Article

2004-03-30 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2004-03-30 9:47:31 AM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Hark! I hear the cries of police harrassment already.

Posted by Howard UK 2004-03-30 10:01:16 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:01:16 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 This morning the BBC reporter I heard on the radio said that no official statement had been made about ethnicity, though a source told him the suspects were "Asian."

Bias or BS?

Glad to see a report confirming what they are.

BTW, something like 700 policemen were involved in this.

Posted by growler 2004-03-30 10:32:21 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:32:21 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 When I get home and turn on the TV, the Imam from their local mosque will be on maintaining their innocence and claiming 'they was framed'

Posted by Howard UK 2004-03-30 10:37:04 AM|| 2004-03-30 10:37:04 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Behold! I give you Sky News and their "Muslim backlash warning:"
RAIDS BACKLASH WARNING

Posted by Jen 2004-03-30 10:57:10 AM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-03-30 10:57:10 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 A total of eight men - all of them British citizens of Pakistani descent, three of them teenagers

"We are but the local greens keepers, good sirrah!"

Posted by eLarson 2004-03-30 11:07:34 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:07:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I hear the cries of police harrassment already.

Wait 'til Pakis/ME-types working in jobs that present a potential security risk get the profiling treatment.

Posted by Bomb-a-rama 2004-03-30 11:21:37 AM|| 2004-03-30 11:21:37 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Amazingly, this isn't the lead on the Beeb's website. Instead, the lead is Rice's testimony, which is described as something like "White House U-Turn on 9/11 Inquiry."

I can only assume the thinking (or perhaps instinct) is: Why waste space on great work by the police in preventing a major attack when you can take another shot at Bush?

Posted by Matt 2004-03-30 12:39:44 PM|| 2004-03-30 12:39:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The story was the lead on BBC World News (the telly ),so they're not altogether out of order.

Posted by El Id 2004-03-30 12:47:15 PM|| 2004-03-30 12:47:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Thanks for the link, Jen. The Islamotwerps are so incredibly infuriating!!! First they defend their terrorist buddies, then they threaten British citizens with retaliation for busting said terrorists and covering it in the news. (How dare they, those Zionist piglet Brits!) Of course, no word condemning the actions of their own. And why should they? Not many frequent pubs and clubs, so it would be a net gain from their point of view, if the operation had succeeded. All they have to do now is run interference.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-03-30 1:22:04 PM|| 2004-03-30 1:22:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Growler, it's not bias. They are "Asian."

I remember this because a couple of years ago there were riots in Britain and it was blamed on the "Asians."

I thought, "Asians don't riot" (at least not here).

Later on, they cut to the chase, it was people of ME descent.

Posted by Anonymous2U 2004-03-30 2:42:48 PM|| 2004-03-30 2:42:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 They are "Asian."

Must be still using the Kipling stylebook:
East of Med = Asian.
South of Med = Wogs
East of Channel = Frogs

Posted by Steve 2004-03-30 3:36:32 PM|| 2004-03-30 3:36:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 A good rule of thumb is:

- if the authorities are coy about ethnicity, then your guess about their ethnicity is most likely correct.

- if the authorities deny the suspects are members of ethnic group X, then believe them.

It's a negative test, but it works.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-03-30 3:44:57 PM|| 2004-03-30 3:44:57 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Here, as in Spain, I am curious what they are going to do with the suspects if convicted? Interestingly, all of European countries forbid the death penality and a county can't even join the EU with a death penalty law on the books.

I am surprised that the Spanish people aren't calling for the death penalty for the Madird Bombers. And even here, in sunny 'ol England, I am coming to believe that these defendants, if convicted, even with no deaths involved from their activity, deserve the death penalty.

I just don't get it.

Posted by Traveller 2004-03-30 3:47:24 PM|| 2004-03-30 3:47:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Traveller, as an American, I am curious to see how the legal side of this shakes out, for a variety of reasons.

My gut feeling is that, even if convictions happen, they will in practice amount to a few years. Which means that these people will have further chances to commit outrages, and will be armed with great ideas they pick up from the Muslim holy men that visit the prisons.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-03-30 3:50:47 PM|| 2004-03-30 3:50:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Well, you're exactly correct, Carl. They'll get a few years...and be better at their vocation when they are released.

BTW, I am Americian myself, and a self proclaimed Liberal, but on the Death Penality I've really had no problems reconciling the ultimate punishment with my overall mindset.

Generally, it is better that a guilty man be spared than even run the risk of executing an innocent man...but were there is no doubt, (mass murderer's ect ect), then the death penality is certainly appropriste.

