I'm going to apologise for this in advance - two serious posts in one day - but it needs to be said.
I was driving home today and listening to the news. In the same bulletin was the story about Michael Stone being convicted for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie, and the updates on the 'war on terror'. A contrast struck me. It has taken two trials for Mr Stone to be convicted. Even after those two trials, he will live, albeit for three life sentences in prison. Osama bin Laden has not had one trial. The evidence against him is as shaky as that against Mr Stone. Does anyone in Britain, then, have the right to condemn him to death? Certainly not without a trial, certainly not one man, and certainly not with the likely fallout of civilian casualties.
I was driving home today and listening to the news. In the same bulletin was the story about Michael Stone being convicted for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell and the attempted murder of Josie, and the updates on the 'war on terror'. A contrast struck me. It has taken two trials for Mr Stone to be convicted. Even after those two trials, he will live, albeit for three life sentences in prison. Osama bin Laden has not had one trial. The evidence against him is as shaky as that against Mr Stone. Does anyone in Britain, then, have the right to condemn him to death? Certainly not without a trial, certainly not one man, and certainly not with the likely fallout of civilian casualties.
