A terrorist group known as the three musketeers consisting of 3 members and an associate have been charged with terrorism after they were arrested last year for a plan to attack police and the military. They were found with a large knife, a pipe bomb, and an airsoft gun. 

 

MI5 operatives set up a fake courier company which they did deliveries for to find out more information.

 

What strikes me is that three of them had been released in 2012 after being jailed for going to terrorist camps in Pakistan. WHY THE HELL WERE THEY RELEASED!?

 

 

They were released because it would have been considered " offensive and oppressive " to keep them in detention. Let them keep their " religious freedom " at the cost of your own public's safety. I will never get it.

1 hour ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

They were released because it would have been considered " offensive and oppressive " to keep them in detention. Let them keep their " religious freedom " at the cost of your own public's safety. I will never get it.

 

Yeah. Religious freedom is one of the markers of a non-totalitarian state, as is releasing people at the end of their prison terms (since you're apparently extremely ill-informed: they were released because they were sentenced to 40 months for going to a training camp, and 40 months from 2013 brings you to 2016-17). It sounds like you might prefer North Korea's criminal justice system.

 

10 hours ago, qwertyK said:

What strikes me is that three of them had been released in 2012 after being jailed for going to terrorist camps in Pakistan. WHY THE HELL WERE THEY RELEASED!?

 

In most countries, someone sent to jail gets this thing called a "sentence." The sentence is where the court decides how long they will be jailed for. At the end of the sentence, the person is let out of jail. They were given a sentence of 40 months (over three years). That was in 2013. It's now 2017, so their sentence would have ended.

10 hours ago, qwertyK said:

What strikes me is that three of them had been released in 2012 after being jailed for going to terrorist camps in Pakistan. WHY THE HELL WERE THEY RELEASED!?

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, LCPDDevin91 said:

They were released because it would have been considered " offensive and oppressive " to keep them in detention. Let them keep their " religious freedom " at the cost of your own public's safety. I will never get it.

 

They were released because an attack wasn't actually carried out.  If it had happened, and they were still alive, they'd either be sentenced to death or life in prison.  Like it or not, you can't imprison someone for life simply for planning an attack.  (Of course, that always could change situation pending)  On top of this, and most importantly, they were released because they are still human beings.  Not sure why you have this mind set of "terrorists aren't people".  They are still living, breathing human beings who have rights.  We don't live in the stone age of public hangings and cutting off the hands of thieves. We're civilized.

 

7 hours ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

 

 

They were released because an attack wasn't actually carried out.  If it had happened, and they were still alive, they'd either be sentenced to death or life in prison.  Like it or not, you can't imprison someone for life simply for planning an attack.  (Of course, that always could change situation pending)  On top of this, and most importantly, they were released because they are still human beings.  Not sure why you have this mind set of "terrorists aren't people".  They are still living, breathing human beings who have rights.  We don't live in the stone age of public hangings and cutting off the hands of thieves. We're civilized.

 

Well they were sentenced to life for planning the attack but surely visiting a terrorist training camp is a good indication you're planning an attack? They should only be released once it is proven they have been de-radicalised. The justice system in the UK is a joke. 

More info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40810970

3 hours ago, qwertyK said:

Well they were sentenced to life for planning the attack but surely visiting a terrorist training camp is a good indication you're planning an attack? They should only be released once it is proven they have been de-radicalised. The justice system in the UK is a joke. 

More info

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40810970

 

To be entirely fair, there are plenty of folks who probably visited some type of terrorist camp just to see what it was like.  It's like the people that keep going to North Korea.  They are stupid - they know it's a bad idea, but their curiosity wins.

1 minute ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

To be entirely fair, there are plenty of folks who probably visited some type of terrorist camp just to see what it was like.  It's like the people that keep going to North Korea.  They are stupid - they know it's a bad idea, but their curiosity wins.

Out of curiosity, how many of those people end up killing folks, you think?

 

However, 40 months... more than 3 years... Seems like a fair punishment to me. This time I think they're going away for good. Nice.

 

 

13 hours ago, cp702 said:

 

Yeah. Religious freedom is one of the markers of a non-totalitarian state, as is releasing people at the end of their prison terms (since you're apparently extremely ill-informed: they were released because they were sentenced to 40 months for going to a training camp, and 40 months from 2013 brings you to 2016-17). It sounds like you might prefer North Korea's criminal justice system.

