This is the problem! This is why we are getting ridiculous about Terrorism. I know these guys were probably plotting and scheming and weren't very pleasant, but the fact that their case has caused such hysteria in the media and the fact that the media was in attendance at 2:30am when the raids began begs the question - "Can these people get fair trials?".
I think not and that means that these new laws without precedent plus the very public crucifiction of the people arrested will mean that undoubtedly that they will get off not on the basis of innocence but on legal technicality.
This is what is making a mockery of us - John Howard is undoubtedly not wanting us to be victims of Terrorism, but he is very much mindful of the political point scoring that such a display can be achieved.
From what I have read, the Police have no hard evidence, have transcripts of phone taps, but after 2 years have not been able to lay a hand on these people. 2 days after new, untried legislation, they swoop... Well any lawyer worth his salt will be able to drive a truck through the prosecution and make a lot of fee revenue in the process.
Yes, terrorist cells are a possibility and this is probably one. But we dont jail people based on probability. Our legal system jails people found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt". Making new laws to give Police more gestapo like powers does not lower the legal benchmark.
The fact that the media has whooped up such a storm (as in the front page above of today's Telegraph) has / will result in the legal defence of these people having so much ammunition to use in the defence, that to reach "beyond reasonable doubt" will be nigh on impossible.
If they were monitoring them so closely, why not swoop when the guy had the explosives in his backpack at the start of his mission to martyrdom...
4 comments:
Terrorists aside...I note your use of the phrase "begs the question". While I realize a lot of people think "begging the question" means "a situation that demands a certain question be asked"...it ACTUALLY is a logic terminology in which the Premise of an argument assumes the conclusion ;-) Here is a site that explains it in a neater way.
http://skepdic.com/begging.html
Enjoy your new found wisdom and ability at others who mis-use the phrase ;-)
LOL!
Now I am being taught the proper use of the English language by an American!!
I guess I can rephrase this by saying:
"The Terrorists were taped talking about Jihad. This meant that they were preparing to become Martyrs. Being a Martyr means killing innocent women & children. John Howard is a legend"
Does that beg the question! hehe!
;-)
No...by the way.
"All muslims are terrorists. I know this beacause all terriosts are Muslims."
Conclusion is stated in the premise.
Logic is fun!
I agree with what your saying clay, except for the very last part, about the police waiting to swoop in until they had a backpack full of explosives and were leaving to use them.
If I were a cop, or if one of one of my friends or family was a cop, I certainly wouldnt the swooping to occur while they were armed with explosives. Swooping in needs to be done when there is little or no risk to the police or the public.
Everything else you rant about is spot on though.
Post a Comment