Heartland

Can some kind soul give me a link to the Twitter(?) page that gives the details of what Footballers are shagging what slappers and need a "super get out of jail/divorce courts injuctathingy please Ta................oh, and that Bin Laden chappy's died............not a mention of it here.........carry on.

The twitterer posting about the super-injunctions seems to be full of shìt, alleging (for example) that Jemima Khan has been boffing Jezza Clarkson. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/09 ... n_twitter/

Rumour has it that both Ryan Giggs and Ewan McGregor have taken out super-injunctions. I would suggest seeking legal advice before pursuing this line of enquiry much further.

Bin Laden dead? Big fűcking whoop. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity (if 9/11 was even anything to do with him in the first place, rather than him just claiming the "credit" after the fact), nor will it bring back the ~3000 people killed in the WTC attack (not to mention the ~1000000 killed in the wars that followed).

Thanking you Fiendy

Oh and if anyone is reading from Messrs. Sue, Grabbit and Runne, I hasten to add that due to the nature of super-injunctions, if I don't know that there's an injunction protecting the alleged good name of your client, how am I supposed to obey said injunction?

markfiend wrote:. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity (if 9/11 was even anything to do with him in the first place, rather than him just claiming the "credit" after the fact)

Dude, you are far too smart for this Rosie O'Donnell shit.

the meerkat's name is Mark and I know the address of his burrow, if any journos or crooked barristers wanna bung me a few bob, job's a guid 'un

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity (if 9/11 was even anything to do with him in the first place, rather than him just claiming the "credit" after the fact)

Dude, you are far too smart for this Rosie O'Donnell shit.

lol whut? I don't know much about what Rosie O'Donnell thinks about anything.

I don't have any genuine doubts about OBL's involvement in 9-11 if that's what you mean. Stupid throwaway comment...

However I would prefer it if governments used trials, evidence, and the rule of law as opposed to summary execution by Navy SEAL.

Edit to add: I stand by this:

markfiend wrote:Bin Laden dead? Big fűcking whoop. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity, nor will it bring back the ~3000 people killed in the WTC attack (not to mention the ~1000000 killed in the wars that followed).

markfiend wrote: However I would prefer it if governments used trials, evidence, and the rule of law as opposed to summary execution by Navy SEAL.

So do I. Now they are trying to whitewash the whole thing all over ... but they know exactly, they are coining Customary Law ... ...

markfiend wrote: Edit to add: I stand by this:

markfiend wrote:Bin Laden dead? Big fűcking whoop. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity, nor will it bring back the ~3000 people killed in the WTC attack (not to mention the ~1000000 killed in the wars that followed).

Seconded.

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity (if 9/11 was even anything to do with him in the first place, rather than him just claiming the "credit" after the fact)

Dude, you are far too smart for this Rosie O'Donnell shit.

lol whut? I don't know much about what Rosie O'Donnell thinks about anything.

I don't have any genuine doubts about OBL's involvement in 9-11 if that's what you mean. Stupid throwaway comment...

However I would prefer it if governments used trials, evidence, and the rule of law as opposed to summary execution by Navy SEAL.

Edit to add: I stand by this:

markfiend wrote:Bin Laden dead? Big fűcking whoop. Killing him won't prevent any further terrorist activity, nor will it bring back the ~3000 people killed in the WTC attack (not to mention the ~1000000 killed in the wars that followed).

Ah, I see. Didn't think you were a Truther, hence my surprise.

I have no problem with "summary execution by Navy SEAL" in this particular case (there are always different tools for different jobs). There are a few reasons for this, but the biggest one is that the alternative--trial, evidence, rule of law, as you put it--looks to me like it would open a larger can of violent and bloody worms. By this I mean we've already seen the spectacle of terror attacks in the name of freeing lesser figures (such as the blind sheik whose name escapes me who was involved in the first WTC bombing); bin Laden alive, in captivity, and on trial would directly inspire more rather than less terrorism, I think. Not to mention that such a trial would likely be public, and therefore would likely give him an even greater global platform to spout his barbarous ideology. Secondly, I don't know if planning the murders of well over 3000 people really qualifies as "criminal activity" and hence subject to the rule of law. He's not a head of state. Does that matter? Thirdly, I am in agreement with Locke, that "by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the commonlaw of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power" (Second Treatise, ch. 3/§16. Christ I'm pretentious sometimes). Lastly, for reasons of domestic politics, I don't think Obama would have wanted to take him alive (i.e., it would create more headaches for Obama if he were alive due to his Justice Department's push for civil trials for KSM, etc).