 

 

In most countries, someone sent to jail gets this thing called a "sentence." The sentence is where the court decides how long they will be jailed for. At the end of the sentence, the person is let out of jail. They were given a sentence of 40 months (over three years). That was in 2013. It's now 2017, so their sentence would have ended.

I think that it should be an exception to potential terrorists. The criteria that an individual is required to meet in order to be considered a terrorist is debatable, but I think it's quite obvious in this case. This person doesn't care about your life or your family's lives, so why would you care about their lives? They decided to visit the terrorist camp, no one forced them to go. What else would they expect from a terrorist camp, dodge ball and ice cream? No, they'd expect to be taught and shown how to slaughter people. They want to kill you, and you're willing to let them out of prison to "be fair". Someone visiting a terrorist camp shouldn't be allowed to roam freely in society, and certainly, shouldn't be released from prison. If North Korea is in favor of imprisoning terrorists and potential terrorists for life, then maybe they've actually got something right for once (in concept).

1 hour ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

To be entirely fair, there are plenty of folks who probably visited some type of terrorist camp just to see what it was like.  It's like the people that keep going to North Korea.  They are stupid - they know it's a bad idea, but their curiosity wins.

And those people have a problem and need to be locked up. No mentally sane person is going to go "visit" a terrorist camp just for the curiosity. That's completely insane and asinine. They can figure out their curiosity behind bars while the rest of us that aren't fucked in the head continue to live out our lives.

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

Let's be real, the planned a terrorist attack got caught and served their time, as required in this country. They attempted to plan another terrorist attack but where so closely monitored by Security Services that Mi5 was able to set up a fake company to control how their planning went, thus resulting in their arrest and life sentence. I don't think it could of went anymore perfectly, they had their legal rights upheld, regardless of their plans and the Security Services showed how great they are at dealing with terrorists. 

I also see how some people think the British legal system is messed up because we still give terrorists their legal rights, well I am happy we do that. If this country changed it's laws on how we treat terrorists then they would win, this case shows that people can be given their legal rights in this country and still be sentenced to life if they dare plan or carry out acts of terror.

1 hour ago, Ben said:

Let's be real, the planned a terrorist attack got caught and served their time, as required in this country. They attempted to plan another terrorist attack but where so closely monitored by Security Services that Mi5 was able to set up a fake company to control how their planning went, thus resulting in their arrest and life sentence. I don't think it could of went anymore perfectly, they had their legal rights upheld, regardless of their plans and the Security Services showed how great they are at dealing with terrorists. 

I also see how some people think the British legal system is messed up because we still give terrorists their legal rights, well I am happy we do that. If this country changed it's laws on how we treat terrorists then they would win, this case shows that people can be given their legal rights in this country and still be sentenced to life if they dare plan or carry out acts of terror.

I'll be honest, I don't like terrorists having rights, but I guess it would make us as bad as them. I just find it ridiculous that they have things like radical Islamic preachers in jails and that they are not isolated. I believe one of them was radicalised by some guy in prison. There needs to be seperate prisons for terrorists, or they should be kept in solitary, you can't send every ISIS or Al Quaeda fuck to Belmarsh!

8 hours ago, qwertyK said:

They should only be released once it is proven they have been de-radicalised. The justice system in the UK is a joke. 

 

Just so you know: you don't de-radicalize people in jail. If anything, it just makes it more probable to have other prisoners be radicalized in the process. Freedom deprivation tends to push people to escape into other things. Including religion. Not for nothing that extremism convertion tends to happen in jails more than elsewhere. De-radicalization centers would be more effective, where we treat them fairly and diconstruct the IS myth.

Edited August 3, 20178 yr by Hystery

1 minute ago, Hystery said:

 

Just so you know: you don't de-radicalize people in jail. If anything, it just makes it more probable to have other prisoners be radicalized in the process. Freedom deprivation tends to push people to escape into other things. Including religion. Not for nothing that extremism convertion tends to happen in jails more than elsewhere. De-radicalization centers would be more effective, where we treat them fairly and diconstruct the IS myth.

