ExpandMyMind Posted February 11, 2010 #1 Share Posted February 11, 2010 The Government’s terrorism watchdog is to review the controversial legislation that resulted in the acquittal yesterday of “wannabe suicide bomber” Mohammed Atif Siddique.Lord Carlile of Berriew, who was appointed to review anti-terror law in 2001, told The Times that the Siddique case and its implications would form part of his annual review.The case has raised concerns about whether Section 57 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which seeks to strike a balance between civil liberties and state security, has tilted too far in favour of defendants in terrorist cases. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARAB0D Posted February 11, 2010 #2 Share Posted February 11, 2010 Hang on! It looks like he was in jail for 2 extra years, means he would get compensation! Allah Akbar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevewinn Posted February 11, 2010 #3 Share Posted February 11, 2010 you couldn't make it up. we create our own problems in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keithisco Posted February 11, 2010 #4 Share Posted February 11, 2010 From the same article in the OP: Osama Saeed, chief executive of the Scottish Islamic Foundation, said: “There needs to be a clearer explanation by police and line between someone looking at things on the internet, and having the possibility of being talked away from extreme ideas, and the point at which they move into criminality.” Mr Siddique, a shopkeeper’s son, was the first person to be found guilty of Islamist terror charges in Scotland. Who hasn't looked at "how to make an atom bomb" on Wiki? It does not automatically feed into "I am going to make an atom bomb" does it? Seriously , people are being imprisoned for ludicrous stuff, and looking at things on the intenet is not any kind of "proof of intent". When some of us, so called Christians, or wstern democratic yahoos get banged up for looking at "what are the best weapons to buy" or "how to build a better bomb" are banged up in the name of "terrorism" then, and only then, will a proper balance have been obtained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Hill Posted February 12, 2010 #5 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Is it a crime to look up on the net, 'how to make bombs', go to terrorist supporting websites, upload to terrorist supporting websites... say you're a member of al qaeda say you want to meet other members and then book a single ticket to Pakistan. Apparently not.. It also heard how he had frightened fellow students at Glasgow Metropolitan College by showing them images of beheadings being carried out by terrorists, and threatening to blow up the city. For this he was guilty of breech of the peace.. The rest he was given the benefit of the doubt- as it couldn't been established he was planning a specific terrorist act. Hardly a great victory for liberty. Arrest them too early and they look innocent, arrest them too late and people die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted February 12, 2010 Author #6 Share Posted February 12, 2010 the problem with this particular case was that they needed a 'baddie' to portray. there have been no real terrorists, alive, that our media could legitimately portray as such. when this guy was found, he was portrayed as a future al'qaeda bomber who had layed out plands for an attack in our country. this was simply not true. he was someone who may have ended up doing something like this, or may not have. at the moment of his arrest he was just a curious tw*t, looking at things on the internet. the problem was that we needed a 'baddie' and he was the man for the job, for the time. sad thing is, that if he was really intent on killing, all they needed to do, was keep a close eye on him. in fact, when i think about it, this is what you would expect any sort of intelligent, intelligence service to do. you would expect them to track him for as long as possible so that he would lead them back to whoever he reports to, or whatever. the fact that they did not do this, to me, shows that they maybe had nothing substantial on this guy, and probably just needed a poster boy. didn't actually think of it that way until i started typing there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExpandMyMind Posted February 12, 2010 Author #7 Share Posted February 12, 2010 Hang on! It looks like he was in jail for 2 extra years, means he would get compensation! Allah Akbar! haha, yeah that's right. in PC britain he will now be able to sue the life out of us. and as steve already mentioned, you couldn't make it up. we create our own problems in this country. although i think he may have been actually referring to the release, not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now