NationStates Jolt Archive

Clarke went into significant detail about the evidence uncovered so far -- an unusual step for British prosecutors and police, who are strictly limited in what they can disclose publicly before a criminal trial. In particular, he said, there had been important video and audio surveillance carried out before the alleged plot was revealed on Aug. 10, as well as bomb-making materials including hydrogen peroxide, electrical components and documents.

"This has all given us a clearer picture of the alleged plot," he said.

So far, he said, 69 houses, businesses, vehicles and open spaces had been searched. The searches yielded more than 400 computers, 200 cellphones and 8,000 computer media items such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs. Police have removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers alone.

Clarke added that it would take many months for all of the data to be analyzed.

"Fingerprints, DNA, electronic data, handwriting comparisons, chemical analysis, and indeed the full range of forensic disciplines will be used" in the investigation, he said.

Among the finds were "martyrdom videos," an apparent reference to videos in which would-be suicide bombers issued their final testaments. Clarke did not release details.

Police disclosed the alleged conspiracy to blow up transatlantic airliners after indications that the plotters were nearly ready to strike. Both the United States and Britain were put on high states of alert and hundreds of flights were delayed or canceled.

At the same time, raids took place in London, Birmingham and High Wycombe, a suburb 30 miles west of the capital. It was in woods there that the bomb-making equipment was found in a suitcase, the BBC reported earlier.

Let's see. Bomb-making materials found in a suitcase in the woods. Martyrdom videos. Documents with plans. Video and audio surveillance of the plotters.

Anyone here still think it's all fake?

someone thought it was a fake?

someone thought it was a fake?
You need to read this forum more often. Plenty of people joking that it will all come to nothing, that the evidence is either faked, planted, or non-existent, and that the government will be forced to admit it was all a big mistake.

Kudos to Britain for saving the lives of unknown hundreds of people. Hopefully these people will be in prison for decades.

Damn extremists. Now I can't bring coke on the airplane thanks to these asshats.

someone thought it was a fake?

OOOO Yea.

You should've seen some of the Kafkaesque fantasies that people posted about GWB getting the british to invent a plot to help with the congressional midterms.

Then the so-called evidence they'd post to support it.

I'm all for having an open mind about stuff, but really....

Disconformation/comformation bias I suppose.

Kudos to Britain for saving the lives of unknown hundreds of people. Hopefully these people will be in prison for decades.

Damn extremists. Now I can't bring coke on the airplane thanks to these asshats.

I've had a problem getting coke on board since 9/11.

You need to read this forum more often. Plenty of people joking that it will all come to nothing, that the evidence is either faked, planted, or non-existent, and that the government will be forced to admit it was all a big mistake.
I was being facitious.

There is no such thing as political debate any more. What we have is one side demonizing the other, always stretching the truth, sometimes outright lying.

They were simply seeking tolerance and understanding.

I've had a problem getting coke on board since 9/11.


If you look you'll find that people have always had trouble getting a kilo on an airplane ;)

I was being facitious.

There is no such thing as political debate any more. What we have is one side demonizing the other, always stretching the truth, sometimes outright lying.

Well, it's a sign of the "You're either with us or against us" bunker mentality as well as the polarized two-party society. Sad but a sign of the times.

The good news is of course, eventually one side will win, and do its best to eradicate the other in any legal or illegal way possible. Hooray! ;)

You need to read this forum more often. Plenty of people joking that it will all come to nothing, that the evidence is either faked, planted, or non-existent, and that the government will be forced to admit it was all a big mistake.
I seem to remember a large number of people saying that maybe we should wait and see what the police found, as opposed to just presuming them all guilty and shipping them off to Camp Fuck-knows-where. Maybe that's just my reading comprehension.

Kudos to Britain for saving the lives of unknown hundreds of people.

Agree

Now I can't bring coke on the airplane thanks to these asshats.

It's bad for your teeth anyway. And it benefits the American economy, which is even worse.

Anyone here still think it's all fake?
9/11 is a joke, y'all!

Let's see. Bomb-making materials found in a suitcase in the woods. Martyrdom videos. Documents with plans. Video and audio surveillance of the plotters.

Anyone here still think it's all fake?


I never thought it was a fake. My parents were in the lake District (in England) the time it happened and they said everyone they met thought it was just a hoax by Blair.

In total fairness, the argument was that there was - is? - a possibility it would be another screwup, like the one earlier in the year in the UK. Acting on good intelligence, the police mounted raids to find absoutely nothing, and by current accounts shot an innocent bloke in the process.

There was also - as ever! - a fringe of folk who said it was all a fake, or the evidence would be planted, but this is an internet forum, you get weirdos!

But the 'it's a screw-up' camp had a legitimate concern.

I'll be glad when it's all taken forward to trial, and the evidence can be shown to everyone fully.

And it benefits the American economy, which is even worse.

:rolleyes:

I never thought it was a fake. My parents were in the lake District (in England) the time it happened and they said everyone they met thought it was just a hoax by Blair.

Those people are idiots then. What would Blair have gained from making up a hoax like that?

