[lbo-talk] Bush admin pressed Brits to arrest suspects

[jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net]

If they were indeed planning on using explosives to bring down commercial jets they should be legally 
prevented from doing so. The evidence appears to support this idea although it equally suggests that this was 
not an immediate threat in that no airline tickets had been purchased nor had specific flights been selected. It is 
because of these facts that their arrest AT THIS TIME is not automatically to be considered "a good thing".

If they were arrested before the investigating persons involved felt it was in the best interests of the case 
because of political reasons then the person or persons who made that decision should be dismissed from their 
jobs. Protecting the public from people who wish to cause harm to innocents should never be politicized. The 
publics safety and the strength of the investigation alone should be the determining factors in when to move in 
and apprehend those under surveillance. Not if an immediate arrest would be beneficial for someones 
professional ambitions. That seemed to me to be the only thing anyone was questioning. Not whether they 
should be prevented from following through with their plan.

John Thornton

On 13 Aug 2006 at 14:57, andie nachgeborenen wrote:


> Well, I don't know the details of the case, so I have
> no evidence one way or another about the decision to
> time the arrests. Politics may have entered into it,
> that doesn't make the arrests bad or unjustified, at
> least in itself. 
> 
> If the threat was not immediate and the guys were
> under surveillance, then it might make sense to
> surveill some more and see if you can get more bad
> guys.  Of course it's also standard to bust a flock of
> bad guys and try to get someone to crack and roll over
> on the others by a offering the first to talk a deal.
> That's a typical exercise of prosecutorial discretion
> and a judgment call. 
> 
> Obviously I agree that no one should be arrested with
> probable cause or the English equivalent.  But if
> there is probable cause to believe that these
> individuals were conspiring to commit terrorist
> crimes, it's a really good thing they were arrested
> before they got a chance to actually do it. Don't you
> agree? 
> 
> --- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 
> > Just because they were planning to blow up planes
> > doesn't make their arrest at any time before this
> > happens a 
> > good thing. If there is good reason to imagine that
> > with continued surveillance over the short term
> > additional 
> > suspects appeared likely to be uncovered. Or if
> > evidence against the know suspects is shaky for a
> > few of them 
> > then yes, arresting them prematurely for silly
> > reasons related to PR rather than law enforcement is
> > a bad thing.
> > 
> > Do you disagree with this for some reason? Do you
> > have evidence the Brits wanted to continue
> > surveillance not 
> > because they thought it necessary but because they
> > were incompetent or bored?
> > 
> > John Thornton
> > 
> > 
> > On 13 Aug 2006 at 13:11, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> > 
> > If it's true they were going to blow up planes, is
> > it
> > a bad thing they were arrested?
> > 
> > 
> > > --- Carl Remick <carlremick at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > >  [Blair & Co., loyal stooges that they are, seem
> > >  primed to continue to report 
> > >  hair-raising terrorist schemes on a regular basis
> > >  between now and US 
> > >  election day.  The elections are 12 weeks away,
> > so
> > >  according to the story 
> > >  below, the UK has enough plots in the pipeline to
> > >  horrify the public twice a 
> > >  week between now and Nov. 7.]
> > >  
> > >  Carl> http://mail.yahoo.com