ARmy Rumour SErvice

i'm all for this kidnapping thing... i mean we give these little sh!ts passports and they bleed our public services dry, whilst they start trying to blow our tubes and airports up... our government hardly has the balls to lock them...

So why not, if the U.S will do something about it... like stick them in some grotty cell with a cement bock as a bed... fair do's... let em... fuck, they can take Huntley as well, give the bastard some Mexican and Arian Brotherhood cell mates!

They can start with the Finsbury Mosque Crew and then right on with the chavs! Sh*t ... take Blair and his witch wife and that bint Jo Goody... no wait... she has her uses...

My opinion? Why not let the Yanks come in and slot a few of them while they at it! And fly from Heathrow.... its easier and you can bring way more planes in!

These actually annoys me if not hurts me, the more and more news I hear the more we (Britain) are under the thumb of the U.S and it's really starting to annoy. The U.S are all gravy with handing out all of these laws and MAKING us abide by them, but the other way round it's just not pheasable. So much for British Sovreignty.

Andre.

Maybe Putin is allowed to make the same statement?

Originally Posted by ICShiiteJobs

i'm all for this kidnapping thing... i mean we give these little sh!ts passports and they bleed our public services dry, whilst they start trying to blow our tubes and airports up... our government hardly has the balls to lock them...

So why not, if the U.S will do something about it... like stick them in some grotty cell with a cement bock as a bed... fair do's... let em... *, they can take Huntley as well, give the fatherless some Mexican and Arian Brotherhood cell mates!

They can start with the Finsbury Mosque Crew and then right on with the chavs! Sh*t ... take Blair and his witch wife and that bint Jo Goody... no wait... she has her uses...

My opinion? Why not let the Yanks come in and slot a few of them while they at it! And fly from Heathrow.... its easier and you can bring way more planes in!

I hardly think

...Stanley Tollman, a former director of Chelsea football club and a friend of Baroness Thatcher, and his wife Beatrice...

bleed the public services dry. They are likely subsidizing you.

Should we let the yanks lock you up?

Originally Posted by ICShiiteJobs

i'm all for this kidnapping thing... i mean we give these little sh!ts passports and they bleed our public services dry, whilst they start trying to blow our tubes and airports up... our government hardly has the balls to lock them...

So why not, if the U.S will do something about it... like stick them in some grotty cell with a cement bock as a bed... fair do's... let em... *, they can take Huntley as well, give the fatherless some Mexican and Arian Brotherhood cell mates!

They can start with the Finsbury Mosque Crew and then right on with the chavs! Sh*t ... take Blair and his witch wife and that bint Jo Goody... no wait... she has her uses...

My opinion? Why not let the Yanks come in and slot a few of them while they at it! And fly from Heathrow.... its easier and you can bring way more planes in!

All well and good but…

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

So when the US court outlaws abortions they can come to this country and drag doctors back to the US for trial. Or if you criticise the US or burn the flag will they come for you? What if the crime you are charged with has the death penalty and later it is found that you did not commit the crime.

The state police learned from Federal officials last summer that Mr. Harding had bragged in a 1991 job interview with the C.I.A. about faking fingerprints. Mr. Harding pleaded guilty last December to fabricating fingerprint evidence in four cases, and his partner, Mr. Lishansky, pleaded guilty in April to evidence tampering in 21 cases.
Also in April, Mr. Harvey became the third trooper charged in the scandal when prosecutors accused him of lying when he claimed to have discovered a murder suspect's fingerprint at a crime scene. In court yesterday, Lieutenant Harvey said he and Lieutenant O'Hara lifted the suspect's fingerprint from equipment in Troop C headquarters after the suspect was booked, and later claimed they had found the fingerprint at the scene of an execution-style double murder.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2

Cross-posted from the same thread on RumRation:-


An old article but sobering reading when read with the latest US moves against British citizens. My bolding in the article:-

We are now a client state


Britain has lost its sovereignty to the United States

David Leigh and Richard Norton-Taylor
Thursday July 17, 2003
The Guardian


Britain has by now lost its sovereignty to the United States and has become a client state. As Tony Blair flies in to Washington today to be patted on the head by the US Congress, this is the sad truth behind his visit. No surprise, therefore, that the planned award to him of a congressional medal of honour for backing the US invasion of Iraq has been postponed. To be openly patronised in that way, under the circumstances, would be just too embarrassing.

Is it fair to accuse the US of destroying our national sovereignty? The issue is so little discussed that even to make the claim has parallels with the ravings of the europhobes that Brussels plans to make Britons eat square sausages. Yet consider the following seven facts, none of which depends directly on the way the US dragged Britain into Iraq, nor on the current MI6-CIA intelligence blame game about the war.
Firstly, we cannot fire cruise missiles without US permission. The British nuclear-powered submarine fleet is being converted wholesale so that it is dependent on Tomahawks, the stubby-winged wonder-weapons of the 21st century. They transform warfare because of their awesome video-guided precision. But Britain can't make, maintain or target Tomahawks. The US agreed to sell us 95 cruise missiles before the Iraq war, the first "ally" to be thus favoured. They are kept in working order by Raytheon, the US manufacturer in Arizona. Tomahawks find targets via Tercom, the American terrain-mapping radar, and GPS, its ever-more sophisticated satellite positioning system. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is trying to block Galileo, a European rival to GPS, which the French think will rescue their country from becoming a "vassal state".

