1st islamic terrorist plot in Ireland ? ?

irishconvert

Morlar wrote: »

So you are saying that there is glory for an islamist to slaughter not just any christian but an uppity cartoonist one ? Is that it ? What drivel are you babbling about here. Your attempts at defending these fúcktards is particularly offensive in my view. I put a jihad on you.

I am not defending them. If it is true that they plan to murder this cartoonist, (which has not been proven yet) then I condem what they plan to do.

I am attacking your sensationalism and using this opportunity as a stick to beat refugees with. It's reactions like this that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afganistan.

You have still not answered my question as to why we need a new law when there is already one in place.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know if we could legally deport people on that basis.
These guys have been granted refugee status, so are legally entitled to stay, so I'm not sure how (under what law) we could choose to deport them.

I don't know if we could even legally reopen their asylum cases (it may be that a subsequent act of terrorism is at odds with the evidence given in their cases). Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with them.

I think if you can grant something you can un-grant it too. If there is no law in place to allow for this then we need to make one. Fúck the EU of the liberal bleeding hearts if they have a problem with it.

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Does not back up what you are trying to imply,which is there is glory for a Muslim in slaughtering a Christian, any Christian. Simply not true and you will not find any proof to back it up.

From the qur'an.

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."

Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of killing Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).



Sura (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured enemy is not an act of self-defense.

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"



Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."


Theres more where that came from.

CptMackey

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

The problem with these "refugees" is they have more loyalty to some ejet sitting in a tent in Afghanistan, Yemen or where ever issuing fatwa's or jihads than they
have to their country, in this case Ireland.

So we should deport them as soon as the court case is over. Good luck and good riddance

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

I am not defending them. If it is true that they plan to murder this cartoonist, (which has not been proven yet) then I condem what they plan to do.

I am attacking your sensationalism and using this opportunity as a stick to beat refugees with. It's reactions like this that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Iraq and Afganistan.

You have still not answered my question as to why we need a new law when there is already one in place.

I am not equating 'refugees' with 'bloodthirsty islamists posing as refugees'.

These people have invalidated their rights to be welcomed here as refugees.

NO ONE is saying deport ALL refugees - just those who want to murder innocent christians for islamist/fanatical reasons.

If bloodthisrty zionist refugees were looking to murder innocent christians I would say the same about them I promise you.

Nodin

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

From the qur'an.(.....)

Theres more where that came from.

O look, our regular anti-semite and xenophobe has jumped on the bandwagon. What a shock.

ynotdu

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

Irishman You should quote some of the Old testament while You are at it!

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know if we could legally deport people on that basis.

Heres the criteria;

Revoking citizenship

The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform can revoke your certificate of naturalisation if:

• You obtained it through fraud, misrepresentation or concealment of material facts or circumstances
• You have, through an overt act, failed in your duty of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State
• You were ordinarily resident outside Ireland (other than in public service) for a continuous period of 7 years and, without a reasonable excuse, did not register your name and a declaration of your intention to retain Irish citizenship with an Irish diplomatic mission or consular office or with the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform on an annual basis
• You are also, under the law of a country at war with the State, a citizen of that country
• You have, by any other voluntary act other than marriage, acquired citizenship of another country.

Before revoking your certificate of naturalisation, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will inform you in advance, stating the reasons why the certificate is being revoked and your right to apply to the Minister for an inquiry into the reasons for the revocation. If you apply for an inquiry into a decision to revoke your certificate of naturalisation, the Minister will refer your case to a Committee of Inquiry, which will report its findings to the Minister. A notice of the revocation of your certificate of naturalisation will be published in Iris Oifigiúil (Ireland's official State Gazette).



http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/irish-citizenship/becoming_an_irish_citizen_through_naturalisation

Has a naturalised citizen ever had their citizenship revoked before?

Biggins

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I don't know if we could legally deport people on that basis.
These guys have been granted refugee status, so are legally entitled to stay, so I'm not sure how (under what law) we could choose to deport them.

I don't know if we could even legally reopen their asylum cases (it may be that a subsequent act of terrorism is at odds with the evidence given in their cases). Unfortunately, I think we're stuck with them.

Just as a legal question, when they were allowed sign as citizens of this country, did they sign to accept the laws of the state?
(Thus a possible responsive action for the breaking of such laws)

..and if such an agreement is not signed, why not?
Surely, because we don't know the background to new incomers, we should give them a "trial" period?
I know Canada's is seven years. New to the country for 7 years and SERIOUSLY (not minor stuff) break the law, you do your time and/or your chucked out on the first available flight.

irishconvert

Sigh. Is this out-of-context, inaccuratly translated selection of quotes somewhere in the boards anti-Muslim FAQ?