I seem to remember a large number of people saying that maybe we should wait and see what the police found, as opposed to just presuming them all guilty and shipping them off to Camp Fuck-knows-where. Maybe that's just my reading comprehension.
To these folks, that qualifies as saying "it's all fake." Reading comprehension has never been their strong suit.

To these folks, that qualifies as saying "it's all fake." Reading comprehension has never been their strong suit.

No, at least 2 posts I can remember over the past couple of days stated outright that it was faked, and/or that the evidence would have been planted. I don't know if the OP is thinking of those ones, other ones, or if he can't comprehend posts citing 'reasonable doubts'. I don't think you know either, so give him the benefit of the doubt.

No, at least 2 posts I can remember over the past couple of days stated outright that it was faked, and/or that the evidence would have been planted. I don't know if the OP is thinking of those ones, other ones, or if he can't comprehend posts citing 'reasonable doubts'. I don't think you know either, so give him the benefit of the doubt.
Deep Kimchi has a history of reading things the way he wants to read them as opposed to the way the words actually sit on the page. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Please. He's the most dishonest poster on this board.

To these folks, that qualifies as saying "it's all fake." Reading comprehension has never been their strong suit.
You asserted that the case against the UK terrorists was iffy and uncertain. Which is not, and was never true.

Deep Kimchi has a history of reading things the way he wants to read them as opposed to the way the words actually sit on the page. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Please. He's the most dishonest poster on this board.

But you're no better. You have no idea what posts he's refering to, and rather than ask him, you assume he's lying or a moron. Actaully, you broaden those insults out from the OP to 'these people' - to whom are you refering?

And before you know it, there's a fight in progress! :p

Sorry - pointless to get too pissy over this. But rather than attacking the poster (or 'these people') in the course of debate, it's better to attack what they claim/say, surely? Certainly more productive, and more satisfying when catch opponent out.

You asserted that the case against the UK terrorists was iffy and uncertain. Which is not, and was never true.
And I linked to news stories which made that case. That's a far cry from making conspiracy theory claims, which I never did by the way.

Deep Kimchi has a history of reading things the way he wants to read them as opposed to the way the words actually sit on the page. Give him the benefit of the doubt? Please. He's the most dishonest poster on this board.
I thought that was either Ocean or you.

I'm still going to reserve judgement until I see how many of those arrested are convicted. As the supposed plan was that up to 9 planes were going to be blown up, I want to see at least 9 convictions, if not more. However, I think we'll be lucky to get 5.

I'm still going to reserve judgement until I see how many of those arrested are convicted. As the supposed plan was that up to 9 planes were going to be blown up, I want to see at least 9 convictions, if not more. However, I think we'll be lucky to get 5.

I'm not saying they'll all be convicted. But I'm not like some here who think that the whole thing will be a wash, and no one will be convicted, and the government will have egg on its face.

You need to read this forum more often. Plenty of people joking that it will all come to nothing, that the evidence is either faked, planted, or non-existent, and that the government will be forced to admit it was all a big mistake.
I know a lot of people advocating some crazy shit but I had not seen that on any of the threads … maybe some possibility that all the people that were arrested would not be involved (though that is not necessarily out of sync with normal criminal cases when a suspect turns out to have a real good solid alibi)

I'm not saying they'll all be convicted. But I'm not like some here who think that the whole thing will be a wash, and no one will be convicted, and the government will have egg on its face.
I wasn's saying you did say they'd all be convicted. I believe that there was some sort of plot, but I would be surprised if it was on the scale reported by the media.

I know a lot of people advocating some crazy shit but I had not seen that on any of the threads … maybe some possibility that all the people that were arrested would not be involved (though that is not necessarily out of sync with normal criminal cases when a suspect turns out to have a real good solid alibi)

You missed the posts where people say that they'll have to let them go just like other cases, and their batshit conspiracy theory that Bush arranged this with the UK government to improve his ratings, etc. Other people in this thread have seen the same thing.

You missed the posts where people say that they'll have to let them go just like other cases, and their batshit conspiracy theory that Bush arranged this with the UK government to improve his ratings, etc. Other people in this thread have seen the same thing.
Hmmm must have missed it

the only problem with this is, are they telling the truth about what they found?
does anyone remember that woman with handcream and matches, it was origionaly claimed that she had a note from al quida(how do you spell it-im shit at spelling)
there tends to be an overstatement to make the public believe that a good job is being done.
I dont doubt that there is evidence against there people,and I am glad if it turns oput that a terror plot has been averted.What I do doubt is whether the evidence is what it is being said that it is.For all we know they could be a bunch of kids that like watching martyrdom videos, and a sympathetic towards the extremists,but never intended(or didnt have the guts) to did it themselves.
EVERONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER-INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY(providing they have been charged)

the only problem with this is, are they telling the truth about what they found?
does anyone remember that woman with handcream and matches, it was origionaly claimed that she had a note from al quida(how do you spell it-im shit at spelling)
there tends to be an overstatement to make the public believe that a good job is being done.
I dont doubt that there is evidence against there people,and I am glad if it turns oput that a terror plot has been averted.What I do doubt is whether the evidence is what it is being said that it is.For all we know they could be a bunch of kids that like watching martyrdom videos, and a sympathetic towards the extremists,but never intended(or didnt have the guts) to did it themselves.
EVERONE NEEDS TO REMEMBER-INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY(providing they have been charged)

The martyrdom videos were apparently of the people themselves, not someone else.

