From: "George J. Sherwood" 

Adam wrote:

> Eee's a pol mate. I'd hate to think pols would need to be convicted in a
> democracy.

Seems they should have to be before you start talking about their guilt in
crimes of corruption.  It is a good thing your politicians are so perfect
in the UK.  I would hate to think your foreign service people talking about
anti-corruptions drives without being 100% perfect.


> Interesting that you think it's OK to bang people up w/o trial, proof or
> even due process & yet you seem to think that a pol should get all that
> in spades before he can be even judged by public opinion.
> I'm quite happy to have either approach so long as there is some
> consistency.

Please show me where I have said this is okay.  He is being judged by
public opinion. IMO, this is why he is getting out, I really don't know
what he is or isn't guilty of yet.

>
> In fact the executive banging up pols for an indeterminate term w/o
> trial, proof or due process is something many would welcome but on the
> off chance you think that's a bit harsh (& possibly even against the
> legal & moral traditions of your country) then extending due process etc
> to accused terrorists would be second best.

Terrorist are being treated IAW with the accords that apply to them.  If
you want to apply to them all the rights of a British citizen then are
welcome to do so.

George

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5