Forum Topic

Andrew Michael John Atkinson · 12/09/2008 13:35:00

new.EalingToday.co.uk Communtity Forum Topic posting

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 9/11

Should this low life be granted his wish to become a martyr by facing execution......or should he rot in prison?"Terror defendants are all desperate to be 'martyrs'The self-styled mastermind of the 9/11 attacks said yesterday he wants to plead guilty.Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who claims he planned the atrocity "from A to Z", and four co-defendants made the request in a note to a judge.It read: "We all five request an immediate hearing to announce our confessions... without being under any kind of pressure, threat or intimidation."If their guilty pleas were accepted the men would certainly face the death penalty.Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was a member of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization, although he lived in Kuwait rather than Afghanistan, heading al-Qaeda's propaganda operations from sometime around 1999. According to the 9/11 Commission Report he was "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks". He is also thought to have had, or has confessed to, a role in many of the most significant terrorist plots over the last twenty years, including the World Trade Center 1993 bombings, the Operation Bojinka plot, an aborted 2002 attack on Los Angeles' U.S. Bank Tower, the Bali nightclub bombings, the failed bombing of American Airlines Flight 63, the Millennium Plot, and the murder of Daniel Pearl.

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6504d38 Comments

Well I would rather the latter - I wonder what the relatives of those murdered think of his death wish or would they rather see him and the others rot in prison?Is it an automatic death sentence or will the judiciary be able to choose?Did anyone see an example on the news last night the use of Waterboarding (I believe on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other suspects) to extract information from them.

Diane Gill ● 6504d

Let the punishment fit the criminal.Life imprisonment on a diet of pork and Bud?

Graham Weeks ● 6504d

Too good for the scumbag.

Penny Crocker ● 6504d

Should be endless reruns of Friends and other Us sitcoms.....on loudspeaker......forever.......

Penny Crocker ● 6504d

A life of pork and bud.... WHERE DO I SIGN UP???Death should not be imposed on these people. In putting them to death they get exactly what they want. By imposing life in prison the government is sending out a clear message. If you kill and maim we wont make a martyr of you.

Andy Wright ● 6503d

Pork Belly with Puy Lentils.....Yummy

Diane Gill ● 6503d

Transcript of the trial can be found athttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_03_07_mohammed_transcript.pdf

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6503d

He said he wanted to die. Life sustained only by unclean food and drink might be fitting retribution.

Graham Weeks ● 6503d

is this subject really appropriate for a forum on Ealing matters?

Robin Hall ● 6503d

Probably not, but this particular forum is not exclusively about Ealing matters.

Alan Brainsby ● 6503d

Ealing matters..surely an oxymoron.Have a rant on THE thread Robin if you feel strongly about the loss of parochialism.

bobby osborne ● 6503d

Anyway it's nice to spice things up a bit every so often!

Diane Gill ● 6502d

is this subject really appropriate for a forum on Ealing matters?Yes! What would you rather......that we sweep it under the carpet and then it will go away. Had you not noticed that there is an alleged terrorist in your midst?

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6502d

"is this subject really appropriate for a forum on Ealing matters?"How about "Where can I eat genuine sushi in Ealing" very interesing, I must say!

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6502d

This is probably of no relevance either...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/3722449/Home-Secretary-Jacqui-Smith-claims-Britain-faces-Zimbabwe-immigration-influx.html

Alan Brainsby ● 6501d

Jacqui Smith is said to fear that Zimbabweans desperate to flee the cholera outbreak and Robert Mugabe's regime, are buying false passports in neighbouring countries, where visas are not required for travel to Britain, before heading here.Alan.....now it is possible that we could now possibly be exposed to Cholera, as if we don't have enough problems controlling MRSA and clostridium difficile when going into hospital...........anyone know where I can get a decent sushi, cholera could not possibly hit Gentle Ealing could it?

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6501d

Cholera couldn't hit ... Ealing.I don't think we'd ever be told - only to boil all tap water before drinking, washing, etc. God knows what to do with dish-washered stuff.It would probably be best to go out and get our sushi now.I wonder if there is a civil contingency plan?It also begs the question about tuberculosis which has been steadily increasing from 1993. I seem to remember reading in the local newspaper in the 1960s the incidence of notifiable diseases each month. Is that list still done now?

Alan Brainsby ● 6501d

It also begs the question about tuberculosis which has been steadily increasing from 1993. I seem to remember reading in the local newspaper in the 1960s the incidence of notifiable diseases each month. Is that list still done now? There is now I believe, another strain of TB that does not respond to any of the known antibiotics, and yes Alan it is still a notifiable disease, I believe it is to the local PCT, however I don't know if there is a list though, but if their isn't there ought to be!