Pakistanis find no evidence against �terror mastermind�
By GLEN OWEN

The Briton alleged to be the �mastermind� behind the airline terror plot could be innocent of any significant involvement, sources close to the investigation claim.

Rashid Rauf, whose detention in Pakistan was the trigger for the arrest of 23 suspects in Britain, has been accused of taking orders from Al Qaeda�s �No3� in Afghanistan and sending money back to the UK to allow the alleged bombers to buy plane tickets.

But after two weeks of interrogation, an inch-by-inch search of his house and analysis of his home computer, officials are now saying that his extradition is �a way down the track� if it happens at all.

It comes amid wider suspicions that the plot may not have been as serious, or as far advanced, as the authorities initially claimed.

Analysts suspect Pakistani authorities exaggerated Rauf�s role to appear �tough on terrorism� and impress Britain and America.

A spokesman for Pakistan�s Interior Ministry last night admitted that �extradition at this time is not under consideration�.

Rauf�s arrest followed a protracted surveillance operation on him and his family which, The Mail on Sunday has established, dates back to the 7/7 bomb attacks on London.

The possible link between 7/7 and the alleged plot emerged when this newspaper spoke to Rauf�s uncle, Miam Mumtaz, in Kashmir.

Mumtaz was approached by two members of ISI, the feared Pakistani security service, as he nervously denied any knowledge of his nephew�s alleged activities.

One ISI man said it had been monitoring all movement by Mumtaz and the rest of Rauf�s relatives since the 7/7 attacks.

It is the first official acknowledgement of any suspected link between the London bombings and the plot to blow up planes flying from Britain to America.

But it comes against a welter of claims made by Pakistani security sources about Rauf, who is being interrogated by British and Pakistani agents in Rawalpindi.

The sources believe Rauf went to Afghanistan twice, where he made contact with senior Al Qaeda commanders. They also say he visited the border city of Quettain, where Taliban and Al Qaeda have a heavy presence.

They believe that at least seven of the suspects in custody in Britain travelled to Pakistan while planning the bombings.

Rauf left for Pakistan four years ago after another uncle was stabbed to death in Birmingham following an alleged dispute over an arranged marriage.

Meanwhile, Rauf�s 54-year-old father Abdul was held at Islamabad airport as he tried to leave the country yesterday.

He was involved in setting up Ilford-based Crescent Relief, which is being investigated by the CharityCommission over claims that money donated for victims of the Kashmir earthquake last October could have been diverted to extremist groups.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/print.html?in_article_id=401426&in_page_id=1770

The martyrdom videos were apparently of the people themselves, not someone else.
fair play,
but is it true?

fair play,
but is it true?

Wait and see; we'll all be gabing about it either way ;)

I've had a problem getting coke on board since 9/11.
I've had no problem... you just have to change the container. take it out of the can/bottle, and put it in your stomach. :D

I was being facitious.

There is no such thing as political debate any more. What we have is one side demonizing the other, always stretching the truth, sometimes outright lying.
agreed!

fair play,
but is it true?

What's more likely - that these people were plotting something, or that the government faked all that evidence?

What's more likely - that these people were plotting something, or that the government faked all that evidence?
I think it's all part of a marketing effort.

"Join Al-Quaida and get a free cell phone or personal computer."

as DK well knows no-one denyed there was a plot of sorts, but what is becoming evident to all is that this attack was nowhere near imminent.

most of those charged had no passports. how were they getting on the planes?

the dynamic behind the immediacy of the arrests came from evidence acquired under torture.

the cia acknowledge they pressured the brits to act before they wanted to.

why did the fuzz in london decide on the unprecedented step of releasing all the information? because sod all brits believe them and seriously arkward questions are being asked. they have gotten it wrong so many times recently.

its no coincdence that all the blind faith in the met to have sprung an immediate bombing are the most virulent anti-arab posters such as DK and meath street.

What's more likely - that these people were plotting something, or that the government faked all that evidence?

its more likely the british estblishment have overreacted to at worst an embroynic plot and at best a hoax.

you see in europe we question authority. you should try it sometime

I think it's all part of a marketing effort.

"Join Al-Quaida and get a free cell phone or personal computer."
what! The 74 Virgins offer is over?!? :eek:

as DK well knows no-one denyed there was a plot of sorts, but what is becoming evident to all is that this attack was nowhere near imminent.

most of those charged had no passports. how were they getting on the planes?

the dynamic behind the immediacy of the arrests came from evidence acquired under torture.

the cia acknowledge they pressured the brits to act before they wanted to.

why did the fuzz in london decide on the unprecedented step of releasing all the information? because sod all brits believe them and seriously arkward questions are being asked. they have gotten it wrong so many times recently.

its no coincdence that all the blind faith in the met to have sprung an immediate bombing are the most virulent anti-arab posters such as DK and meath street.