Law is a rule and measure for the civilized. I am unwilling to include OBL under the heading of "the civilized."

Yeah this particular case is an outlier, agreed.

It's just that it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Either human rights apply to everybody or they apply to nobody. OK, you've set the bar for removing those rights pretty high (conspiracy to murder 3000+ people on 9/11), but I fear a slippery slope where that bar is progressively lowered.

On the other hand, I see the wisdom in your Locke quote. Hell, had I been the one pulling the trigger on OBL, I don't think my sleep would have suffered too much since.

My gut feeling is that there are two ways of dealing with people you disagree with: the first is that you kill them indiscriminately - fly planes into buildings, plant bombs on buses, whatever. This is the preferred method of the extremists.
The other is that you amass evidence, build a case, arrest the person, try him, and if he's convicted, levy whatever penalties the jurisdiction deems appropriate.

In 1945 the Allies had the opportunity to shoot every Nazi they came across, out of hand, and there are few that would argue that people like Rudolph Hoess deserved anything better. But it was deemed far more important that the rule of law, which had since 1933 in Germany been a political expediency, be upheld, and that justice be seen to be done. The accused were tried before an international court, the evidence was weighed up, and sentence was passed. Anyone arguing that Nürnberg was a waste of time?

bin Laden was wanted in connection with crimes in at least 3 countries - holding to fundamental principles of due process would have scored points on any number of fronts, not least pulling the rug out from underneath radical imams who would argue that it's one law for muslims, and one law for everyone else. We have an international criminal court whose gears may grind exceedingly slow, but it is the best thing we've got to deal with people who are accused of the kinds of things that bin Laden claimed responsibilty for.

When Israel targets "suspected militants" in Gaza there is quite rightly international condemnation of the act. When the SAS shot 3 suspected IRA terrorists in Gibraltar in 1988 the fallout was tremendous. Why? Because one of the cornerstones of the society that we enjoy is due process - the concept of innocence until proven guilty, the right to a trial by jury. Does the assasination of bin Laden destroy this? No, of course it doesn't. But it opens the door a crack - who decides who deserves a trial and who doesn't? Who decides if you get a trial or a bullet? If the military is to be used as a tool of the legislative branch, where does it end?

Me, I don't trust the government further than I can spit, which is why I like an independent judiciary. Law is reason free from passion and politics. Did bin Laden break the law, and can we prove it? If so then capture him, try him, and if he's convicted use him as proof that our system of due process and the rule of law beats their system of indiscriminate killing. bin Laden and his goons are far from civilised, but my lowering ourselves to their level we reduce our civilisation, our humanity, just a little bit - and we will rightly be judged harshly for it.

back to the top....

nice tae see whaur yer interests ur these days scotty, ya Cock!

I'm not convinced law is the correct paradigm in this case.

I'm not convinced I'd ever use the word 'paradigm'.
Have you tried the Cracked Forum?

You just did.

I agree with EvilBastard.

==========================

That twitter feed:

http://twitter.com/InjunctionSuper

markfiend wrote:I agree with EvilBastard.

That's a terrfying concept.

EvilBastard wrote:

markfiend wrote:I agree with EvilBastard.

That's a terrfying concept.

indeed

Going back a few years now, I remember when Slobodan Milosevic was put on trial. His prosecution was plastered all over the newspapers, yet when he decided to defend himself, and stated he would call both Blair and Bush in to the witness box, to cross-examine them over alleged financial support for the KLA, the coverage stopped. Then he rather conveniently dies.
Years later it's acknowledged that despite being a pretty unpleasant individual, he may not have had the hand in the Serbian atrocities he was accused of, and that Serbian atrocities were exaggerated, and KLA ones blanket denied by NATO.

I suspect broadly similar reasons are behind the decision to just kill Bin Laden. His trial would have been given extensive coverage, and maybe he knew where a few political corpses were buried.

pffffff.....