--- jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
> 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
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com