Have you thought for a minute that this time, they didn't get it wrong - that they have the evidence in hand, and are putting some out because of critics like you?

First you say, "there's no evidence" and then when some is proffered, you say, "it's wrong" or "it's fake" or "it was never real".

By the way, it doesn't have to be an "immediate" bombing to arrest them. It's called conspiracy to commit murder.

Are you not glad that they were stopped? Or do you think they should have waited until the planes were actually blown to bits, and the government could then be castigated for failing to prevent the disaster. What should the government then do? Comb the sea for bits of bodies, and prosecute the remains of the bombers?

Have you thought for a minute that this time, they didn't get it wrong - that they have the evidence in hand, and are putting some out because of critics like you?

First you say, "there's no evidence" and then when some is proffered, you say, "it's wrong" or "it's fake" or "it was never real".

By the way, it doesn't have to be an "immediate" bombing to arrest them. It's called conspiracy to commit murder.

Are you not glad that they were stopped? Or do you think they should have waited until the planes were actually blown to bits, and the government could then be castigated for failing to prevent the disaster. What should the government then do? Comb the sea for bits of bodies, and prosecute the remains of the bombers?

its not the job of the police to 'proffer' evidence. they are putting it out because there is zero public confidence in the uk about their intellegence and integrity on this issue. riacen plot? they were hoaxed and an innocent man got shot. remeber the brazilian they riddled with bullets and lied about the circumstances? we wont even bother going further back to the way the dealt with the Irish.

as it happens, there isnt a great deal of evidence yet. a suitcase found in a wood? even you know that aint standing up in court. files on a pc? not a lot after 10 months really, is it.

its not the job of the police to 'proffer' evidence. they are putting it out because there is zero public confidence in the uk about their intellegence and integrity on this issue. riacen plot? they were hoaxed and an innocent man got shot. remeber the brazilian they riddled with bullets and lied about the circumstances? we wont even bother going further back to the way the dealt with the Irish.

as it happens, there isnt a great deal of evidence yet. a suitcase found in a wood? even you know that aint standing up in court. files on a pc? not a lot after 10 months really, is it.

Apparently, there is a great deal of evidence that they aren't talking about in public. A lot of video and audio surveillance, emails, etc. You just wish there wasn't any evidence.

That, and one of the plotters confessed the plot in Pakistan, and named names. Oooh.

Why would a suitcase not stand up, if it has fingerprints on it? And why not files on a pc? Those are legal, admissible, good evidence.

Apparently, there is a great deal of evidence that they aren't talking about in public. A lot of video and audio surveillance, emails, etc. You just wish there wasn't any evidence.

That, and one of the plotters confessed the plot in Pakistan, and named names. Oooh.

Why would a suitcase not stand up, if it has fingerprints on it? And why not files on a pc? Those are legal, admissible, good evidence.

Suggest you read the article I posted above....

Suggest you read the article I posted above....
Suggest you read the one I posted.

Apparently, there is a great deal of evidence that they aren't talking about in public. A lot of video and audio surveillance, emails, etc. You just wish there wasn't any evidence.

That, and one of the plotters confessed the plot in Pakistan, and named names. Oooh.

Why would a suitcase not stand up, if it has fingerprints on it? And why not files on a pc? Those are legal, admissible, good evidence.


im not the one wishing here. the met started the process of releasing evidence, now they arent? :confused:

the man in pakistan 'confessed' under torture and serious questions, see the article above, are being asked about his bona fides as an al-queada man.

a suitcase may or may not have been found, it may or may not contain bomb making equipment that may or may not fit in with the theory of the plot.

thats all we know, despite your claims to have some inside track.


the normal human reaction is to hope the police shot their load to fast and this wasnt the imminent threat that was initially claimed. then there is yours. positvely praying there was! you are a strange man.

the man in pakistan 'confessed' under torture and serious questions, see the article above, are being asked about his bona fides as an al-queada man.


The Law Lords approved the use of torture. I posted the link in another thread yesterday.

Also, they did find evidence - your continuous repeating of "they may have found" won't change that fact.

Damn extremists. Now I can't bring coke on the airplane thanks to these asshats.
Yeah, it is all about the importance of you bringing a coke on an airplane. :rolleyes: Get over yourself.

The Law Lords approved the use of torture. I posted the link in another thread yesterday.

Also, they did find evidence - your continuous repeating of "they may have found" won't change that fact.

the police claim they found evidence.

you are one arrogent fucker to totally ignore the rule of law and the courts when it suits you. a judge and jury decide if its evidence, not you!

do you fins nothing strange about the whole investegation and subsequent unprecedented act of briefing the press. they have given these guys a serious loophole of prejudicing a jury. genius.

the police claim they found evidence.

you are one arrogent fucker to totally ignore the rule of law and the courts when it suits you. a judge and jury decide if its evidence, not you!

do you fins nothing strange about the whole investegation and subsequent unprecedented act of briefing the press. they have given these guys a serious loophole of prejudicing a jury. genius.

