Terror treason charge considered

[FloatingFatMan]

Mods, please feel free to move this if it's in the wrong place, but I think RWI is more appropriate!

Terror treason charge considered 

Omar Bakri Mohammed is one of three who may be prosecuted

Police and lawyers are to consider whether Islamist radicals who support terrorism could face treason charges.

The Crown Prosecution Service's head of anti-terrorism will meet Scotland Yard officers in the next few days.

Lord Goldsmith and Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald have discussed action against three people, the attorney general's office has said.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Uzair are all expected to come under scrutiny.

'No decision'

The spokeswoman for the attorney-general said it was not clear at this stage whether there was enough evidence to bring charges.

The crime of betraying one's country has long been regarded as one of the most serious of offences.

Treason carries a penalty of life imprisonment. The death penalty for the offence was abolished only in 1998.

Officials will be looking at broadcast and published comments as well as speeches and sermons made by the trio to followers.

"No decision on charges has been made yet. The CPS will be looking at it to see if any offences have been committed," she said.

Possible charges which will be considered include the common law offences of treason and incitement to treason.

Omar Bakri Mohammed is a London-based cleric for the al-Muhajiroun group.

On Friday while announcing new measures to clamp down on extremism, Prime Minister Tony Blair said that this group's successor organisation, the Saviour Sect, would be outlawed.

Mr Bakri caused controversy when he said he would not inform police if he knew Muslims were planning a bomb attack in the UK.

He also expressed support for Muslims who attacked British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.

"For Muslims there, they have a duty to fight occupiers, whether they are British soldiers or American soldiers," he told Channel 4 News.

The ex-leader of al-Muhahjiroun Anjam Choudry said bringing charges of treason would be a betrayal.

"On the one hand the government says you have freedom of expression, but on the other it wants to backdate things that people have said so they could face criminal charges, which is a betrayal in itself," he told GMTV.

'Smell the coffee'

British-born Abu Izzadeen, a spokesman for the group al-Ghurabaa [the Strangers] has declined to condemn the 7 July London bombings.

He told BBC2's Newsnight the bombings were "mujahideen activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee".

Abu Uzair, a former member of al-Muhajiroun, told the same programme that the September 11 attacks in the US were "magnificent".

He said Muslims had previously accepted a "covenant of security" which meant they should not resort to violence in the UK because they were not under threat there.

"We don't live in peace with you any more, which means the covenant of security no longer exists," he said.

Source

In my view, most definately YES, these people should be charged with treason. If they choose to live in the UK, then they must live by OUR laws. Inciting to commit and committing acts of terror against this country are certainly treasonous acts in my view.

Personally, the few muslims I know are disgusted by this bloke...

Discuss!

[FlibbyFlobby]

I agree, treason is appropriate for these people.

[lav-chan]

I don't believe in treason, so... i guess that sums up my views on that, first of all.

However, if i did believe in treason, i don't think i would say this qualifies. If you were talking about the guys who blew up the commuters, you might have something, but saying that you wouldn't contact authorities if you knew there was a bombing threat is not treason. Treason is the act of betraying a country, not the act of publically claiming that you would betray a country if you had the chance to. I'm sure these guys are major ass holes, but to charge them with treason for what they said is nothing but pure thought-policing.

[FlibbyFlobby]

I don't believe in treason, so... i guess that sums up my views on that, first of all.

However, if i did believe in treason, i don't think i would say this qualifies. If you were talking about the guys who blew up the commuters, you might have something, but saying that you wouldn't contact authorities if you knew there was a bombing threat is not treason. Treason is the act of betraying a country, not the act of publically claiming that you would betray a country if you had the chance to. I'm sure these guys are major ass holes, but to charge them with treason for what they said is nothing but pure thought-policing.

586343825[/snapback]

These people also publically endorse suicide bombings. No one has the right to live in Britain then publically announce that they endorse the bombings and encourage more, its a threat to our country. Besides they're living off handouts from a country they clearly dont like, so they can **** off home.

[FloatingFatMan]

I don't believe in treason, so... i guess that sums up my views on that, first of all.

However, if i did believe in treason, i don't think i would say this qualifies. If you were talking about the guys who blew up the commuters, you might have something, but saying that you wouldn't contact authorities if you knew there was a bombing threat is not treason. Treason is the act of betraying a country, not the act of publically claiming that you would betray a country if you had the chance to. I'm sure these guys are major ass holes, but to charge them with treason for what they said is nothing but pure thought-policing.

586343825[/snapback]

But inciting to commit treason is also a crime in the UK, and that's exactly what these people are doing. Any attack against your home country can be considered an act of treason. If you're attacking another country, that's a different matter, but these people have been granted British nationality, so they ARE committing treason by attacking, or telling others to attack, Britain.

