Combating Terrorism the Right Way

The British government demonstrates, for anyone who would like to notice (*cough-FBI-cough*), how responsible nations charge terrorists who like to use high explosives and other improvised weapons of destruction.

Nine men charged with conspiracy to bomb high-profile London targets in the run-up to Christmas have been remanded in custody after appearing in court.

They were also charged with preparing for terrorism by agreeing potential targets and testing materials.
-------
The accused men have also been charged under 5(1) of the Terrorism Act 2006 of engaging in conduct in preparation for acts of terrorism on dates between 1 October and 20 December.

They are alleged to have done this by carrying out reconnaissance, agreeing potential targets, downloading and researching materials and igniting and testing incendiary material.
-------
Five of the defendants are also facing a third charge of possessing documents and records containing information likely to be of use to terrorists.

See, Department of Justice lawyers? No WMD charges. No phony bullshit about "attempted use of a WMD" to inflate an otherwise routine investigation and arrest. Bad guys get punished, using public courts to convict terrorists does in fact work, and the world continues to spin. What a concept.

Hat tip to Ray.

Comments

[Kelly3406]

I think we need to establish criteria for determining which acts get the perpetrators declared as combatants rather than as criminals. The goal should not necessarily be to punish the perpetrators, but rather to remove them from the "battlefield". Some of these people should be treated as POWs and held for the duration of hostilities with AlQaeda.

This particular case sounds more like an operation than a criminal enterprise. The reason that the FBI tends to pursue charges of WMD (I am guessing) is that there are no mechanisms to hold these people indefinitely. The charge of WMD justifies a very long sentence if it can be made to stick.

[Ray]

Kelly3406.
Don't worry that these pepole, if convicted, won't get very long sentences in the UK! Too many people have experience here of terrorist activities and deaths and injuries therefrom.
Also, one of the reasons the British judiciary and laws behave in this way is that we do not wish to accord terrorists "Status"- a speciality they seek; which the award of "POW" would certainly confer on them and worsen the situation. All kinds take up terrorism, and the last thing we would want is to embolden them by a faulty recognition from the State that these people have moral credence for their activities.

[tammy swofford]

A new suite of laws specifically tailored to address non-uniformed combatants targeting peaceful civilians seems appropriate. Severity of penalty for targeting children seems equitable.

What about targeting a place of worship, such as what happened in Alexandria? Personally, I attend church every Sunday. I would hate to think that I would awaken to see my foot missing and a chest tube dangling off the hospital bed. While there is no need for me to "defend the Cross", as was the cry of panic in the aftermath of the attack in Egypt, I would like to know that my place of worship remains a pasture instead of a killing field for those who hate my faith.

I feel the bitterness creeping in....

Tammy