No, it's evidence before the judge and jury get it.

They decide whether or not it's relevant, tainted, or true.

It's still evidence.

And, I doubt it prejudices the jury. There are plenty of people like you who will absolutely disbelieve all the evidence, no matter how much there is, and no matter how real and valid it is.

The Law Lords approved the use of torture. I posted the link in another thread yesterday.

Hold on a second:

"UK law does not, under any interpretation, allow torture or people to be transported to places where they will be tortured. The Law Lords, in the same judgment in which they said the Government could use the fruits of torture to prevent mass murder, insisted that no evidence obtained by it could be admissible in a British court."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11571089#post11571089post11571089

Hold on a second:

"UK law does not, under any interpretation, allow torture or people to be transported to places where they will be tortured. The Law Lords, in the same judgment in which they said the Government could use the fruits of torture to prevent mass murder, insisted that no evidence obtained by it could be admissible in a British court."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11571089#post11571089post11571089


You forgot this:
A curious ambivalence runs through official, and non-official, reactions to torture. Everyone is relieved if a terrorist plot is foiled, and most people think it would be wrong if the Government refused to act on life-saving information, even if the intelligence might have been obtained by torture.

The Law Lords gave sanction to that reaction last December, when they ruled that the Government and its agents are entitled to use intelligence obtained by inflicting pain to frustrate terrorist attacks. One of their lordships summed it up succinctly: the Government "cannot be expected to close its eyes to information [obtained by torture] at the price of endangering the lives of its own citizens. Moral repugnance at torture does not require this".

No, it's evidence before the judge and jury get it.

They decide whether or not it's relevant, tainted, or true.

It's still evidence.

And, I doubt it prejudices the jury. There are plenty of people like you who will absolutely disbelieve all the evidence, no matter how much there is, and no matter how real and valid it is.

as opposed to foaming bigots like you who actively want to believe the worst?

you have no inside track and no way of knowing how long that suitcase has been there and whats in it.

you didnt answer any of my points re the polices appaling record in fighting terrorism and their strange way of handling this.

or the lack of passports.

or the use of torture.

or the allegations the torture victim was not who they thought he was.

you didnt answer any of my points re the polices appaling record in fighting terrorism and their strange way of handling this.

Nothing strange about it at all, considering the critics like you who, if they didn't proffer evidence in public (as opposed to in court), would demand the immediate release of the suspects.

Must have been good evidence, because it was enough to allow the magistrates to proceed with charges. If there was zero evidence, they would not have had probable cause to proceed with charges.

You're the one in the dark. Prove that the police have no evidence. Go ahead - it's your assertion.

Nothing strange about it at all, considering the critics like you who, if they didn't proffer evidence in public (as opposed to in court), would demand the immediate release of the suspects.

Must have been good evidence, because it was enough to allow the magistrates to proceed with charges. If there was zero evidence, they would not have had probable cause to proceed with charges.

You're the one in the dark. Prove that the police have no evidence. Go ahead - it's your assertion.

its not my assertion you clown. you know you have the right beaten when the start putting words in your mouth.

im saying this 'plot' does not justify the massive reaction we have seen in airports.

im saying the english police have an appaling record recently with stitching up innocents and generally getting it wrong on the terror front.

im saying that until i hear more than selective leaks i will assume they are spinning.

im saying i find it worrying and suspicious that the police potentially scuppered a trial with the unique press conference they had yesterday and that doesnt fit with the threat level issued initially

im saying while there are clearly questions and probably charges to to be answered by this group there was no way in the wide earth these guys could our would have blown up transatlantic flights within 10 days.

im saying you need to learn how to think for yourself

its not my assertion you clown. you know you have the right beaten when the start putting words in your mouth.
Wrong again.

im saying this 'plot' does not justify the massive reaction we have seen in airports.
Why not? Do you have all the evidence to prove that it doesn't? Go ahead and prove it.

im saying the english police have an appaling record recently with stitching up innocents and generally getting it wrong on the terror front.
And they've never gotten it right? Oooh. Prove it. Prove that they are wrong right now. Show me the evidence you have that their evidence is all fake, bogus, or missing.

im saying that until i hear more than selective leaks i will assume they are spinning.
And if they hadn't said anything, you would have said there was no evidence, and demanded the release of the suspects.

im saying i find it worrying and suspicious that the police potentially scuppered a trial with the unique press conference they had yesterday and that doesnt fit with the threat level issued initially
Maybe they haven't released all the evidence to the public - if they did, you would complain that it scuppered the trial, and if they don't you claim the suspects should be released and the threat level reduced.

im saying while there are clearly questions and probably charges to to be answered by this group there was no way in the wide earth these guys could our would have blown up transatlantic flights within 10 days.
Prove it.

im saying you need to learn how to think for yourself
I am, and I do. Obviously, you knee jerk into believing that when police say nothing, they have no evidence, and if they do say something, they shouldn't have said it. Perhaps you also believe that everyone in prison is innocent, because they all say that.