Whether or not they'll be charged with this is another matter, treason charges are quite rare, mainly because the punishments are so "severe" (until 1998, death was a possibly, now it's life imprisonment, with no parole).

[FlibbyFlobby]

But inciting to commit treason is also a crime in the UK, and that's exactly what these people are doing.  Any attack against your home country can be considered an act of treason.  If you're attacking another country, that's a different matter, but these people have been granted British nationality, so they ARE committing treason by attacking, or telling others to attack, Britain.

Whether or not they'll be charged with this is another matter, treason charges are quite rare, mainly because the punishments are so "severe" (until 1998, death was a possibly, now it's life imprisonment, with no parole).

586343925[/snapback]

I read in a paper the other day the government are going to be "aggressive and comprehensive, but flexible and reasonable" which basically means those deported or charged can appeal. Our government is a sham anyway, these people will be walking the streets again in weeks, because the government will fear not looking politcally correct.

[dreamz Veteran]

you can't really be charged with saying that you'll do or not do something. that's not a crime.

[lav-chan]

But inciting to commit treason is also a crime in the UK, and that's exactly what these people are doing.

586343925[/snapback]

The act of 'inciting' is a very specific thing. It's really difficult to prove in court the difference between 'free speech' and 'inciting', and i don't think anybody will be able to in this case. Has anyone actually suggested that they went ahead and bombed somebody in Britain because of what these guys said? Is there any proof at all that what they're saying doesn't constitute free speech?

[FloatingFatMan]

The act of 'inciting' is a very specific thing. It's really difficult to prove in court the difference between 'free speech' and 'inciting', and i don't think anybody will be able to in this case. Has anyone actually suggested that they went ahead and bombed somebody in Britain because of what these guys said? Is there any proof at all that what they're saying doesn't constitute free speech?

586345129[/snapback]

When people of supposed great "religious" influence are saying that it's right to kill yourself to blow innocent people up. When they say it's a good thing 9/11 happened and the perpetrators are heroes. When they say it's the duty of every follower of Islam to kill non believers, then hell yes, IMO it IS inciting to commit treason, if those perpetrating the acts of are British nationality.

With the new laws as proposed, anyone guilty of inciting others to commit crimes of hate will be subject to arrest and possible deportation. Anyone spouting hate against any one of a different racial type, or religious belief, will be subject to arrest. OK, I think we need to be very carefull here or people could start getting arrested for the silliest of things, but these so called "mullahs" (sp) are doing nothing BUT spouting religious hatred and inciting people to commit these hate crimes. The few muslims I know personally have nothing but contempt for these people.

As I said before, whether these acts are actually treason is a difficult call to make, and one the police and CPS will make in the next few days. For my take, they're traitors to the crown and deserve everything they get.

Our country, our laws. Don't like it, bugger off back to the cesspit you came from... :angry: <-- This is aimed at those spouting the hate Lav-chan.. Not you!! :p

I don't get it... Are you defending their hate mongering? :unsure:

Edit: BTW, we don't have an equivalent law to the First Amendment in the US. Free speech is not a right as laid down in our equivalent of your constitution.

[lav-chan]

When people of supposed great "religious" influence are saying that it's right to kill yourself to blow innocent people up. When they say it's a good thing 9/11 happened and the perpetrators are heroes.  When they say it's the duty of every follower of Islam to kill non believers, then hell yes, IMO it IS inciting to commit treason, if those perpetrating the acts of are British nationality.

586345745[/snapback]

Maybe it could incite, and maybe even the intent is to incite, but what i'm asking is, has it actually happened? Is there any evidence at all that they actually did incite somebody to commit violence, or are we talking about a case where you want to charge him because he might incite somebody to commit violence?

If you can show me an article that says the authorities searched some suicide bomber's house and found a bunch of pamphlets written by this fellow, then you may've convinced me. But if you have no evidence that something has happened as an obvious result of this guy's words, then no inciting has occurred.

I don't get it... Are you defending their hate mongering?  :unsure:

586345745[/snapback]

Of course not. These guys are obviously barbaric, hateful ass holes, and i wouldn't be upset at all if they were deported or imprisoned or whatever. But it has to be done in accordance with the same fair treatment that you would extend to any other person. You can't throw away fair application of the law just because these guys are jerks and because they're saying horrible things during a particularly sensitive time.

Edit: BTW, we don't have an equivalent law to the First Amendment in the US.  Free speech is not a right as laid down in our equivalent of your constitution.

586345745[/snapback]

It's not 'my' constitution, and i realise that very few countries have an exact equivalent to the First Amendment to America's constitution. But you do have an understanding of the concept and you do appreciate it to some degree.

