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

andie nachgeborenen andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com
Sun Aug 13 16:49:14 PDT 2006


Last comment on this. Ideally prosecution of crime should be apolitical. Bur this is the real world we live in, and prosecutors and political creatures, except for Pat Fitzgerald. I don't know enough about the case or English law to know how how much probable cause there was here but under American law you can be arrested and convicted for conspiracy for agreement plus _any_ overt act in furtherance of the crime -- like looking up the plane schedules. They wouldn't have to do anything more. What British law applies and what exactly the defendants are charged with I do not know. Whether the time here was wise or political I wouldn't know either. But at least we agree that people should be stopped before they blow up planes.

--- 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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list