What did they expect with the flimsy evidence that they presented?

These guys knew the people who performed the attack, and did some sight seeing.

Its like the British prosecutors weren't even trying.

These defendants were three friends of the actual bombers who were apparetly filmed or witnessed walking with the bombers in several areas where bombs were eventually detonated - you know, in the subway.

The jury was apparently not entirely willing to go along with the concept of "guilt by association." If that's a fail for the jury system, then it's a fail for the entire system of law.

/ for those who can't follow double-negatives: the system worked. Get over it.

If the evidence saying they're terrorists isn't enough to convict them, how are we sure they're terrorists again?

Sounds like the judicial system is working just fine to me. Killing people is a crime whether it's one, twenty, or twenty at a time, but somehow calling it "terrorism" makes it extra-scary and beyond the court system. Fu(k that.

Terrorism: BOO!

So...justice was actually served, instead of simply shedding blood for funsies?

Congrats Brits. You're doing it right.

I_Hate_Iowa: Terrorism: BOO!

AHHHHHHHHHH!!!! *runs screaming to the Federal Government*

Protect meeeeee!!!

THIS PROVES COURTS JUST DON'T WORK!!1

It's time we got rid of a second and third branch of our government anyway. In a perfect nation, there'd only be the Executive Branch, and the Cheneian Branch anyway.

submitter

you are a total farking pussy. stop wetting your knickers every time someone says terrorism.

kill yourself.

Thanks douchemitter for reminding us all that the only real way to fight terrorism is to remove the law, it just gets in the way.

How else can we fight our perpetual war against the death cult of Eurasia?

Or are we at war with Eastasia this week?

I keep forgetting.

Hey Subby, what's it like living your life with so much fear? You're perfectly willing to let the government do away with justice, as long as they "protect you" from any scary, mean, brown people.

You people are pathetic, and your reign of domestic terrorism is at an end. We've seen your pathetic attempts to make us afraid. It worked for a little while, but not only is your time in power over, your grandchildren will look back in dismay and disgust at this time in our history.

Submitter

Britain again demonstrates to the world the rousing success that comes with prosecuting terrorists in civilian courtscost of a justice system based on "innocent until proven guilty"

FTFY

Bring back the Star Chamber.

You're absolutely right, Submitter...


"Success" doesn't just mean a conviction...it also means that when the prosecution fails to provide concrete evidence of wrong-doing, the accused are not convicted solely on the word of the Government.

It's just a goddamn piece of vellum.

KIA: These defendants were three friends of the actual bombers who were apparetly filmed or witnessed walking with the bombers in several areas where bombs were eventually detonated - you know, in the subway.

Sounds like a conspiracy charge to me. Lawyers must either suck or the evidence just isn't good enough

You know, I can see this being a good thing for Bush. He's been photographed making out with the leader of a terrorist funding nation. If people can be found guilty by association, that would be bad news for him.

Wow. I came into this thread ready to rumble, but everyone here is reasonable and respects the rule of law.

Cool.

Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

We can't afford to take that chance. Call in an airstrike.

SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.


Well, if you have evidence proving otherwise that wasn't presented by the prosecution, you better contact the English Government...

At least the justice system still sometimes works in Britain. If they had any real evidence, I'd say good riddance, but they had nothing and this was a good verdict.

SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

Not "probably", Skinnyhead, proven in a court of law.

GAT_00: ...this was a good verdict.

Don't celebrate too soon. It was a hung jury -- there was no verdict. There will probably have to be a new trial.

SkinnyHead: Don't celebrate too soon. It was a hung jury -- there was no verdict. There will probably have to be a new trial.

This is Britain. I expected them to call them guilty 5 minutes after the trial started.

Just a small point, submitter. I don't know about the law in the GoodolUSofA but in Britain these people were called suspects. The name changes to terrorist after they're convicted.

We're lucky we have the UCMJ

!

Wander00: I don't know about the law in the GoodolUSofA but in Britain these people were called suspects. The name changes to terrorist after they're convicted.

yeah, that's not how it works here...

Fail subby.

Why do you assume that they are terrorists? They are defendants and have the right to a trial. To echo the other posters, the judicial system is working in this case.

At least these cases are going to the courts unlike detainees that have been so farked over there's no way they could get a fair trial in the US.

What would you prefer?

Wander00: Just a small point, submitter. I don't know about the law in the GoodolUSofA but in Britain these people were called suspects. The name changes to terrorist after they're convicted.

That's pre-9/11 thinking. Nowadays, we're ALL terrorists until proven innocent. And to date, nobody has been proven innocent. So hows that 'war on terror' working out?

Good point, Submittard. Let's throw them into a legally questionable hellhole 90 miles offshore without charges on the say-so of a dry drunk ex-fratboy draft dodger.

It's the American waaaaaaaayyyyyyy!

