If you have enough evidence to arrest someone you have enough evidence to put them on trial, whether it's for conspiracy to commit terrorist atrocities or aiding and abetting the perpetration of terrorist atrocities. Simply banging people up for unspecified periods of time on the flimsiest of evidence is no basis for a legal system.
I dont understand why some people seem to revel in the fact they know what others seem not to as though they have uncovered some great secret. In this case i mean Saddam in Iraq. America and britain, and probably others, armed him. Why does that mean that he should not be brought to account as appears to be the expectation here ? He was armed because he was performing a useful task for the west and he overstepped the mark because he misjudged the situation and would not then listen. He had to be brought back in line, simples. In case there is any doubt , the job he was doing was keeping Iran in check who are by far the biggest military threat in the area.
From the time I have spent in the US I can see how Funky came to the conclusions in post #69. It's a great country, especially if you have money, not so good if you dont. I spent most of my time in one of the more affluent states in the union but the place was pretty materialistic when compared to the UK. No convoluted 12 hp route to bike ownership though - with no bike riding experience you could simply go to the local DMV and add a motorcycle endorsement to your license, then pop down to the local Suzuki dealer and pick up a 'busa for zero dollars down and off you go, no helmet required. Only restrictions were no riding at night and not allowed on the interstates, both difficult to enforce as no identification required that you were a learner. Putting Darwin's theories to the test right there!
WTF does a "civilised" country allow this to happen, again and again? Tragedy in Newtown, USA. Regardless of any other consideration or factor, I do not understand why the right to own a gun (either for display, or to actively shoot a target/dear/squirrel or anything else) is considered more important than preventing the senseless murder of innocent children. Would anyone from the "gun lobby" or NRA like to add a constructive comment to this debate?
Obama's speech about the shootings was as wishy-washy as you'd expect, much wringing of hands but that's about it. You can guess what would happen if a black president tried to ban guns in the US, so it ain't ever going to happen. Tighter controls on ammo is the best option, but I've no idea how that could be implemented.