With Terrorist, howerver, I believe that the opposite it true...it is better that a few innocent be executed than to let one guilty go free. I have no problem with this moral calculus.

I wonder when or if Europe will get on board with this? What is interesting is that Death for the Madrid Bombers isn't even being discussed...it's not on the radar screen at all. Seems odd to me.

Posted by Traveller 2004-03-30 4:52:18 PM|| 2004-03-30 4:52:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Ok, I saw this as a headline in the 'Evening Standard' as I was coming up on a train from London today with my girlfriend (at the same conference). She didn't point it out, I didn't say anything (we have an agreement that way). I can get much better information off the internet than I can the papers.

I think she was quiet because we were talking about this on Saturday over dinner, I said it was inevitable and that what happened after that would depend on the scale of the atrocity - don't forget, we've lived with the IRA for 30 years here - wonder why you don't see litter bins in tube stations and railway stations? Blame "the bhoys" for that one. In other words, we're somewhat desensitised to terrorist attacks over here.

What happens after the hit? It really depends on the scale. 20+ will be nasty, but not much will change, Madrid level (200+) means more draconian measures, and a possible backlash against Muslims in this country. 9/11 scale (3000+) is a different level, and I really can't even guess what happens then - we did have 'killing squads' that took out portions of the IRA, and I'm sure that should there be a 9/11 scale hit on the UK, that membership of those squads would be overflowing.

I'm not happy about all this, as I know it's inevitable. It's what happens after it happens that concerns me.

Posted by Tony (UK) 2004-03-30 6:11:58 PM|| 2004-03-30 6:11:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 Traveller, your take on death penalty gibes with mine -- yes, there *are* some cases where guilt is not in doubt.

Leave the death penalty aside because it quickly gets complicated: death for the actual bombers only, or their entire support network ? How to be sure who would have been a bomber, and who was in support only ? etc etc.

I am curious to see exactly how a sentence would play out. My impression of the Euro legal system is that overall it is lenient (why, yes, I did buy this broad brush recently, do you like it ? ), and terrorism is a good case to test that assumption. Another thing to test is how easily cowed future governments would be in the face of new outrages committed to free imprisoned terrorists. When I said "in practice" in my earlier post, that was meant to cover not only a lenient original sentence, but the possibility of an early release due to future terrorist demands, pressure from lobby groups, "world opinion" etc.

IMO, it is better to kill terrorists outright on the battlefield where practicable.

Posted by Carl in N.H 2004-03-30 6:44:05 PM|| 2004-03-30 6:44:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Traveller's use of the word calculus, and his arguments, combined with Tony's remarks remind me of how insane (IMHO) people are regards this issue.

Recall way back when... there was a mortar round that landed in a market in Sarayevo that killed 60 people. The very next day, our own asshat Peter "naturalized" Jennings was anchoring his ABC evening broadcast from the site, complete with his Roland Hedley (Doonesbury moron Reporter character) outfit and flak jacket. Now, for me, this was insane. For the previous 10 days, at least 5-6 people had died each day from sniper and mortar attacks, yet nothing happened - no one showed up, no righteous anger or indignation. One big splash, and here they came, out of the woodwork, to declaim the violence and posture, preen, and parade their sensibilities and morality. The difference? Beats the fuck outta me. One is too fucking many.

So calculate all you like, gentlemen and gentlewomen, regardless of your position. I submit:

If it's all grown up, and it's so broken that it KILLS innocents, then you're just going to have to kill it - unless you want to FURTHER burden your people by paying for its upkeep, BBC license and colour TV, and 3 squares a day - not to mention insult and remind the survivors of its victims that it's still alive - and their loved ones are dead.

Methinks this is pretty fucking clear.

Posted by .com 2004-03-30 6:47:41 PM|| 2004-03-30 6:47:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 Sooner or later, probably later, Europe, including the UK, is going to coming around on the death penalty. I've seen reports that the majority of people on the Continent support the death penalty right now (not sure about the UK). You can't let political mass murderers get away with (limited) jail time. That sends a huge message, and it is the wrong one.

This is war.

Posted by RMcLeod 2004-03-30 7:38:06 PM|| 2004-03-30 7:38:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 Question:

You have just rolled up a group *before* they committed any outrages, and you have the explosives, proof, etc.

Is it death penalty for the bombers only, or do you go after the suppliers of the materials, bombmakers, and other support personnel ?