No, it's evidence before the judge and jury get it.

They decide whether or not it's relevant, tainted, or true.

It's still evidence.

And, I doubt it prejudices the jury. There are plenty of people like you who will absolutely disbelieve all the evidence, no matter how much there is, and no matter how real and valid it is.
Everything needs to be taken into account. Are they guilty? Who knows, but the possibility of a long investigation going down the tubes certainly does exist:

Then we have the following comment from Craig Murray. Craig Murray was Tony Blair's ambassador to Uzbekistan whose internal memo complaining about evidence procured by out-sourced torture created a flap a while back. He is skeptical. Money quote:

The Alleged UK Terror Plot (http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html)

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth ...

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why?

as opposed to foaming bigots like you who actively want to believe the worst?

you have no inside track and no way of knowing how long that suitcase has been there and whats in it.

you didnt answer any of my points re the polices appaling record in fighting terrorism and their strange way of handling this.

or the lack of passports.

or the use of torture.

or the allegations the torture victim was not who they thought he was.

Assume, just hypothetically, that there was a plot, and there _is_ evidence of it, as the police and security sevices say.

If I was in an organisation that was planning an attack on a plane, I wouldn't bother with a real passport - I'd consider the possibility I was being tracked, and would not tip my hand by applying for a real one, just get a fake.

If I was in charge of the police's media division, I'd understand the importance of reassuring the public after highprofile failures that by offering limited briefings about what evidence had been found, anxious to reinforce the fact that this was not another screwup. It does represent a departure to the normal way the police handles these things, but conventions evolve, after all. I'm not saying I'd do it, but I'd understand the thinking behind it.

The use of torture, even by a 3rd party, can't be condoned at all; if indeed that's exactly what happened. As it represents only one strand of evidence though, even if the evidence garnered this way proves to be false, it doesn't invalidate the other strands of evidence.

Regarding the timing of the police action - I agree, it seems premature. But I think we're oversimplifying the situation by saying 'oh, they should have waited...'. It's like the First World War; we have the enormous luxery of criticising the generals then from a posiition of safety, with perfect hindsight, and following the generation of new military theory as well as practise. At the time, they were learning as they went along, under constant threats and pressure, required to generate new methods of dealing with new problems; not surprisingly, they screwed up royally a lot.

Our security sevices have similar problems and learning curves to contend with, with the added disadvantage that every fault is immediately reported and never forgiven.

crap.

DK, i used to talk to my father like that when i was 15. prove negatives? you are the one backing up a discredited force, the onus of proof is on you

there are significant questions to be answered here regardless of how advanced the plot was, and you have ignored every single one of them because your racism towords arabs blinds you to the fact that the met appear to have screwed up here. again.

are you honestly trying to tell me you actually believe these students were likely to have commited the act they are alledged to have been plotting in the timeframe we were told?

do you not find it a bit worrying that a foreign power made the british state arrest these people before they had investegated things to their own satisfaction?

do you not think it bizarre that for the first time ever they went to the press despite clear legal advice that it might force a mistrial?

do you not accept the english fuzz's record against islamic terror is laughable?

the whole thing is a shambles because the police wont admit that they got the level of the threat wrong initially and scared the shit out of the travelling public and took millions out of the economy based on bullshit extracted via torture.

*funny*You're the one saying the evidence is bad, faked, or non-existent. You're the one saying the case is screwed up. Prove it.

You're not having to prove a negative. You have to prove the police are making this up.

Suggest you read the one I posted.

Weak but not unexpected...

Here is what you posted - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11582639&postcount=43

That, and one of the plotters confessed the plot in Pakistan, and named names. Oooh.

Posted elow my article from the Daily Mail (a righist newspaper) suggesting that the Pakistani Intelligence Services might have been a bit ... forthright, I might add.

Weak but not unexpected...

Here is what you posted - http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11582639&postcount=43

That, and one of the plotters confessed the plot in Pakistan, and named names. Oooh.

Posted elow my article from the Daily Mail (a righist newspaper) suggesting that the Pakistani Intelligence Services might have been a bit ... forthright, I might add.


Even if they don't have a confession from that person, they still have a LOT of evidence.

And we're in a quandary. If the police say nothing, and release no evidence, people like you and SR will say, "the police have no evidence, release the people at once!".

And if they release some to satisfy the demand, you'll say, "the evidence is prejudicing the jury pool".

Either way, it seems you want the case to fail. Either way.

Even if they don't have a confession from that person, they still have a LOT of evidence.

And we're in a quandary. If the police say nothing, and release no evidence, people like you and SR will say, "the police have no evidence, release the people at once!".

And if they release some to satisfy the demand, you'll say, "the evidence is prejudicing the jury pool".

Either way, it seems you want the case to fail. Either way.

Please state where I have said that I want the case to fail. Or that the police should release those people at once.

You have absolutely no idea what I think or what I want.

I will give you a life line though. I am not a brain dead moron who is willing to swallow every line the goverment gives me.

