Who�s Harbouring Terrorists

Who�s Harbouring Terrorists?
Britain!
BOMB �EM
Bin Laden probably bombed the World Trade Centre. The Americans want to interview him. Afghanistan will not extradite him. America bombs Afghanistan. Simple really. America feels, rightly, that Bin Laden is a threat and also feels, rightly, that he needs to be fried. What about Amar Makhlulif and Lofti Raissi? Never heard of them? Well that�s because they are not running training camps in Kabul, instead they are being held in prison in Britain. And Britain, America�s biggest ally, is refusing to give these terrorists up more adamantly than the Afghan mullahs.
www.antiwar.com...

Britain is not handing over some suspects because the British Independent Judicary do not believe that they will be treated legally.
The same Independent judicary has described the position of Britons held by the USA in Cuba as being in a legal blackhole.
I doubt that the fact that your closest ally thinks that the USA is acting outside international law worries you Nyeff but it should.

I look at this as a double standard on the part of the U.S.If anyone else was holding a terrorist in custody,the U.S. would be screaming for them.

Yes I do care what our closest ally thinks.And what other ally's think.I don't think we should get involed in world affairs without help from other countries.

The double standard Nyeff is that Americans are being tried in your civil courts and foreigners are seen blindfolded and handcuffed in a state of legal limbo.

given that one has agreed on the meaning of "terrorists" which, much beyond "human and plural" is very unlikely, one is then left with "harbours" - "shelters"; "assists"; "actively supports"; "does not actively hinder" - it's impossible.
As a broad generalisation, I'd suggest that most terrorists are in some sense home-grown and perpetrate terror within the nation that is their own -in a passport sense at least.
And I guess that many "respectable" nations have "harboured" those who were "terrorists" to another nation.
Impossible issue -as all will be as the modern media and education continue to out-Orwell Orwell

They are a threat to Britain too u know. Just because we have them in custody does not mean we are AIDING them.

Is America aiding the terrorists in camp X-ray?

And at least in Britain they will get a fair trial, and they won't in some bloody kangaroo justice system akin to George Orwell's 1984.

And I cannot believe this guy has the nerve to use Goldstein's name in vain... did he even read the book?



[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

Originally posted by nyeff
And Britain, America�s biggest ally, is refusing to give these terrorists up more adamantly than the Afghan mullahs.

I was walking through Manchester City Centre one day in 1996 with some friends when all of a sudden a member of the policeforce apparoached us and told us that a warning had been recieved of a bomb threat and that we needed to move away from the central area of the city as quickly as possible. I'll never forget that day because we found ourselves literally running for our lives with no real clue as to how far we needed to go, or where was a safe place. Heres what happened.



Why is it relevant? Well the fact is that some of the money that paid for that bomb came from voluntary donations made by people in the USA, through this particular establishment

NORAID

Now if you'd kindly agree to round up all of the people, including senators and congressmen who expressed tactit support for the scum who - literally - tried to kill me and several thousand other people that day so that they can be locked up in a secret prison then fine, we'll be at parity, and we can discuss this properly.

Failing that...well...pot...kettle...black....