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

From the qur'an.

Sura (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the overall context of these verses is defensive war, however, there are two worrisome pieces to this passage. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution." The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah."

Sura (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Sura (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of killing Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').



Sura (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

Sura (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."



Sura (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage not only criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, but also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Qur'an, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad).



Sura (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Pursuing an injured enemy is not an act of self-defense.

Sura (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"



Sura (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."


Theres more where that came from.

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

ynotdu wrote: »

Irishman You should quote some of the Old testament while You are at it!

I will on the relevant thread.

Nodin

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

I will on the relevant thread.

That seems to be your get-out clause for everything....

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

Nodin wrote: »

That seems to be your get-out clause for everything....

Like you veering the thread off topic at any given opportunity?

dvpower

Morlar wrote: »

I think if you can grant something you can un-grant it too. If there is no law in place to allow for this then we need to make one. Fúck the EU of the liberal bleeding hearts if they have a problem with it.

I'm not so sure that we can. Refugee status is an international standard and we've signed up to it. This ties us to applying a standard on how we apply refugee status and how we deal with refugees.

We could leave the convention if we wanted to, but I can't see that thats on the cards.

Nodin

Not at all. If these people have committed an offense they should be charged, and if they've breached the terms of their grant of refugee status they should go. I don't think anyone here has suggested otherwise.

I just wouldn't want to see this thread be hijacked by those with perhaps darker agendas.......

wes

A terrible and senseless plot, if found guilty, I hope those responsible are put away for a long time.

Biggins

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not so sure that we can. Refugee status is an international standard and we've signed up to it. This ties us to applying a standard on how we apply refugee status and how we deal with refugees.

We could leave the convention if we wanted to, but I can't see that thats on the cards.

I know I'm being picky but when has this government actually followed "rules" to the letter and not bended them at times to their own convenience?

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not so sure that we can. Refugee status is an international standard and we've signed up to it. This ties us to applying a standard on how we apply refugee status and how we deal with refugees.

With respect, I think you are wrong.

Revocation of a declaration as a refugee

The Minister for Justice may decide to revoke a declaration as a refugee, in circumstances, where a refugee:

• Voluntarily re-avails of the protection of the country of his/her nationality
• Voluntarily reacquires his/her lost nationality
• Acquires a new nationality (other than the nationality of the State) and enjoys the protection of the country of his/her own nationality
• Voluntarily re-establishes himself or herself in the country, which he/she left or outside which he/she remained owing to fear of persecution
• Can no longer continue to refuse to avail of the protection of the country of his/her nationality because the circumstances that led to him/her being recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist
• Is a person who has no nationality and who is able to return to the country of his/her former habitual residence because the circumstances that led to him/her being recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist
• Is a person whose presence in the State poses a threat to national security or public policy or
• Is a person to whom a declaration as a refugee has been given on the basis of information furnished to the Refugee Applications Commissioner or the Refugee Appeals Tribunal, which was false or misleading.

Where the Minister for Justice proposes to revoke a declaration, the person concerned will be notified and will have 15 working days from the issue of the notification to make representations to the Minister for Justice. In cases where the Minister for Justice decides to revoke a declaration, the person concerned will have 15 working days from the sending of the notice containing the decision and the reasons for it to appeal to the High Court.





http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/moving-country/asylum-seekers-and-refugees/the-asylum-process-in-ireland/minister_for_justice

irishconvert

wes wrote: »

A terrible and senseless plot, if found guilty, I hope those responsible are put away for a long time.

Agreed.

And if found innocent, I hope they get the same amount of publicity to help clear their name.

dvpower

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

Heres the criteria;
Revoking citizenship

[...]

Has a naturalised citizen ever had their citizenship revoked before?

These guys are refugees, not citizens.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I'm not so sure that we can. Refugee status is an international standard and we've signed up to it. This ties us to applying a standard on how we apply refugee status and how we deal with refugees.

We could leave the convention if we wanted to, but I can't see that thats on the cards.

If America and Australia can deport islamist terrorists (or any kind of refugee terrorists) & it is obviously in our national interests to have that ability also then if we need to un-sign up to a convention to achieve that then I am all for it.

irishconvert

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

With respect, I think you are wrong.

Revocation of a declaration as a refugee

The Minister for Justice may decide to revoke a declaration as a refugee, in circumstances, where a refugee:

...snip...
• Is a person whose presence in the State poses a threat to national security or public policy or

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

ynotdu

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

I will on the relevant thread.

nice try but since the clash of Cultures and religions has run through the thread You could at least Selectivly quoted from BOTH.or none at all.

