XPost: alt.flame.airlines, alt.politics.immigration, alt.airline   
   XPost: rec.travel.air, alt.travel.uk.air   
   From: drmayr@btinternet.com   
      
   >I'm not interested in proving their guilt because I think it's too   
   >difficult, and with police monitoring they aren't likely to get up to   
   >much in the UK.   
      
      
   Sorry David but justice is more a matter of proof than convenience.   
      
   Doug   
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
   "David Horne"  wrote in message   
   news:1gg1ny0.1msibum1p7toi3N%this_address_is_for_spam@yahoo.co.uk...   
   > Doug Maclean  wrote:   
   >   
   > > >They went off to Afghanistan to play at being   
   > > > holy warriors, who knows what kind of crimes and atrocities they   
   carried   
   > > > out there.   
   > >   
   > > Did they ? How about this from the BBC ?   
   >   
   > []   
   >   
   > I read all of that at the time, and none of it was corroborated, and   
   > certainly didn't convince me. Did you think they would admit to it? I'm   
   > not interested in proving their guilt because I think it's too   
   > difficult, and with police monitoring they aren't likely to get up to   
   > much in the UK. My feelings are based on what I suspect, and I'm   
   > entitled to that- but it's based on exploring the possibilities, and   
   > examining what were often conflicting and confused accounts from them.   
   >   
   > > It seems that even Mr Bush's strongest ally cannot forever ignore the   
   rule   
   > > of law and the blatant abuse of power by the US in this case.   
   >   
   > What's this got to do with this? I'm supporting their release, and I   
   > think Guantanamo is a disgrace. What I'm not prepared to believe is that   
   > the people captured were necessarily innocent.   
   >   
   > It could have been a lot worse for them- they could have been left in   
   > Afghanistan.   
   >   
   > I support the legal system that we have here, but in the same way that   
   > you're innocent until proven guilty, there are also cases when the   
   > guilty can't be prosecuted, based on the standards of proof required.   
   > I'm not advocating changing that- but just pointing it out. The Omagh   
   > bombers are known to the police, and even local people there. It doesn't   
   > mean they can be prosecuted- though they can be sued, as is happening at   
   > the moment.   
   >   
   > David   
   >   
   > --   
   > David Horne- www.davidhorne.net   
   > usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)