviance".

You have to take into consideration what led him to that mentality.

At that age, he can be retrained. The damage can be undone.

The problem I see is authority figures, (like some police officers I've spoken to about certain kids I know), are quick to label kids a "train wreck" and slam them into prisons as soon as they catch them doing something of significant consequence, rather than help them BEFORE they reach that stage.

When they see someone going in a certain direction, they'd rather keep an eye on them and wait for them to screw up big so they can lock them away and "git er done"...it's less costly and time consuming to label someone as "garbage" and throw them away than actually help them become better members of society. The system is flawed and unbalanced.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by mmariebored
 


My opinion is stark and solid.

Any perpetrator who commits:

a. Murder

b. Rape

c. Terrorist acts

d. Paedophilia (circumstances determined)

cannot possibly be let free for a very long time (life in some cases). It isn't fair on society to take the risk by every releasing such an offender, regardless of the age at which they committed the crime since the crime is so abnormal.

Any normal child knows that murder is wrong. A normal child may err by stealing, but it takes a psychotic one to murder wilfully. Re-training is out of the question in my opinion, because the intrinsic character of these children is dubious.



posted on Sep, 23 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by 44soulslayer
 


I have to agree with this, though any child may at some point take something that doesn't belong to him we give him the benefit of the doubt in the hopes he will learn by this minor mistake and grow to be a respectful member of the community.

By Committing to, or allowing oneself to be involved in any act of terrorism is beyond the realms of 'Part of growing up'

This chap has in my mind received a very good upbringing with parents and grand parents that are religious yet NOT extremist. The chap has at some point decided to go further and get involved in whatever acts of terrorism he got himself into. He knows, as any child/young adult knows that this is going to lead to deaths (Most of the time Multiples there of) and at the very least acts that are considered unacceptable both in this country and society at large.

He got his just deserves and although its good to see they he has been stopped before he can do too much harm, my concern is with all those that haven't been discovered that are plotting and working with certain parties that have nothing but ill intent for our health and society.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join