Out of the 700 odd arrests only 2 people have been convicted and sent to prison for terror offences. Forest Gate - Failure to convict, the Ricin Plot - Failure to Convict, Jean Charles de Menizes - extra juidicial execution.

Whats that saying Americans like to use? Fool me once...well done on you...fool me twice...its my fault...

All you are capable of...dispite your protestations is rehash talking points gleaned, seemingly, from some powerpoint presentation released by Rove.

Here is another clue. I have said always that during the Troubles when the police found evidence of a weapons cache or bomb making equipment it was on the news faster than you could say Matt Drudge.

Then you come up with And if they release some to satisfy the demand, you'll say, "the evidence is prejudicing the jury pool"

Bullshit.

You do not have a scooby do. Now fek off back to playschool where you belong you useless ignorant parroting toerag.

All you are capable of...dispite your protestations is rehash talking points gleaned, seemingly, from some powerpoint presentation released by Rove.

Once again, resorting to saying "talking points" when they can't prove the police are fucking up.

Once again, resorting to saying "talking points" when they can't prove the police are fucking up.

Thank you for proving my point.

Once again, resorting to saying "talking points" when they can't prove the police are fucking up.

you genuinely dont know the english polices previous when it comes to terrorism, do you?

the police have fucked up. they release too many details of the 'plot' and have seriously prejudiced any future trial. there is one right there.

LOL you are a real piece of work DK....

Please point out where I have stated the below...

And we're in a quandary. If the police say nothing, and release no evidence, people like you and SR will say, "the police have no evidence, release the people at once!".

And if they release some to satisfy the demand, you'll say, "the evidence is prejudicing the jury pool".

Either way, it seems you want the case to fail. Either way.

Or are you going to be weak and gutless and just ignore this?

I really am starting to wonder if you are nothing but a troll.

Everything needs to be taken into account. Are they guilty? Who knows, but the possibility of a long investigation going down the tubes certainly does exist:

Just stop with Craig Murray. He has serious credibilty issues and is privy to no more information than anyone else.

its more likely the british estblishment have overreacted to at worst an embroynic plot and at best a hoax.


So it's alright to 'hoax' terrorist plots of this magnitude. And if it is a hoax, we should all look terribly embarrased etc.

Please point out where I have stated the below...

And we're in a quandary. If the police say nothing, and release no evidence, people like you and SR will say, "the police have no evidence, release the people at once!".

And if they release some to satisfy the demand, you'll say, "the evidence is prejudicing the jury pool".

Either way, it seems you want the case to fail. Either way.


Easy. You and/or SR have said it was a big mistake to release evidence. And, at the same time, you and/or SR state that the police have no evidence - and, you have stated that you don't believe they have any real evidence, or that any evidence they have is fake, tainted, questionable, or irrelevant.

Logically it follows:

1. If the police release no evidence in advance, you'll say there's no evidence.
2. If the police release some evidence in advance, you'll say they are fucking up.
3. Any evidence you do see you will discredit immediately, based on your view of the police.

Read the whole thread - I can't link to every single one of your posts here.

Agree



It's bad for your teeth anyway. And it benefits the American economy, which is even worse.


I'll go out on a limb and guess Coca Cola benefits the economies of dozens of countries around the world.

Maybe even yours.

Bullshit.

You do not have a scooby do. Now fek off back to playschool where you belong you useless ignorant parroting toerag.

Brilliant summation. Are you resting your case?

Easy. You and/or SR have said it was a big mistake to release evidence. And, at the same time, you and/or SR state that the police have no evidence - and, you have stated that you don't believe they have any real evidence, or that any evidence they have is fake, tainted, questionable, or irrelevant.

Logically it follows:

1. If the police release no evidence in advance, you'll say there's no evidence.
2. If the police release some evidence in advance, you'll say they are fucking up.
3. Any evidence you do see you will discredit immediately, based on your view of the police.

Read the whole thread - I can't link to every single one of your posts here.

Oh dear how wrong you are.

Oh dear how wrong you are.
Then what would you say if they never said a thing before trial?

Would you say they had no evidence? Or would you wait quietly without saying anything?

Then what would you say if they never said a thing before trial?

Would you say they had no evidence? Or would you wait quietly without saying anything?

you have spectacularly missed the point.

why are they releasing evidence at all? its unheard of in britain.

swathes of the british public and even the right wing media smell rodent and are asking arkward questions.

a remand hearing lasting for an whole day? it goes on and on!!

bit DK is absolute in his belief that a corrupt and discredited police force couldnt be covering their arses after shutting airports unneccescarily a year after shooting an unarmed innocent man and trying to lie about it and a few months after being lied to and shooting another unarmed innocent.

because he really wants, no needs, 'the bad guys' to be constantly planning these atrocities to justify the filth and bile within him against 'arabs' and little things like presumption of innocence and facts are irrelevant. its pathetic how much he wants thousands to nearly have been killed

You missed the posts where people say that they'll have to let them go just like other cases, and their batshit conspiracy theory that Bush arranged this with the UK government to improve his ratings, etc. Other people in this thread have seen the same thing.

