Al-Qaeda Terrorists and Human Rights

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by trelawney126, Aug 26, 2012.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Paradox

    Surely to have human rights, one must have to be human!!
     
  2. My friends Khalid and Mustapha are also going to Strasbourg as their bus passes have been revoked.
    It's blatant ageism.
     
  3. They are not even human focking being, they are sewage shoite pure and simple.
     
  4. Magda

    Magda War Hero Book Reviewer

    It is always going to be a problematic thing, the application of human rights. We are all entitled to them and would like to think that they would help protect us and those we love from persecution and so on. But there in lies the issue - we are ALL entitled to them. Who decides who does and doesn't have a right to utilise them? Should we make a blanket rule saying that terrorists, by nature of their cause and the manner in which they defend it, are to be stripped of them? But then one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so who decides which is which?

    I find the abuse of "oomin roights" frustrating in the extreme as those with legitimate cases are probably shoved to one side in favour of higher profile cases such as this, but I'd not want to be the one who decides who has a legitimate case and who doesn't.
     
  5. The point I find most disagreeable is the Lawyers sheer tenacity to squeeze the legal aid to its absolute limits and then appeal when decisions don't go in their favour. They harp on about equality just before they pen a letter to some unfortunate soul costing £300 who cannot get legal aid, becaus he/ she is employed. Appeals to higher courts should be on a No Win, No Fee basis. We'd soon see which solicitors / barristers are not in it for the money
     
  6. Magda

    Magda War Hero Book Reviewer

    Agreed, Tre. I find this cutlure of "court case for a stubbed toe" completely wrong and wish someone would have the guts to challenge it.

    A friend who worked as a lifeguard at a pool told me of a friend of his who pulled a man out of the water and did CPR on him after he got in to difficulty whilst swimming. The man survived but the young lifeguard accidentally cracked two of his ribs (happens quite frequently according to my BIL who is an ED Nurse). A letter arrived a few weeks later stating he was being taken to court for some trumped up "bodily harm" charge. Needless to say, it never even made it to court and no compentation was paid, but still, how could any lawyer even think there was anything in such a case?
     
  7. Human rights don't appear to apply to victims do they? Thus apply them on the basis of displayed 'Humanity' or lack thereof.

    To simplify matters, why not apply the privilege of 'Human rights' on the basis of how the candidate's culture would apply them to oneself under the same circumstances. Very transparent and scrupulously fair surely as they would receive the treatment they so obviously believe in and fight for and not compromise their precious piety.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. In a democracy the rule of thumb is that you are bound by the majority.
    We elect our representatives and they make our laws.
    Now if johnny terrorist wants to commit a terror crime in a country he is revoking his right to protection from that society.
    If we were a dictatorship then he could make a claim to be a freedom fighter.
    We ain't so he is just a vicious minority who like the rest of minorities just has to suck it up or now here's an idea,
    **** OFF.
     
  9. When someone steps outside of society by killing, stealing, raping etc they forego the protection of society.
    It owes them nothing because they are no longer part of it.
    Therefore they lose their entitlement to human rights and should be punished accordingly.
    Hanging would be nice.
     
  10. On the other hand - if "evidence" of wrongdoing is obtained by torture (allegedly in the full knowledge of the authorities) it should not have been used in court and if the evidence had not been obtained by such means this problem would not then have arisen. If the belief of the government was that these individuals posed a threat to the UK there should be other means by which they can be dealt with, or a stronger case built up without sorting to letting the Pakistanis rip off toenails or whatever.

    I am not trying to be an apologist for either the individuals concerned or the legal parasites who feed off these types of case (no apologies for showing which side of the fence I personally sit on) but if we don't apply the law fairly and impartially we will just create more problems for ourselves.

    And please don't let's have anyone hitting back me with comments like "what about the victims" or "what about the risk to joe public from letting these types of people loose on our streets". I know all the arguments and don't like the idea any more than the majority of people but that is, unfortunately, one of the less appealing prices of democracy and freedom.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. I do not think some of them care, all they go for is the cash they will make, i will say some as there may be at least one lawyer with principles out there?
     
  12. Magda

    Magda War Hero Book Reviewer

    As I said, I don't like the idea of these men being given the chance to walk free, considering what they were planning on doing, but I still say, the application of human rights is not an easy one, and it will ALWAYS be a difficult area which I can't see ever being resolved.

    Broadside has it right - if we want people of this kind to be locked away for good, we MUST ensure they have no reason to question the legality of their trials and subsequent sentencing. Of course, there will always be an accusation that the trial is unfair etc. but if, for example, the method of obtaining evidence is whiter than white and can be proven to be so, then we can ensure they stay where they belong - behind bars.

    Even though if find law quite interesting (yes, I am a geek), I too have an issue with those lawyers who willingly take on cases such as this. But then, I also wonder how they can defend murderers they know are guilty and so on, although I'm sure sometimes they are not given the option as to who they defend or prosecute. I know this is the basis of our judicial system (innocent until proven guilty and so on) but still, it must be very hard to do.
     
  13. Magda, the problem as I see it is the whole appeals process to the ECHR is virtually run by the legal profession, and the defendant lawyer knows that once the application is submitted it will be granted as it would be against their rights if one person rejected it, this then goes into a process which can take years, the legal profession have their cash cow well under control.
    TRE had it right make all these case no win no fee to sort out the real cases from the money makers, that in turn would speed up the ECHR due to lack of applicants.
     
  14. BUT..
    There is no refuting the evidence collected in this country against them, which on it's own merits warrants a conviction.
    But as said they can walk away because of evidence collected abroad by torture, and that is where the idiocracy lies.
    OK dismiss the Pakistani evidence but that then does not render the verdict here unsafe.
    But it will mean them walking free.
    And then what really hits the nerve is that they then sue for compensation.
    I still applaud the Scots legal system which can record a verdict of "Not Proven" which eliminates this abuse.
    An "unsafe" verdict is a far cry from "not guilty".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Hate to say the Scotts may have it right, the cry for unfair then suing just gives them more money to plan their next move, as or anti-terrorist branches had been following some of these for years, so they will not change, if anything more angry for being slammed up?
     

Share This Page