 

On top of this, if we went by "only release them once they're de-radicalized", some people would NEVER be released.  The ones that believe in it 110% will not change their minds just because you buddy-buddy up to them and try and tell them otherwise.

1 minute ago, Kallus Rourke said:

 

On top of this, if we went by "only release them once they're de-radicalized", some people would NEVER be released.  The ones that believe in it 110% will not change their minds just because you buddy-buddy up to them and try and tell them otherwise.

exactly. that's why its such a problem. it needs to be done early and usually the damage is already done by the time the authorities find out about their activities. 

7 hours ago, Ben said:

Let's be real, the planned a terrorist attack got caught and served their time, as required in this country. They attempted to plan another terrorist attack but where so closely monitored by Security Services that Mi5 was able to set up a fake company to control how their planning went, thus resulting in their arrest and life sentence. I don't think it could of went anymore perfectly, they had their legal rights upheld, regardless of their plans and the Security Services showed how great they are at dealing with terrorists. 

I also see how some people think the British legal system is messed up because we still give terrorists their legal rights, well I am happy we do that. If this country changed it's laws on how we treat terrorists then they would win, this case shows that people can be given their legal rights in this country and still be sentenced to life if they dare plan or carry out acts of terror.

I completely disagree with the law you all have in your country, and there isn't anything wrong with that because it's a matter of opinion. I have no sympathy (legally and literally speaking) for a terrorist or a potential terrorist. As I've said before, the fact that an individual would even consider such a terrible act of terror speaks for itself. They can rot behind bars for all I care, and I don't think society would have any problem with it as a whole. I don't know a single sane American that would have an issue with giving a life sentence to someone that decided to visit a terrorist camp. This is just one example of how a situation fortunately unfolded well, not perfectly, but well. Because it wouldn't have taken much for it to turn out horrible like a few past attacks clearly have worldwide. What if the Security Services didn't do an efficient job in monitoring the terrorists? Let's turn the tables and say that these idiots actually proceeded to attack and were successful. People are now dead and injured, and property is probably damaged. The debate would then be, "Why were they released from prison"?

 

I also don't quite understand how harsh punishment towards a potential terrorist is them winning, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, trying to figure it out though. I say lock them up and be done with it. A foreign terrorist doesn't deserve any rights.

 

Maybe if you were to experience the loss of a loved one in a horrifying and disgusting manner, you wouldn't feel so kindly about these animals. I'd like to know how the parents of the victims from the disgusting attack on the Ariana Grande concert feel on this topic. The fact that someone intending to do something similar in concept is let out of jail to roam free, just to do it again. Because you'd be pretty insane to think that they wouldn't try to do it again. Maybe the 49 families of the victims from that shooting in the Orlando club would agree that they deserve a fair trial, who knows.

 

I have no sympathy for these people. I've seen and read enough of what they do to people. There's a notable difference between you average everyday criminal and these terrorists. Most of the time, the criminal is trying to gain something. These people don't want to gain anything, they just want to terrorize and do other human beings harm, and I give them the middle-finger for that.

5 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Just so you know: you don't de-radicalize people in jail. If anything, it just makes it more probable to have other prisoners be radicalized in the process. Freedom deprivation tends to push people to escape into other things. Including religion. Not for nothing that extremism convertion tends to happen in jails more than elsewhere. De-radicalization centers would be more effective, where we treat them fairly and diconstruct the IS myth.

Then we lock them up too, have a big terrorist party in a maximum security prison. I also don't quite understand how you are going to convince a Muslim that the Qur'an is a myth. I do wish you good luck on that one, man.

6 hours ago, qwertyK said:

I'll be honest, I don't like terrorists having rights, but I guess it would make us as bad as them. I just find it ridiculous that they have things like radical Islamic preachers in jails and that they are not isolated. I believe one of them was radicalised by some guy in prison. There needs to be seperate prisons for terrorists, or they should be kept in solitary, you can't send every ISIS or Al Quaeda fuck to Belmarsh!

No, locking up a terrorist without a "proper" trial does not make us as bad as people that rape, pillage, burn, behead, slaughter, mutilate, and destroy everything that they want.