Yeah, I laughed my ass off at that thread. I dunno how people could be so stupid as to say there's an election in 90 days so this is a plot to get votes for Bush.

you genuinely dont know the english polices previous when it comes to terrorism, do you?

the police have fucked up. they release too many details of the 'plot' and have seriously prejudiced any future trial. there is one right there.

Yeah, MP John Reid did that this time though, saying they WERE terrorists and THEY HAVE done xyz before it going to trial. whether it's true or not he got slammed for doing it as it can't create a "fair trial" and if this is the case it CAN be thrown out of UK courts. I don't see it happening on this one though.

Yeah, I laughed my ass off at that thread. I dunno how people could be so stupid as to say there's an election in 90 days so this is a plot to get votes for Bush.

And Bush is not even running :D

Yeah, I laughed my ass off at that thread. I dunno how people could be so stupid as to say there's an election in 90 days so this is a plot to get votes for Bush.

Guess what...I agree with you.

Funnily enough I have never mentioned any crackpot theories.

Even funnier is peoples belief that I even agree with SR. If DK was able to read and remember I have repeatedly stated that during the Troubles the news would show footage of the weapons cache, bomb making kit ang the like. SR is stating otherwise.

Guess what...I agree with you.

Funnily enough I have never mentioned any crackpot theories.

Even funnier is peoples belief that I even agree with SR. If DK was able to read and remember I have repeatedly stated that during the Troubles the news would show footage of the weapons cache, bomb making kit ang the like. SR is stating otherwise.

After the arrest of that group of fools for planning to blow up the Sears Tower it is no wonder that people might be skeptical as to the actual danger of the plot. It seems this one is definately real however.

And Bush is not even running :D

Really! Now that makes the afformentioned thread even funnier!! :D

Guess what...I agree with you.

Funnily enough I have never mentioned any crackpot theories.

Even funnier is peoples belief that I even agree with SR. If DK was able to read and remember I have repeatedly stated that during the Troubles the news would show footage of the weapons cache, bomb making kit ang the like. SR is stating otherwise.

but they havent shown us the kit like they did with IRA stuff they captured, thats my point. we have been told that they found a suitcase that they cant confirm or deny contains explosives/explosive making equipment. but we havent seen it yet.

we are to totally trust the british security apparatus about the 'plot' at the moment.

After the arrest of that group of fools for planning to blow up the Sears Tower it is no wonder that people might be skeptical as to the actual danger of the plot. It seems this one is definately real however.

This taken into conjunction with draconian laws that this government has brought 'online' is making many people very nervous.

Basically we are losing many of our freedoms and we do not want to end up like the US.

Of course this will be interpreted as me being a lefty or a socialist. This is utter and complete tosh. I have little truck with Tony Blair and the old style Socialists as well. The same goes with the Tories. All three of these parties have been instrumental in turning this country into a near police state.

My oppostition to this government is not a question or left or right. It is abotu what kind of country we are. And this entire 'War on Terror' is bullshit. As bullshit as the 'War on Drugs'.

The one thing that Thatcher did was to understand that the way to beat terror is to remove its legitmacy. She removed the political aspect from the terror groups in the UK by criminalising them. They lost the 'political prisoner' status and therefore any moral ground. This is how the IRA and the Loyalists ended up at the table to discuss peace.

The 'War on Terror' is doing nothing but legitimising these people. We had a great chance to nip all this in the bud during the Balkans but guess who ballsed that one up? Again. And again.

My country was once viewed as a country with a success in multi-culturalism and as a beacon of decency and fair but hard play. Since the rise of 'easy politics' - our leaders taking the easiest short term 'solution', lying to us and ignoring due process and mocking jurisprudence, manipulating the media to the extent where a newspaper won an election (the Sun natch and the great Niel Kinnock light bulb story)...the failures of the police to convinct 'suspects' all this has now reached the point where people have no faith in the political process.

And people like DK are also a cause of this maliase as all people like him can do is parrot the latest talking points. Little thought is there...little understanding of the reality we are having to deal with. The 'with us or against us mentality' is as dangerous to us as the insanity of terror.

but they havent shown us the kit like they did with IRA stuff they captured, thats my point. we have been told that they found a suitcase that they cant confirm or deny contains explosives/explosive making equipment. but we havent seen it yet.

we are to totally trust the british security apparatus about the 'plot' at the moment.

You said they never showed kit mate...

Just stop with Craig Murray. He has serious credibilty issues and is privy to no more information than anyone else.
Please explain, and/or provide proof of your claim.

You said they never showed kit mate...

In this case....

In this case....

sorry mate -


why are they releasing evidence at all? its unheard of in britain.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11583329&postcount=75

sorry mate -


why are they releasing evidence at all? its unheard of in britain.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11583329&postcount=75

ok, i meant the manner in which the press have been briefed.

ok, i meant the manner in which the press have been briefed.

Now you've lost me....sorry if I am being thick here but I don't understand your point...

I have seen the media show footage of IRA/Loyalist weapons...

You have said that it is unheard of in the UK...

To me its pretty obvious that there is a difference between the two statements...

Unless, like I said, I am being really thick and missing something...