Terrorists Should Be Prisoners of War

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by exbleep, Jul 14, 2007.

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. Mudassar Arani, a solicitor in a firm of lawyers who have received over 1 million pounds from the British taxpayer in legal aid fees, claims that convicted terrorists in Britain should be given the same rights as Prisoners of War. The firm, which represented Dhiren Barot, an Al Qaeda "mastermind", Muktar Ibrahim, who led the 21 July failed plots and Abu Hamza (well known "cleric of hate") says that these prisoners undergo searches and questions when meeting with other such people whilst in prison. She reckons that being in prison is bad enough without being held in segregation and undergoing rigorous checks.
    She then goes on to say they should be treated like former IRA prisoners who "negotiated" searches with prison warders.
    Anyone else get the feeling we're being taken for a ride?
  2. Fine, if they want to be treated as PW then obey the rules of war, wear a uniform, don't engage civvies and be prepared to be shot on sight if you don't surrender. If on the other hand you want to dress in civvies, kill indiscriminately and hide in the general population then you are a criminal and should be treated as such.
  3. As POWs, could space be made for them at Colchester for the rest of thier lives? I'm sure that they would soon (say after the first decade or so) see the error of thier ways.
  4. If they start at least attempting to stick to the geneva convention then fair enough.

    But as long as they deliberatly murder thousands of innocent people to cause fear they are terrorists.
  5. If they are to be treated as prisoners of war then they can be held until hostilities cease (as no declaration of war has been made then no end of hostilities can be announced therefore they will be held indefinately) and can be made to work.
  6. I agree, treat them exactly as one would an enemy combatant prisoner captured during a war. Now, carrying out acts against the state whilst wearing civillian clothes and not carrying an identification card or pay book means they can be assumed to be spies and subjected to summary execution.
  7. IIRC a similar argument was made on behalf of Irish terrorists during the 1970s. The silence was deafening when it was pointed out that, if they were soldiers, most of them would be guilty of war crimes.

    'Sister' Arani might become even more familiar with prison procedures in the near future as she is currently under investigation for perverting the course of justice by sending 600 quid to one of her 'POWs' while he was in Belmarsh.

    If Arani does get banged up, at least she won't be lonely. One of the other solicitors at her firm got sent down for 12 months last year for (you guessed it) perverting the course of justice. Maya Devani smuggled letters out of (you guessed it) Belmarsh for her (you guessed it) muslim client who was charged with (you guessed it) attempted murder.

    Can you see a pattern forming here?
  8. Beat me to it there, firng squad on its way :roll:
  9. I must have missed when PIRA signed up to the GC. There little war cost more than a couple of thousand lives, most of them innocent. What PIRA achieved was a recognition of there status as political prisoners. In retrospect granting them that was a key part of the subversion of their revolutionary cause toward the mundanities of Stormont rule. I see no similar opening here but back then it wasn't obvious either. Some sort of political status for Jihadis might not actually be a bad idea. Nice big camp in a cold bit of Wales sounds appropriate.

    From a utilitarian point of view you could argue that putting such chaps in with the general prison population is fraught with danger. A lot folks get religion in prison. We would not want our ordinary decent criminals turning Salafi on us. A danger the French an more recently the Yanks are alert to.
  10. The jury's still out on the IRA, the only reason they are quiet at the moment is becaue we bought them off with a government salery and freedom for thier convicted mates.

    It may have bought a temorary reprive from violence, but I can't see it lasting, because PIRA have still not achieved the goal of a united Ireland. Just like the Isreali/ Palastinian conflict, it will kick off again, maybe 20 yrs from now but it's not over in my opinion.
  11. Trip_Wire

    Trip_Wire RIP

    I agree with thi 100 %! :x
  12. But why are we paying this firm of lawyers so much for legal aid? Surely, with one under investigation and one already convicted for attempting to pervert the course of justice, they should be struck off the list of firms receiving this money? Is our government so stupid as to not realise they are taking us for a ride? (God, what a stupid question that was. Of course our glorious leaders are that stupid, after all, most of them are on the same gravy train themselves.)
    I absolutely despair. Perhaps we could let lawyers defend terrorists and, if the terrorists are found guilty, we could do the lawyers for aiding and abetting terrorism.
  13. Legal aid is a controversial issue anyway (especially that there are some fat cat lawyers creaming a profit from legal aid), but if members of a legal practice have been convicted of attempting to pervert the course of justice then the practice should be barred from any further legal aid work and should be named and shamed
  14. Agreed with the above: being treated as PoW is essentially a reward for staying within the rules of war. Terrorists don't and hence shouldn't be rewarded.
  15. If you deny a competent defence to those accused of crimes, then the state opens itself to accusations of running kangaroo courts.

    I think the reason Arani & Co make so much money out of Legal Aid is due to the number of cases they take on. The invariably hejabed Ms Arani appears to have taken over from Gareth Pierce as the solicitor of choice for accused terrorists. If they're juggling loads of cases they're probably not doing a very good job for each client. Oh dear, how sad, never mind.

    Look on the bright side. If she gets convicted, she'll be struck off as a solicitor and her firm will cease to exist.