Sir Rodric Braithwaite, former head of the joint intelligence committee and former ambassador to Moscow, published earlier this year a little-noticed but devastating analysis in a small highbrow magazine, Prospect, of the price we are now paying to the US in loss of sovereignty. Of the Tomahawks purchase, he wrote: "The systems which guide them and the intelligence on which their targeting depends are all American. We could sink the Belgrano on our own. But we cannot fire a cruise missile except as part of an American operation."

The second in this list of sad facts is better known. Britain cannot use its nuclear weapons without US permission. The 58 Trident submarine missiles on which it depends were also sold us by the US. Just as Raytheon technicians control the Tomahawk, so Lockheed engineers control Trident from inside a Scottish mountain at Coulport, and from the US navy's Kings Bay servicing depot in Georgia, where the missiles must return periodically. "Cooperation with the Americans has robbed the British of much of their independence," Braithwaite observed. "Our ballistic missile submarines operate by kind permission of the Americans, and would rapidly become useless if we fell out with them. Since it is no longer clear why we need a nuclear deterrent, that probably does not matter. But it makes our admirals very nervous about irritating their US counterparts."

The third awkward fact is that Britain cannot expel the US from its bases on British territory, or control what it does there. Some, such as RAF Fairford, are well known - surrounded by armed guards as the huge B52s roared off nightly to bomb Baghdad. Others are remote, particularly Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where any British citizen who attempts a landing will rapidly find himself arrested. The bases are given bogus British names - such as RAF Fairford or RAF Croughton - because Britain is ashamed of all this. "The British have never questioned the purposes for which the Americans use these bases," Braithwaite wrote. "The agreements which govern them leave us little scope to do so. It is yet another derogation from British sovereignty."

The fourth fact is about intelligence. The row over scraps of British material used for public propaganda purposes - alleged uranium from Niger, alleged 45-minute Iraqi missile firing times - shows, if nothing else, that MI6 does still run independent spying operations. But it obscures the big truth: the policy-determining, war-fighting intelligence on which Britain depends is all American. The US has the spy satellites and the gigantic computers at Fort Meade in Maryland which eavesdrop on the world's communications. Britain gets access to some of these because GCHQ in Cheltenham contributes to the pool and collects intercepts which the US wants for its own purposes. This is cripplingly expensive: Britain has just invested a wildly over-budget £1.25bn in rebuilding Cheltenham. Yet it brings us no independence.

Braithwaite again: "The US could get on perfectly well without GCHQ's input. GCHQ, on the other hand, is heavily reliant on US input and would be of little value without it."

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, recently - and somewhat drily - let it slip to the foreign affairs committee how the US wears the trousers in the intelligence marriage. America receives all the intelligence that Britain gathers, he said. "On our side, we have full transparency." Britain, on the other hand, merely "strives to secure" transparency from its supposed partners.

These points lead inexorably to the fifth fact about our loss of sovereignty. Britain can no longer fight a war without US permission. Geoff Hoon, Britain's defence secretary, said humbly last month that "the US is likely to remain the pre-eminent political, economic and military power". Britain would concentrate, therefore, on being able to cooperate with it. "It is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the US," he said. As Rumsfeld brutally pointed out, however, the US could easily have fought the Iraq war without Britain.

The sixth fact is that Britain cannot protect its citizens from US power. Blair faces an outcry as he flies into America because the US refuses to return two British prisoners for a fair trial; rather, they have to face a Kafkaesque court martial at Guantanamo Bay.

And the seventh and final fact is that Britain is reduced to signing what the resentful Chinese used, in colonialist days, to call "unequal treaties". At the height of the Iraq fighting, David Blunkett went to Washington to be praised by John Ashcroft, the US attorney general, for what he termed Blunkett's "superb cooperation".

Blunkett agreed that the UK would extradite Britons to the US in future, without any need to produce prima facie evidence that they are guilty of anything. But the US refused to do the same with their own citizens. The Home Office press release concealed this fact - out of shame, presumably. Why did the US refuse? According to the Home Office, the fourth amendment of the US constitution says citizens of US states cannot be arrested without "probable cause". The irony appears to have been lost on David Blunkett, as he gave away yet more of Britain's sovereignty. If we really were the 51st state, as anti-Americans imply, we would probably have more protection against Washington than we do today.


RM

Originally Posted by Hugh_Jardon

Originally Posted by LIMA

Quote:
For instance, what would happen if a Septic kidnap-squad got themselves caught trying to 'render' a British citizen?.

Further from this, if a British Citizen resisted, would he/she be charged? E.g. If the yanks kick my door in and I defend myself, could I get charged?

I think you'd very likely be in breach several provisions of the Inconveniencing the Americans Act (1997). Apparently, this legislation sets out the conditions under which our Government acts.

A legally trained ARRSEr may wish to kick me down on this, but this American lawyer chappie seems to be saying only that, under US law, a felon cannot claim 'false arrest' and thus get off the charge on a technicality.

I don't see him trying to claim that the act of 'kidnapping' said felon is beyond the law, just that the US legal system considers bounty hunting fair game.

Where this will prove interesting is where UK police intercept kidnappers in the act of removing an individual. Kidnappers are clearly breaking UK law and should be dealt with appropriately. But what will poodle Cyclops do if Washington turns round and demands their release in the case of them being US Govt Officials, or worse still, US diplomats?