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6501d

Multi-drug resistant (MDR) tuberculosis is the nasty one.It seems most new cases in London are sub-Saharan and south-asian in origin. These of course are the reported cases.What the incidence would be if illegal aliens were included could make fascinating reading.

Alan Brainsby ● 6501d

Talking of illegals, was not a certain Brazilian shot in Stockwell an illegal?

Graham Weeks ● 6500d

Yes.According to a report the Daily Telegraph at the time the Home Office said that his passport contained an extension of stay stamp which they did not recognize. Says it all.

Alan Brainsby ● 6500d

AlanAs horrifying as it was for his family,and my sympathy goes to them. However the hangers on who seem to get involved in these cases, when they can rubbish the police are the people who won't let the matter rest and will use every opportunity to degenerate the police for their own agenda.An ex firearms officer has stated that when confronted by a suspected terrorist, a warning is not, and should not be given, as it gives him/her time to detonate the device. People seem to forget, that at the time the police particularly, were on red alert, and it was soon after the tragedy when 52 people were killed and nearly 200 injured by a terrorist suicide bomber, yes mistakes were made and there are lessons to be learned, nothing will bring this young man back. We are lucky to have the finest police force in the world, and many are killed in the execution of their duty. You could say that the blame for the Menenes killing lies with the extremist terrorists, some of whom are having curry's especially ordered for them in prison whining about their Human Rights, while the firearms officers are being hung out to dry!WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered by a shot in the back by a Libyan, who apparently had diplomatic immunity. I don't recall any HR lawyers speaking out for her or her family, their families don't know whether their husband or a close relative will come back home. These three brave officers gave their lives protecting us:1983 WPC Jane Philippa Arbuthnot Sgt Noel Joseph Lane Insp Stephen John Dodd The three officers died from multiple injuries received while investigating a suspected terrorist car bomb in Knightsbridge when the device exploded.Remember they too got no warning!!

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6500d

Yes Jean Charles was an illegal. Just before his visa ran out he spent 3 months in france. He then decided to re-enter the UK via Ireland. In doing it that way he was automatically guaranteed another 3 months stay. Basically he played the system. He was shot and killed here AFTER his right to stay had ended.

Andy Wright ● 6500d

Regarding shooting a bomber the Met police told the Manchester police that they were wrong to have tazered a suspected bomber as the tazer shock could have detonated a bomb.As I understand it Menezes was running away from uniformed police. It would have been somewhat different had they been not so attired.And what would the outcome have been had he been a bomber and they had let him escape?

Alan Brainsby ● 6500d

And what would the outcome have been had he been a bomber and they had let him escape?AlanThe anti police brigade would be shouting from the roof tops "What an incompetent lot they are" damned if they do, damned if they don't. In the current climate of determined suicide bomber terrorist it will almost certainly happen again, that is if the armed police haven't handed in their weapons.........God forbid!

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6500d

Re cholera could not possibly hit Gentle Ealing could it? xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx well bearing in mind we have a TB rate higher than most third world countries, HiV among the highest in the country, plus we already have a high number of immigrants from the country in question,who will be a magnet for others, it seems a strong possibility,

Tony Price ● 6500d

Re However the hangers on who seem to get involved in these cases, when they can rubbish the police are the people who won't let the matter rest and will use every opportunity to degenerate the police for their own agenda. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and with fat fees paid for by us. One's sympathy must go to the family but also to the Policemen concerned, who after all were only doing their job and acting under orders. Imagine the outcome and outcry if de Menezes HAD been a terrorist. And if an english person were shot in Brazil, would that country have behaved as well as we have since the incident, towards the aggrieved family.

Tony Price ● 6500d

Am I alone in being tied of hearing de Menezes described as an "innocent Brazilian shot on the Tube"? He was an illegal immigrant, a law beaker. Yes he was not guilty of a capital offence. He was shot by mistake. His family deserve our sympathy but that is all. He contributed to his own demise by being where he should not have been. The family should not be receiving any payment from our taxes. Despite my large beard I fully support a shoot to kill policy against suspected suicide bombers, hollow bullets and all.

Graham Weeks ● 6499d

Richard Kerbaj in Tunis and Dominic Kennedy in London A man wanted by Interpol for his links to an alleged terrorist organisation has been advising Scotland Yard on countering Muslim extremism, a Times investigation has discovered. Mohamed Ali Harrath has been the subject of the Interpol red notice since 1992 because of his alleged activities in Tunisia, where he co-founded the Tunisian Islamic Front (FIT). How good is the intelligence services one might ask?

