Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Dragonlich · 01-04-2005, 01:11 PM

I think a lot of people don't understand what happens when suspected terrorists go on trial. We had a few of these trials in the Netherlands over the past few years. As far as I know, all the suspects were acquitted and set free. Why? Because the evidence gathered by the secret service was either inadmissible (can't be verified), or too secret to present to the court.

You see, putting people on trial means you run the risk that they are acquitted, even if "everyone knows" they're guilty. Even if the government has lots of evidence to prove that they're guilty. Hell, even OJ got acquitted, so why wouldn't a suspected terrorist? If the suspects are acquitted, and if our legal history is anything to go by, they will... they're free to do as they please. So there's none of that "probation", willravel; that'd be in violation of their constitutional and human rights... Also, if the suspects are acquitted, they're free to go where they want, and do what they want; they might (will) even go back to their old job, perhaps training a new generation of terrorists, who now know even better how to abuse the judicial system.

See, that's the downside of the "official route".

FYI, in the Netherlands, the secret service supposedly has a list of 150 people that are suspected of having (at the very least) links to terror groups. A few of them have been on trial and acquitted, and some are currently on trial. Furthermore, a few of them are known to have met the murderer of Theo van Gogh. The murderer himself was investigated for a while, but there wasn't enough evidence to do anything about him, so they lost track of him. The result: one dead VIP.

With the laws we have right now, and the history we have with terrorism trials, nobody can touch those 150 people until they do something stupid and get caught. As long as they walk free, they're spreading their message of hate, encouraging other people to fight the Dutch state.

Now, should we just wait and see what they do? Should we put them on trial, only to have them acquitted for lack of evidence or because they weren't breaking the law? (Free speech, remember?)

Many people say we should lock these people up to make sure they can't attack us, and can't inspire others to do the same. Is that such a bad idea? Should we really let them go free because they cannot be convicted in a court of law, and we would be in violation of their human rights if we lock them up? Where do their rights stop, and the rights of the rest of us (safety) start?

01-04-2005, 01:11 PM	#114 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I think a lot of people don't understand what happens when suspected terrorists go on trial. We had a few of these trials in the Netherlands over the past few years. As far as I know, all the suspects were acquitted and set free. Why? Because the evidence gathered by the secret service was either inadmissible (can't be verified), or too secret to present to the court. You see, putting people on trial means you run the risk that they are acquitted, even if "everyone knows" they're guilty. Even if the government has lots of evidence to prove that they're guilty. Hell, even OJ got acquitted, so why wouldn't a suspected terrorist? If the suspects are acquitted, and if our legal history is anything to go by, they will... they're free to do as they please. So there's none of that "probation", willravel; that'd be in violation of their constitutional and human rights... Also, if the suspects are acquitted, they're free to go where they want, and do what they want; they might (will) even go back to their old job, perhaps training a new generation of terrorists, who now know even better how to abuse the judicial system. See, that's the downside of the "official route". FYI, in the Netherlands, the secret service supposedly has a list of 150 people that are suspected of having (at the very least) links to terror groups. A few of them have been on trial and acquitted, and some are currently on trial. Furthermore, a few of them are known to have met the murderer of Theo van Gogh. The murderer himself was investigated for a while, but there wasn't enough evidence to do anything about him, so they lost track of him. The result: one dead VIP. With the laws we have right now, and the history we have with terrorism trials, nobody can touch those 150 people until they do something stupid and get caught. As long as they walk free, they're spreading their message of hate, encouraging other people to fight the Dutch state. Now, should we just wait and see what they do? Should we put them on trial, only to have them acquitted for lack of evidence or because they weren't breaking the law? (Free speech, remember?) Many people say we should lock these people up to make sure they can't attack us, and can't inspire others to do the same. Is that such a bad idea? Should we really let them go free because they cannot be convicted in a court of law, and we would be in violation of their human rights if we lock them up? Where do their rights stop, and the rights of the rest of us (safety) start? Last edited by Dragonlich; 01-04-2005 at 01:17 PM..