Edited August 4, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

27 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

 I have no sympathy (legally and literally speaking) for a terrorist or a potential terrorist. As I've said before, the fact that an individual would even consider such a terrible act of terror speaks for itself. They can rot behind bars for all I care, and I don't think society would have any problem with it as a whole. I don't know a single sane American that would have an issue with giving a life sentence to someone that decided to visit a terrorist camp. This is just one example of how a situation fortunately unfolded well, not perfectly, but well. Because it wouldn't have taken much for it to turn out horrible like a few past attacks clearly have worldwide. What if the Security Services didn't do an efficient job in monitoring the terrorists? Let's turn the tables and say that these idiots actually proceeded to attack and were successful. People are now dead and injured, and property is probably damaged. The debate would then be, "Why were they released from prison"?

 

 

We don't have sympathy for terrorists, and we are not defending them.  We are pointing out that they still have rights, and are still human beings.  I'm sane, I live in America, and I 100% have a problem with it.  Would you also say an undercover agent should be locked up for visiting a terrorist camp? You assume everyone that goes to a terrorist camp is there to become the next jihad bomber.  No, that's not accurate in the slightest.  If they go to a terrorist camp, put them on a secret watch list, surveillance them and make sure they aren't planning anything. That is the correct course of action. You don't suddenly throw someone's life away because they made one possibly harmless or harmful decision.  If that was the case, we should start arresting people for getting into their cars because the risk is there of them killing someone with it.  It'd be horrific if the Secret Service allowed a potential terrorist to slip through the cracks, but it happens.  There is not a perfect system in place and there never will be. 

 

Quote

I also don't quite understand how harsh punishment towards a potential terrorist is

them winning, that doesn't make any sense to me at all, trying to figure it out though. I say lock them up and be done with it. A foreign terrorist doesn't deserve any rights.

 

So you're perfectly fine with calling them a terrorist, locking them up, and throwing away the key without any clear evidence? You're fine with locking someone up indefinitely over the fact that they went to a terrorist convention?  That's not justice.  That's not right.  Do you know how many people are on death row falsely?  Do you know how many have been executed who were in fact innocent?  We have a justice system so that justice is served.  Is it always?  Is it flawless? No, but it works.  Justice is not, nor will it ever be throwing someone in prison for their entire life based off one possibly innocent decision.  If they are a terrorist, lock them up and prevent an attack, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed that they are a terrorist.

 

Quote

Maybe if you were to experience the loss of a loved one in a horrifying and disgusting manner, you wouldn't feel so kindly about these animals.

 

No one has said they feel kindly to terrorists.  Read my point above.

 

Quote

No, locking up a terrorist without a "proper" trial does not make us as bad as people that rape, pillage, burn, behead, slaughter, mutilate, and destroy everything that they want.

 

You're right, but as I stated, there needs to be proof they are a terrorist. Visiting a terrorist camp doesn't make you one, just like visiting a war museum doesn't make you a soldier.

Edited August 4, 20178 yr by Kallus Rourke

17 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

You assume everyone that goes to a terrorist camp is there to become the next jihad bomber.  No, that's not accurate in the slightest.  If they go to a terrorist camp, put them on a secret watch list, surveillance them and make sure they aren't planning anything. That is the correct course of action. You don't suddenly throw someone's life away because they made one possibly harmless or harmful decision. 

 

 

I don't see why else someone would visit a terrorist camp. It's even in the name, "terrorist camp". Why else would someone go there? To become a lawyer? It's 100% accurate that everyone trying to visit a terrorist camp on their own free will is trying to become a terrorist. They threw their own life away when they decided to go, no one forced them to go. It doesn't make any sense to visit a terrorist camp and come back to live a regular life. That doesn't make any sense at all. 

Quote

You're right, but as I stated, there needs to be proof they are a terrorist. Visiting a terrorist camp doesn't make you one, just like visiting a war museum doesn't make you a soldier.

Why would someone decide to visit a terrorist camp? What would be their intention? Is the fact that they went not enough proof in itself? That's also not a very good comparison. I don't visit a war museum to become a soldier, but I visit a terrorist camp to become a terrorist. I'm almost for certain that a terrorist camp isn't some sort of display gallery.