And even if you didn't, i'm not necessarily arguing from the perspective of 'will the prosecutors find that a crime has been committed under British law'. I'm more so arguging from the perspective of my own beliefs regarding free speech and things like that.

[Hupp]

treason:a crime that undermines the offender's government

disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior

treachery: an act of deliberate betrayal

i believe that the act of causing fear/terrorising the people to strike at a government if you are a citizen of that country is treason by that definition.

[FloatingFatMan]

If you can show me an article that says the authorities searched some suicide bomber's house and found a bunch of pamphlets written by this fellow, then you may've convinced me. But if you have no evidence that something has happened as an obvious result of this guy's words, then no inciting has occurred.

Unfortunately, people like this don't often print their garbage in pamphlets... It would make it far too easy to convict them if it were so, however, he HAS publicly exclaimed his views. Incidentally, if you haven't been following events in the UK, it would seem that Omar Bakri Mohammed has fled the county for Lebanon. A positive sign of guilt, no?

Here's an article on it

Of course not. These guys are obviously barbaric, hateful ass holes, and i wouldn't be upset at all if they were deported or imprisoned or whatever. But it has to be done in accordance with the same fair treatment that you would extend to any other person. You can't throw away fair application of the law just because these guys are jerks and because they're saying horrible things during a particularly sensitive time.

Phew! Well that's a relief! :)

BTW: I wasn't saying they should be just thrown in prison and the key thrown away. In fact, I would INSIST that any of these people face correct application of the law.

It's not 'my' constitution, and i realise that very few countries have an exact equivalent to the First Amendment to America's constitution. But you do have an understanding of the concept and you do appreciate it to some degree.

586346147[/snapback]

My apologies.. I was sure your location showed you in the US yesterday, but I suck at geography :D

Whilst we don't actually have any laws guaranteeing free speech in the UK, we do have a long established tradition of free speech, which is rarely restricted. In cases such as this, I believe it SHOULD be restricted. No one group should be permitted to extol hatred against any other.

[lav-chan]

Incidentally, if you haven't been following events in the UK, it would seem that Omar Bakri Mohammed has fled the county for Lebanon.  A positive sign of guilt, no?

586348989[/snapback]

More like a positive sign that he thinks there's a good chance he'll be found guilty of treason. Maybe i do too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that i believe he should be punished for what he did.

My apologies.. I was sure your location showed you in the US yesterday, but I suck at geography  :D

586348989[/snapback]

My location the other day was a fictional town from 'To Kill a Mockingbird'. I am in the United States, but i don't really consider myself tied to it any more than i'd consider myself tied to the UK or Tahiti or Sierra Leone. Now you start to see what i meant by not believing in treason, i guess. :/

Whilst we don't actually have any laws guaranteeing free speech in the UK, we do have a long established tradition of free speech, which is rarely restricted.  In cases such as this, I believe it SHOULD be restricted.  No one group should be permitted to extol hatred against any other.

586348989[/snapback]

Yeah, i don't like that. I don't understand how the whole 'tradition' thing has worked for so many Commonwealth countries for so long. I sure feel a lot better if it's written down on paper somewhere.

And it seems to be common amongst people from Commonwealth countries to have that view on free speech (that there are cases, particularly involving hatred, where free speech should be restricted). I don't agree with that view, unless there's some kind of evidence that there was a criminal intent to incite someone to commit a crime. Unfortunately, this means that you can usually only convict someone like this after the fact, but i think that it's wrong to charge somebody with a crime that they might commit in the future.

I don't know how often they air Law & Order in Britain, so maybe chances are you'll never see this, but i remember seeing an episode just recently that dealt with this same thing. Basically a skin-head killed a girl, and when the police investigated they discovered that this kid had a history of being unstable, and that he was 'recruited' by a White supremecist. The White supremecist knew that the people he had gathered in his little organisation were all mentally unstable, and he used that to his advantage. He urged them to 'embrace hatred' and 'destroy traitors' and all that garbage.

At the end, the White supremecist was found guilty of murder, even though he didn't physically have anything to do with the crime and didn't even know it had occurred until he saw it on the news. I agreed with that ruling, based on the facts that the guy knew the kid was troubled and willingly sought him out for membership in his organisation, he knew that he was urging him to kill a specific group of people, and evidence was presented (in the forms of video tapes and writings) that proved all of this.

In the case of these Muslim guys, though, you (apparently -- again, correct me if i'm wrong) don't have any link between these guys and any terrorists. You don't have any proof of these guys reaching out to any troubled Muslim kids and urging them to commit terrorism. You don't have any terrorists who've been found with pamphlets or videos or letters or anything written by these guys, you don't have any records of phone calls between these people, you don't have any records of these people ever coming into contact with each other at all. For all you know, a terrorist in your country might never have even heard of these people.

That's the difference between this and what happened on Law & Order.