Bomb plotters get life.

[lancelot]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195914.stm

Well, my faith in the justice system has been partially restored. Just as long as '40 year minimum sentence' means at least 40 years, I'll be happy.

A few things I dont understand though-

1) I couldnt find a direct reference in the link but I assume these men pleaded not guilty. My question is- If these men had such a strong faith- why would they attempt to deny what they had tried to do? Surely their faith would compel them to openly confess to their intentions...even feel proud of their plans...no?

2) I cant help but find it hypocritical that people who have such a supposed strong faith can stand to live in and reap all the benefits of; what I assume they consider such a decadent and evil country as the UK. If they hate this state and the way it is organised so much- why stay? Wouldnt they be much happier in an islamic state?

3) What is blowing up a shopping center really going to achieve? Do they seriously believe a government would (could) do a major u-turn on policy over killing civillians? Do they not realise they are only alienating the general public (many of whom were just as opposed to the war in iraq etc etc) and giving fuel to other forms of extremism?

4) Are these men not guilty of treason?

[Spetulhu]

A few things I dont understand though-

1) I couldnt find a direct reference in the link but I assume these men pleaded not guilty. My question is- If these men had such a strong faith- why would they attempt to deny what they had tried to do? Surely their faith would compel them to openly confess to their intentions...even feel proud of their plans...no?

2) I cant help but find it hypocritical that people who have such a supposed strong faith can stand to live in and reap all the benefits of; what I assume they consider such a decadent and evil country as the UK. If they hate this state and the way it is organised so much- why stay? Wouldnt they be much happier in an islamic state?

3) What is blowing up a shopping center really going to achieve? Do they seriously believe a government would (could) do a major u-turn on policy over killing civillians? Do they not realise they are only alienating the general public (many of whom were just as opposed to the war in iraq etc etc) and giving fuel to other forms of extremism?

4) Are these men not guilty of treason?

1) Murder is a greater crime than lying. If you don't feel bad about planning to kill hundreds of people there's no reason to feel bad about keeping your mouth shut or outright lying.

2) It's religious logic, the same sort christians use to bypass Jesus the Pacifist and go to war. "In order to do good we must first do some evil. In order to save their souls we might have to kill their bodies." If one has to live in the UK in order to spread the word then so be it.

3) That's the definition of terrorism. In this case the UK is involved in a none-too-popular conflict in Iraq. Guarding Iraq isn't stopping anyone from hatching terror plots in the UK. If things start happening at home , regularly and spectacularly, the public will want those soldiers back home. Mission accomplished.

4) Treason would imply a plot to overthrow the government or attack it directly.

[Hosakawa Tito]

1) There is no transcript provided from the accused as yet, so we can only speculate on their testimony for now. Others brought to trial in the past have admitted (truthfully or not) to the deed/deeds they were convicted of. Time will tell for these men...

2) People from different cultures/backgrounds/life experiences may think differently than you or I. What one considers wrong/hypocritical may be perfectly legitimate or justifiable to others. Taking advantage of another cultures system against itself, especially when one feels to be at war, is certainly not unheard of.

3) Committing acts of terror against civilian populations has been happening since recorded history. It doesn't have to make sense to you or I as an effective tactic, it just has to make sense to the perpetrators.

4) Premeditated mass murder for the purposes of terror, if proven, they deserve a living death sentence. No contact with the outside world, limited human contact with prison staff only (medical, religious, security). Give them their Koran and a lifetime of quiet solitude to reflect upon the path they have chosen.

[English assassin]

You seem to have overlooked the main point, which is five terrorists convicted on the strength of strong evidence after a fair trial, which I hope will give those who think that all arrests of muslim brothers are some sort of police plot pause for thought. It won't, of course, but it would be nice to imagine that it might.

Two of the accused were even acquitted, almost as if the jury considered the evidence fairly, and weren't biased against muslims, or something. Ridiculous, I know. Obviosuly they were simply hiding their islamophobia, which makes them even more dangerous.

[econ21]

4) Premeditated mass murder for the purposes of terror, if proven, they deserve a living death sentence. No contact with the outside world, limited human contact with prison staff only (medical, religious, security). Give them their Koran and a lifetime of quiet solitude to reflect upon the path they have chosen.

Emphasis added to the "limited contact with prison staff only" part - I've never quite understood "solitary confinement". It seems a particularly cruel and unusual punishment, not unlike that inflicted by those nutters who kidnap other children or lock up their own (there were a couple of Austrian cases a while back). It's hard to imagine a more severe punishment short of inflicting chronic pain - we are such social creatures.

Then again, my lack of understanding may be because I've never been really seen the appeal of retributive punishment at all. Lock em up to keep them from causing harm or deterr others, but why impose further suffering when it will do no good?

Ironically, I suspect terrorists may be among the kind of criminal most susceptible to reform and rehabilitation. Idealistic, often intelligent, young men they may well grow out of it or see the world has moved on. This thought is prompted by reading the weekend's Sunday Times exert about an ex-jihadi and hearing about the Brighton bomber appearing on a BBC programme with some of his victims.

[English assassin]

On the "why didn't they plead guilty" question, the revelation today that the trial took a year and cost £50 million may have something to do with it.

That's £50 million that couldn't be spent investigating other jihadis.

Also, there will always be those who believe the real plot was arranged by Mossad, at the behest of the international Jewish conspiracy, who have fitted up five innocent muslims whose only interest in 600 kgs of fertilizer was growing really, really big vegetables. Those people and their sense of victimhood are useful to the jihadis. Plead guilty and they have no fantasy of persecution to believe in.

[macsen rufus]

Also why plead guilty if it looks like the court case is the last chance you'll have to air your agenda to the world?