Personally, I support the death penalty for anybody who is knowingly engaged in some way in organizing, supporting, or committing the mass slaughter of innocents, from the top-level planners to the low-level cannon fodder.

However, that is not a quickly resolved debate among the public of most Western nations.

I note that Asahara recently got the death penalty for the atrocities committed by Aum Shinrikyo in Japan that he organized.

Posted by Carl in NH 2004-03-30 9:59:18 PM|| 2004-03-30 9:59:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 This is where cingold and others can explain far better than I the rule of law (and we have State & Federal Law possibilities, as well) regards criminal liability for murder, from act to accessory to conspiracy. The law has evolved for 200 years, more if we decide to fall back to English Law where we have no precedent or theory, so it probably covers 95% of the questions you'd pose into account and deals fairly (or so the US public believes, for the most part) with them. The 5% outliers are always interesting, though. Anyway, when creating statutes to specifically deal with terrorism, they certainly had some solid experience to use as a starting point.

BTW, IMHO, the fact that we don't share case law or precedent law or even law theory (e.g. 'intent' & 'presumption of innocence' as key points and our legacy from the Mother Country) with much of the world is what makes the ICC an automatic non-starter. It always will be a dead duck, too, since we can be certain there will never be universal agreement on these fundamentals as they are sourced by custom and social standards. Everything that follows disagreement on fundamental theory is folly.

Posted by .com 2004-03-30 10:15:06 PM|| 2004-03-30 10:15:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 Yeah, Carl, I saw that also. I didn't even know that Japan had a Death Penalty. It surprised me a bit. Though, of course, I agree that any public debate on this would be intense and Acrimonious.

I am not even sure where I would come down on the debate you posit re suppliers, aiders and abettors.

Still, what is interesting is that there is absolutely "Zero," discussion on this in Europe.

BTW, this days thread will end soon...it has been nice to read what you write.

Best Wishes,

Posted by Traveller 2004-03-30 10:16:42 PM|| 2004-03-30 10:16:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 "I didn't even know that Japan had a Death Penalty"

Yep, they do. And when the Euros tell you that the US is the only major Western nation to have the death penalty, they are pulling a fast one on you...

Posted by Carl in NH 2004-03-30 10:32:36 PM|| 2004-03-30 10:32:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 In my opinion, one way to look at the problem involves four factors:

Natural Law versus Legislated Law

and

Crime versus Punishment

The U.S., and English traditions, have favored âNatural Lawâ -- that we (as a people) have morals because they are built into us as aspects of the creation, and that laws flow naturally therefrom (regardless of what is "popular" at the time). Over time, Austinian legal theory (or the principle holding that the sovereign makes the law) has gained prominence (just like with much of the deconstructivism that has gone on in academia over the last few hundred years). Regardless, whether natural law or legislated law, murder and murderous plans by Islamofascists are considered crimes. Thatâs the easy part. It shouldnât be too hard to persuade a jury that (without a doubt) these nut jobs want to kill and maim, and teach their fellows to do likewise.

Then comes punishment, which in Western society is usually imposed by the Court, not the jury. Here the folks who follow Austinian legal theory would say what is appropriate punishment is whatever the legislatures (our current sovereigns) think best. This could vacillate greatly from country to country or even administration to administration. Natural Law theorists would differ -- holding to an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, ect., but tempered with mercy. Where the crime is sedition, rebellion, treason, accessory to murder, the punishment has traditionally been execution. I, for one, say give these people the very best trials with every presumption of innocence. If a jury finds that they aspired to, conspired toward, or committed acts of sedition, rebellion, treason, etc., they should hang.

Posted by cingold 2004-03-30 11:25:05 PM|| 2004-03-30 11:25:05 PM|| Front Page Top

00:22 Apfelbaum TROLL
00:09 Levi TROLL
00:04 Vladimir Eizenstein TROLL
00:02 Willy TROLL
00:01 Sam TROLL
00:00 Frank Stein TROLL
23:42 Lazar Berg TROLL
23:40 Simon Berg TROLL
23:38 Theodor Goldfarb TROLL
00:17 Grunspahn
00:17 Grunspahn
00:15 Mortengau
00:15 Mortengau
00:05 Marc Diamond
00:05 Marc Diamond
21:04 Poster
21:04 Poster
21:03 Chuck
21:03 Chuck
21:01 Charlie TROLL
20:58 Friedrich TROLL
20:55 Doctor TROLL
20:53 John Doe TROLL
20:49 Enforcer of Free Speach TROLL
Merry-Go-Blog