Weaver95: That's pre-9/11 thinking. Nowadays, we're ALL terrorists until proven innocent. And to date, nobody has been proven innocent.

They just get let go, given money, and told to STFU via gag order to the press. God Bless Amurca!

Ain't habeas corpus a biatch?

Well at least somebody somewhere believes in innocent until proven guilty. I could sure go for some farking evidence that these guys were terrorists and didn't just know some terrorists, which is actually not a crime.

Weaver95: Wander00: Just a small point, submitter. I don't know about the law in the GoodolUSofA but in Britain these people were called suspects. The name changes to terrorist after they're convicted.

That's pre-9/11 thinking. Nowadays, we're ALL terrorists until proven innocent. And to date, nobody has been proven innocent. So hows that 'war on terror' working out?

Perhaps Brits are different because in Britain, the only thing that happened on 11/9 is that it rained.

what_now: SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

Not "probably", Skinnyhead, proven in a court of law.

All that has been proven is that the guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. That does not prove anyone innocent, hence why juries find defendants "not guilty" instead of "innocent". I would not bet money on them being innocent.

Weaver95: That's pre-9/11 thinking. Nowadays, we're ALL terrorists until proven innocent.

QFunfortunateT

Saddam Hussein Bush would have not executed these guys by now, but would have also imprisoned/tortured their friends, families, and drivers.

SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

You should just go bust into thier mosque and show them your real justice since you must know somthing that the judge didn't.

Or you can sit there and just be an internet tough guy,

+1 for subby being able to get his troll in the headline as opposed to having to get greenlit, then troll.

Captain Darling: what_now: SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

Not "probably", Skinnyhead, proven in a court of law.

All that has been proven is that the guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. That does not prove anyone innocent, hence why juries find defendants "not guilty" instead of "innocent". I would not bet money on them being innocent.

In a common law system you are assumed innocent, you don't have to prove it. Thus by not proving them guilty they are innocent, hence the "double jepordy" rules.

Due process is way overrated.

Captain Darling: what_now: SkinnyHead: Probably just some totally innocent Jihadists out doing some sightseeing, that's all.

Not "probably", Skinnyhead, proven in a court of law.

All that has been proven is that the guilt of the accused cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the evidence presented. That does not prove anyone innocent, hence why juries find defendants "not guilty" instead of "innocent". I would not bet money on them being innocent.

And yet there was not enough evidence and the prosecution didn't present a compelling enough case to convince a jury of people in London to convict them.

The members of the jury live in London, saw the entirety of the evidence presented that allegedly show that the suspects are terrorists or conspirators, and voted not guilty.

Wow, I'm guessing all of us legally ignorant Yanks, scared of the specter of terrorism without even personally facing the actual terrorist act in question, ignorant of all evidence presented outside of a few lines in a newspaper, are far more correct about the guilty of these people.

lustfrog: Saddam Hussein Bush would have not ONLY executed these guys by now, but would have also imprisoned/tortured their friends, families, and drivers.

sigh

lustfrog: lustfrog: Saddam Hussein Bush would have not ONLY executed these guys by now, but would have also imprisoned/tortured their friends, families, and drivers.

sigh

That wasn't the big fail in your statement. Step back, take a breath, and recognize that this isn't about Bush. This isn't even about our country. I hate the man for what he's done, but that's a discussion for another thread.

subby is either ignorant or trolling. The Brits have successfully jailed many terrorists in civilian courts. Googling immediately turns up plenty of examples.

example (new window)
example (new window)
example (new window)
example (new window)

Sounds like a lot of fans of the Rule of Law in here. Carry on.

All2morrowsparTs: In a common law system you are assumed innocent, you don't have to prove it. Thus by not proving them guilty they are innocent, hence the "double jepordy" rules.

The presumption of innocence is not a statement of fact, it is a legal procedure. I'm not arguing against it, it's the cornerstone of a fair justice system. It's simply not accurate to say that an acquitted defendant has been "proven innocent" because as you said above, the purpose of a court is to prove guilt, not innocence. OJ Simpson was successfully sued in civil court. That would not have been possible had the criminal court proven his innocence.

SkinnyHead: Don't celebrate too soon. It was a hung jury -- there was no verdict. There will probably have to be a new trial.

I wonder how the trial for the right-wing conservative Christian who shot up the Unitarian Church in Knoxville because they are too liberal and support gay marriage, will go.

Hi. I'm voting Democrat.

And I'm not scared.

SkinnyHead: GAT_00: ...this was a good verdict.

Don't celebrate too soon. It was a hung jury -- there was no verdict. There will probably have to be a new trial.

I don't think you're getting this.

None of us are celebrating just because they're going free or some ridiculous reason. It's just nice to see that the system works. And if the new trial finds them guilty, by a jury of their peers after the due presentation of all evidence against them? Then the system will have still worked.

What's your problem with it?