[Adrian II]

You seem to have overlooked the main point, which is five terrorists convicted on the strength of strong evidence after a fair trial (..)Which is a very good thing. And no Brazilians were shot in the making of these arrests, which is also a very good thing. I have no need for the sarcastic drivel in your post, supposing it has anything to do with me anyway (which I doubt). Good police work is the way to fight terrorism. Other means and methods should be considered only when all else fails and a threat is clear and present enough to justify them.

[English assassin]

I have no need for the sarcastic drivel in your post, supposing it has anything to do with me anyway (which I doubt).

Can't say I had you in mind, old sport, but if the cap fits and all that.

For my future reference, sarcasm is only OK if it references the police shooting Brazilians, yes?

[sapi]

Emphasis added to the "limited contact with prison staff only" part - I've never quite understood "solitary confinement". It seems a particularly cruel and unusual punishment, not unlike that inflicted by those nutters who kidnap other children or lock up their own (there were a couple of Austrian cases a while back). It's hard to imagine a more severe punishment short of inflicting chronic pain - we are such social creatures.

Then again, my lack of understanding may be because I've never been really seen the appeal of retributive punishment at all. Lock em up to keep them from causing harm or deterr others, but why impose further suffering when it will do no good?Well, I guess the theory is to deter future criminals, not just to lock up the dangers to society.

You're right, though, in pointing out that this will have little effect with religious-based crimes.

Either shoot them now (impossible, iirc, as Britain doesn't have a death sentence) or just lock them up.


Ironically, I suspect terrorists may be among the kind of criminal most susceptible to reform and rehabilitation. Idealistic, often intelligent, young men they may well grow out of it or see the world has moved on. This thought is prompted by reading the weekend's Sunday Times exert about an ex-jihadi and hearing about the Brighton bomber appearing on a BBC programme with some of his victims.
It would be an interesting experiment to attempt to discover whether prolonged exposure to a 'non-radical' imam would change the views of convicted terrorists for the better.

As long as exposure to the original 'bad influence' is removed (ie. by chucking the perpetrators in jail) it might have a chance of success...

[Adrian II]

For my future reference, sarcasm is only OK if it references the police shooting Brazilians, yes?Only if it references facts or expressed views. No one here expressed the view that British juries consisted of mouth-foaming anti-Islamists.

In the end it's all a matter of how relevant you want your comments to be.

[caravel]

1) I couldnt find a direct reference in the link but I assume these men pleaded not guilty. My question is- If these men had such a strong faith- why would they attempt to deny what they had tried to do? Surely their faith would compel them to openly confess to their intentions...even feel proud of their plans...no?
Perhaps they had not planned on getting caught? It's often that simple. They're big men terrorists when they have the 'relative safety' of martyrdom in front of them but when it comes to getting caught by those they despise and having their plans thwarted, it's another matter. At that point they usually transform back into British citizens and want British justice again.

2) I cant help but find it hypocritical that people who have such a supposed strong faith can stand to live in and reap all the benefits of; what I assume they consider such a decadent and evil country as the UK. If they hate this state and the way it is organised so much- why stay? Wouldnt they be much happier in an islamic state?
Well this is the big issue after all, and is perhaps what we should perhaps be discussing here? What is causing Muslim youths in Britain to become extremist terrorists? Is the clash of cultures and religion a contributing factor? Are extremist mosques playing a big part? Do young Muslim youths have a right to be angry about life in Britain?

3) What is blowing up a shopping center really going to achieve? Do they seriously believe a government would (could) do a major u-turn on policy over killing civillians? Do they not realise they are only alienating the general public (many of whom were just as opposed to the war in iraq etc etc) and giving fuel to other forms of extremism?
Martyrdom, Infamy etc, etc, etc. They don't seem to care about gaining support from the general public. They probably believe they're putting out a clear message to the public that this is happening because of western interference in Muslim countries.

4) Are these men not guilty of treason?
No.

This outcome is no real deterrent, as far as the fanatic turned determined terrorist is concerned. I doubt that catching these people will somehow deter future terrorists. It may have the opposite effect. It will probably be a wake up call to many, who will be wondering if they are also under observation by or have been infiltrated by the secret service. If anything it will force them to be more cautious or lay low for a while.

[English assassin]

No one here expressed the view that British juries consisted of mouth-foaming anti-Islamists.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do seem to remember that news of anti-terror arrests WAS greeted, on this very board, with comments along the lines of, give it six weeks then they will be charged with having an offensive wife and released on bail, never to be heard of again. So presumably a carefully conducted trial and, we have to hope, safe conviction WILL have come as a surprise to some.

Possibly these comments were not by you, I do recall one of the usual suspects specifically, but not you. If it wasnt you, would you mind getting off your high horse? You may fall and hurt yourself.

Also I think you will find that the view that Britain is gripped with Islamophobia is quite common, both in the muslim community, and the race relations industry.

[Adrian II]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do seem to remember that news of anti-terror arrests WAS greeted, on this very board, with comments along the lines of, give it six weeks then they will be charged with having an offensive wife and released on bail, never to be heard of again. So presumably a carefully conducted trial and, we have to hope, safe conviction WILL have come as a surprise to some.Some were released, most were put away after a fair trial. So it seems the authorities got it right this time round. They've been known to fail miserably as well. The Birmingham Six, anyone? A healthy scepsis is called for whenever authorities announce they have thwarted a major plot or arrested a terrorist ring. That's what united Tribesman and me at the time, in that particular thread.

Neither of us, nor anyone else, suggested that British juries were massively prejudiced against Islam. I just want to set the record straight. Otherwise before you know it, we will all be burning strawmen in this forum instead of exchanging views.