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6497d

Whoa, hold on a sec Rambo. Am I reading you right that you think its ok if someone is shot - not for any crime but because they should not be in the country? Are you really holding up one fact (he was here illegally) with another fact (he was not a terrorist and the police messed up pretty badly in identifying him as one) and concluding "fair enough, he got what was coming" ?Lets not get into the whole string of mess ups by the police: not correctly identifying him, letting him into the underground, was he a suspect, wasn't he, what do we do if he is suspect, follow him, shoot him, follow him as we let him into the most dangerous place possible for a real terrorist then shoot him (yes, the last one is best, no?).These are real issues of control and police management that are worthy of coverage & discussion. But they are not relevant to the concept I think we are developing - Mr M was guilty of breaking one law so it serves him right to get caught up in a botched (yup, that seems a fair adjective) police operation. Phew. That's a corker of a concept. I wonder if we might extend this concept to other situations now that we've got the ok? Guilty of one crime, say benefit fraud, so its ok to serve the punishment for another - dunno, say, genocide. Or littering. Its all a bit arbitrary but this will definately save money on court cases.Of course an alternative view might be that Mr M was innocent of any crime of terrorism. And was shot by the police on an operation to observe someone else. Yup, on reflection that's sounds a tiny bit more reasonable. Oh, one last thought. I guess many might agree that the duty of care a society owes to those on its shores are less for those here illegally than those here legally. I think I might. I just would not quite extend this lessening of a duty of care as far as is suggested in the previous post.

Alan Clark ● 6497d

Alan - An excellent summary of exactly how the thread has moved on...

Diane Gill ● 6497d

Someone's been learning from the rant thread. :)

Alan Brainsby ● 6497d

I am making one simple point. He was an illegal. If he had obeyed the law he would not have been there to be shot. NO COMPENSATION.

Graham Weeks ● 6497d

I am not in support or against the Police; it was a highly charged situation and I am sure they did all they should have done. I think the reason why he did flee was because he was an illegal but it is not a justification for the fact that he is dead. As far as I know that is the only 'crime' he committed.

Diane Gill ● 6496d

"I am not in support or against the Police; it was a highly charged situation and I am sure they did all they should have done."I have said this before, as tragic as it was, we have to remember, that this was at a time of extreme danger (post 7/7) yes, the police made mistakes, and hopefully have now addressed them to prevent a recurrence. Having said that, most of the blame should be laid firmly at the door of the extremists, who as we speak are planning further atrocities. It seems that many want an infallible police service, that will never happaen unfortunately. This applies to the armed forces as well, where our soldiers have been killed by "friendly" fire, it happens in these situations. I just wish that some of these lawyers (leeches?) involved in this high profile case, would spend some time on fighting for justice for our soldiers killed in action, but there is no kudos in that is there? It is time to move on......sad as that may sound. I read with interest, the following, which came about from the BBC Panorama programme!Taylor also refers to de Menezes' family in Gonzaga, Brazil. Apparently there is now a sign at the entrance to the village which bears the legend, "Land of Jean Charles de Menezes. Victim of terrorism in London. Here we value life." Thankfully, the de Menezes family never seem to have crossed the path of the Rio de Janeiro Police Department.There is a perfectly valid case to be made that JCDM was a victim of terrorism; not police terrorism, but the terrorism perpetrated the day before, in which, of course, he played no part. It was in the pursuit of the individuals responsible for those acts that SO19 killed him by mistake. His blood lies as much upon the hands of the Islamists as upon the hands of the Metropolitan Police.Amen

Andrew Michael John Atkinson ● 6496d

The simple point that in being in the UK illegally should prevent the victim from receiving compensation did not exactly shine through in the thread I responded to. The lack of the word 'compensation' might have had something to do with that. But now its better explained its worth considering.It sounds like a simple point but its a complex issue. Mr M was not here legally but it also true that he was also shot wrongly. This assumes we agree it is wrong to shoot people who pose no threat. It also assumes two wrongs do not make a right.If we also agree that the police could have handled this whole incident better (and at risk of promoting a blame / compensate culture) then it is not unreasonable to suggest that Mr M deserves some form of redress. This view assumes that while our nation's duty of care is less for people here illegally, than for our citizens, it does not mean there is no duty of care at all or any justification for refuting any responsibility for our actions. We executed an action, an action that had a real and disasterous impact, and so we have a responsibility - even if the person was not here legally.I guess this makes me think that our responsibility extends to some form of redress. And that this will most likely be a financial one. And that this should be less than if the person were here legally.

Alan Clark ● 6496d

Re I am not in support or against the Police; it was a highly charged situation xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx the Police on the spot could not win, as far as they were told, he was a terrorist and if they had not acted, the outcome could have been worse. So one has great sympathy for those policemen who were induced into killing someone, who as it transpires was not a terrorist and sadly was killed. The whole incident is cause for great concern from both sides.

Tony Price ● 6496d