 

Quote

So you're perfectly fine with calling them a terrorist, locking them up, and throwing away the key without any clear evidence? You're fine with locking someone up indefinitely over the fact that they went to a terrorist convention?  That's not justice.  That's not right.  Do you know how many people are on death row falsely?  Do you know how many have been executed who were in fact innocent?  We have a justice system so that justice is served.  Is it always?  Is it flawless? No, but it works.  Justice is not, nor will it ever be throwing someone in prison for their entire life based off one possibly innocent decision.  If they are a terrorist, lock them up and prevent an attack, but proof beyond reasonable doubt is needed that they are a terrorist.

Yes, I am perfectly fine with locking someone up indefinitely for going to a terrorist convention. That is exactly what I am saying. I didn't say anything about the death penalty, so I will not address that part of your argument. I think it's laughable, going to a terrorist convention is possibly an innocent decision? Say that aloud and try not to smile, that's not a statement that I can take seriously, with all due respect. I challenge you to walk outside and say that to someone and post their response here.

 

Quote

We don't have sympathy for terrorists, either, we are not defending them.  We are pointing out that they still have rights, and are still human beings.  I'm sane, I live in America, and I 100% have a problem with it.  Would you also say an undercover agent should be locked up for visiting a terrorist camp?

I think it's quite obvious that an undercover agent would be an exception.

 

Quote

If that was the case, we should start arresting people for getting into their cars because the risk is there of them killing someone with it.  It'd be horrific if the Secret Service allowed a potential terrorist to slip through the cracks, but it happens.  There is not a perfect system in place and there never will be. 

Almost for certain that getting into your car doesn't automatically warrant jail time, but OK. There is no such thing as a perfect system, but there is the possibility of creating a better system than we have now. Or even improving the system that we have now with some simple common sense (I disagree the concept behind common sense, but just to be clear) changes that clearly need to be put into place.

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

FYI, the United States Congress disagrees that going to a terrorist camp is worthy of a life sentence. The offense you're generally charged with is "providing material support to terrorism," which has a statutory maximum of 20 years (and a sentencing guideline of 5-6 assuming no criminal history). I'd say the view that "going to a terrorist camp means you should never again be free" is the uncommon one. 

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Congress. I'm not really concerned about how Congress feels though. I'm more concerned with how the average American feels, which usually isn't in sync with how Congress feels. That may very well be uncommon among American politicians but then again, a lot of them have no idea what they're doing, which is evident by their dreadful approval ratings.

Edited August 4, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

3 minutes ago, TheDivineHustle said:

It wouldn't be the first time I disagreed with Congress. I'm not really concerned about how Congress feels though. I'm more so concerned with how the average American feels, which usually isn't in sync with how Congress feels. That may very well be uncommon among American politicians but then again, a lot of them have no idea what they're doing, which is evident by their dreadful approval ratings.

 

There really isn't such a thing as "the average American."  Everyone thinks differently.  Sure, you'll find some that agree on something, but there has and always will be those who disagree or have some other opinion on it.  Congress may not always make the best decisions, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.  People expect Congress to be perfect and know exactly what is right and wrong for us.  Those within Congress are subjectable to making mistakes like an average person.

13 minutes ago, Kallus Rourke said:

Congress may not always make the best decisions, but that doesn't mean they don't know what they're doing.  People expect Congress to be perfect and know exactly what is right and wrong for us.  Those within Congress are subjectable to making mistakes like an average person.

 

With a 14% approval rating, I'd kindly dissent. Congress has consistently maintained below a 30% approval rating in current years, according to Gallup. They aren't making mistakes, they're making gains. If you haven't noticed, those people are all millionaires. I doubt any of them are currently struggling financially compared to your average American (There's that term again). I don't expect anything from Congress but greed, and evidently, that's how most Americans also feel. That's also not limited to Congress, just look at the voter turn-outs in recent years.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/Congress-Public.aspx

Quote

There really isn't such a thing as "the average American." Everyone thinks differently.  Sure, you'll find some that agree on something, but there has and always will be those who disagree or have some other opinion on it. 

 

There absolutely is such a thing. The phrase "average American" implies that Americans as a whole are more likely to feel a certain way, which in other words is a majority opinion. Of course, not everyone is going to be on the same page 100% of the time, but there will almost always be a "majority rules". That majority is (usually) what you'd consider to be your average Americans, from a statistical standpoint.

 

This link can help explain the concept behind being an average American if it's confusing at all. I know it's Wikipedia, but it's explained very well.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_States

Edited August 4, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle