British Citizens tired for terrorism but not treason

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Robbeaus, Feb 21, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. On the news at 1' it was announced that Irfan Naseer, 31, Irfan Khalid, 27, and Ashik Ali, 27, from Birmingham, were found guilty at Woolwich Crown Court of being "central figures" in a terrorist plot.
    Jurors were told they planned to set off up to eight bombs in rucksacks and possibly detonate bombs on timers.

    Police arrested the men in 2011 amid fears their plans were accelerating.

    They believe it was the most significant terror plot to be uncovered since the 2006 conspiracy to blow up transatlantic airliners using bombs disguised as soft drinks.

    Khalid even boasted that the attack was "another 9/11" as "revenge for everything".

    Naseer was found guilty of five counts of engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts, Khalid four, and Ali three, all between Christmas Day 2010 and 19 September 2011.

    For Naseer, from Sparkhill, Khalid, from Sparkbrook, and Ali, from Balsall Heath, this included planning a bombing campaign, collecting money for terrorism and recruiting others for terrorism.

    Naseer and Khalid also travelled to Pakistan for training, and Naseer helped others travel to the country for the same purpose.

    Sorry cant do a webby link, but will be all over the press I am sure.

    So the Question is, why have these British born and bred citizens, not been tried for treason? Given that they planed to target British Solidiers.

    Is it because they is Muslim nutters, rather than Christian nutters? And call me Dave is shitting him self at the thought of bringing Muslims to court for treason?

    What's the view from the trenches?
  2. I'm tired of you, however, I think you mean tried..
  3. It'd only be worth a charge of Treason if we could still execute the feckers for it!!!
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Tired eh......


    .....bit harsh that!
    • Like Like x 1
  5. I'm hoping that Prison will be "rubber dinghy rapids man" for these clowns.
  6. While I think Treason should be the correct charge I can imagine the human rights bleeding hearts shysters having a field day with Treason as the crime, "how can they use a term from 1351" etc etc and the fact that Treason hasn't been used since 1945 for Lord Haw Haw ( even though the legislation has been amended many times since)

    There might be appeal after appeal after appeal and so on , if they use modern Terrorism as the charge there's probably less wriggle room. So it's probably good sense to save any irritation from ECHR.
  7. Treason is against the Sovereign or against either house.

    Two acts cover it.

    Treason Act 1351

    Treason Felony Act 1848 - Treason Felony Act 1848

    There is a part in the treason felony act that refers to anyone calling for Britain to be attacked. This could bet applied to jihadist clerics.
  8. [​IMG]

    Haannginnng......referendoooom........NO! Steeeck that up your feeelthy Briteesh democraceee thethethethethe Queso y mushypeas scorchio!
    • Like Like x 1
  9. It could probably be applied to members of the House of Lords
  10. Blair should be first with his long list of acts against the state.
    • Like Like x 1
  11. For the same reason they didn't try the IRA et al. for treason I assume.

    Nothing to do with Islam or religion but more to do with proving treason as opposed to murder/terrorism etc.
  12. You vote wrong, always you vote wrong so we make you do it again until we tell you it right, so we no let you vote at all, eeeenglishhhh pigs.
    • Like Like x 3
  13. Oh don't spoil it for them!
  14. Damn right too, there is a long list of twats who are overdue their heads on a spike before wasting a treason charge on these muzzie clowns. Blair, Heath, Scargill, and current EU foreign minister Ashton to name just a few. As fine an example of lying, knavery, and fleeing for cover as you will find outside the pages of Hansard (to paraphrase Flashman)as I am sure you will agree.
  15. The reason why the IRA were never tried for treason was probably more likely to do with a long running policy to negate the political aims of the republicans to be seen as freedom fighters, and to be able to label them as common criminals, rather than the difficulty of proving treason (although that may be part of it). In order to try these people under the 1351 act they would have to be proved to have carried out one of these acts:

    "Compassing the Death of the King, Queen, or their eldest Son; violating the Queen, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or his eldest Son’s Wife; levying War; adhering to the King’s Enemies; killing the Chancellor, Treasurer, or Judges in Execution of their Duty."

    short of any of the specific offences against the persons mentioned (Monarch, the queen, family judges etc.), the only one left that would have been useful would have been levying war. The risk would be that this would open up the possibility for the republicans to claim that the government considered the situation in Northern Ireland to be a war, and therefore to claim protection as PW under the various Geneva conventions - Something the British governement was very keen to avoid.

    I would imagine that this principle applies to Islamic Terrorists as well.

    • Like Like x 1