Three Way News
Your Source. For everything. Really.
Contributors
- Hammer
- Jambo
- Libby Mae
Current Poll
Recurring features
Hammer's Favorites
- Dobson v. Sponge-Bob
- Calvin, the nest egg
- Pat's predictions
- Bachmann spins Cupertino
- 205 atheists assume the bench
- Fox spins Oil for Food
- Fact check: highest taxed state
- Gen. Myers v. Reality
- Janice Rogers Brown
- Killing Field
- Kline hates Big Bird
- Vote Luca Brasi!
- Cornyn's Stalinist Supreme Court
- Rumsfeld's hidden metrics
Jambo's Favories
- Dolphin research updates
- We all shine on
- If you have to write...
- Columnist NY Times should have
- Truth about taxes
- Fourth of July
- Movie objects
- Lost in supermarket
- Dysfunctional Farmer Labor party
- Punks you hated
- Some preacher from east
- Winning issues
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
UK Terror Plot: Another part of the story
How urgent was the need for arrest in the alleged plot to blow up air planes flying from Britain to the United States? Perhaps not so urgent after all:
So this, I believe, is the true story.
None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.
As Craig Murray notes, it might prove difficult to obtain convictions for the incomplete crimes. In fact, without a bomb, a ticket, or a passport, it's somewhat difficult to imagine what overt act a prosecutor would use to prove the crime was attempted.
I don't know how the British criminal justice system operates. I don't know when to expect trials, pleas, or punishments. But I think it wise to follow what becomes of these men -- particularly whether they are appropriately punished for the heinous crimes they allegedly attempted to commit.
Murray quotes some statistics:
In all of this, the one thing of which I am certain is that the timing is deeply political. This is more propaganda than plot. Of the over one thousand British Muslims arrested under anti-terrorist legislation, only twelve per cent are ever charged with anything. That is simply harassment of Muslims on an appalling scale. Of those charged, 80% are acquitted. Most of the very few - just over two per cent of arrests - who are convicted, are not convicted of anything to do terrorism, but of some minor offence the Police happened upon while trawling through the wreck of the lives they had shattered.
I think it would be relatively easy to secure convictions in terrorism prosecutions in any country that has suffered an attack. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an elastic phrase. In a terror trial in New York City, my best guess is that "beyond a reasonable doubt" translates roughly to "can I sleep at night if this defendant is on the street"? Given the trauma of the attacks in the U.S. and London, I believe jurors will naturally be eager to convict.
Given my unprovable assumption, an 80% acquittal rate boggles the mind.