Biggins

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

Is "public policy" not another word for common law?
If they broke it, they pay the price?

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

Or public policy ie murder attempts.:rolleyes:

irishconvert

Biggins wrote: »

Is "public policy" not another word for common law?
If they broke it, they pay the price?

Doesn't sound like it to me, but then again I am not an expert in trying to deport refugees. Perhaps you could exaplin it to us if you know any more?

fontanalis

irishconvert wrote: »

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

But people who are prepared to kill somone because they think their imaginary friend got insulted are dangerous.

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

These guys are refugees, not citizens.

Please see post 120. According to the article, some were naturalised Irish citizens.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

No it's not lol.

Biggins

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Doesn't sound like it to me, but then again I am not an expert in trying to deport refugees. Perhaps you could explain it to us if you know any more?

I guess this old duffer (me) will just have to try and read the words as they are written.
Thank god I went to school to be able to understand them. I have a sneaking suspicion what "public policy" is.
What do you think it is?

irishconvert

fontanalis wrote: »

But people who are prepared to kill somone because they think their imaginary friend got insulted are dangerous.

Whatever you opinion about the existance of God/Allah, Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) is not imaginary and did exist, plenty of historical evidence to back that up.

I agree that someone who wants to kill someone over a cartoon is dangerous.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree that someone who wants to kill someone over a cartoon is dangerous.

Welcome to the club.

dvpower

Morlar wrote: »

If America and Australia can deport islamist terrorists (or any kind of refugee terrorists) & it is obviously in our national interests to have that ability also then if we need to un-sign up to a convention to achieve that then I am all for it.

I not sure that its true that America and Australia can deport refugees. (I'd be interested in knowing more about this; the same regulations might be useful for us).

I don't think you'd get much support for Ireland opting out of the Convention on Refugees. We would be the only western country to be out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugeeconvention.PNG

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Doesn't sound like it to me, but then again I am not an expert in trying to deport refugees.

These refugees allegedly attempted to kill a catoonist for drawing a picture. Please stop trying to gain sympathy for the retrobates.

irishconvert

Morlar wrote: »

Welcome to the club.

Nobody is in disagreement over that. I just have a problem with people linking Islam to terrorism all the time and using looneys such as these guys (assuming they are convicted) as an excuse to try to paint all Muslims as terrorists or crazies.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I not sure that its true that America and Australia can deport refugees. (I'd be interested in knowing more about this; the same regulations might be useful for us).

I don't think you'd get much support for Ireland opting out of the Convention on Refugees. We would be the only western country to be out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugeeconvention.PNG

Well if we can be the first to make smoking in public places illegal within europe then I don't see why we can't blaze a trail on this issue too.

BennyLava

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

I agree that someone who wants to kill someone over a cartoon is dangerous.

and if found guilty (and I stress the word if) would you as an Irish citizen and a Muslim support their deportation to their countries of origin

irishconvert

IrishManSaipan wrote: »

These refugees allegedly attempted to kill a catoonist for drawing a picture.

So if convicted, put them in jail like anyone else. Why the drama and scaremongering?

Please stop trying to gain sympathy for the retrobates.

Not what I'm trying to do at all.

irishconvert

BennyLava wrote: »

and if found guilty (and I stress the word if) would you as an Irish citizen and a Muslim support their deportation to their countries of origin

Depends on if they will be punished in their home country. If not, they should be put in jail here.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

I just have a problem with people linking Islam to terrorism all the time and using looneys such as these guys (assuming they are convicted) as an excuse to try to paint all Muslims as terrorists or crazies.

I think you willl find the people doing the linking are the islamist terrorists. No one in the media has invented islamist terrorism. Short of not reporting on it what do you expect ? If there is a pattern of repeated instances across europe then this is because it's a factor in european life - it's not artificial or invented or blown out of proportion. The media are not ignoring any other forms of terrorism prevalent in europe or the west at the moment in order to focus exclusively on islamist terrorist/wackjobs.

IrishManSaipan

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

dvpower wrote: »

I not sure that its true that America and Australia can deport refugees. (I'd be interested in knowing more about this; the same regulations might be useful for us).

I don't think you'd get much support for Ireland opting out of the Convention on Refugees. We would be the only western country to be out of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Refugeeconvention.PNG

The UK can, why cant we?

Revocation of refugee status.

-having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime he constitutes danger to the community of the United Kingdom.

http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/asylumpolicyinstructions/apis/cessation.pdf?view=Binary

2.3.1 in the document.

SWL

irishconvert wrote: »

Bit of a leap to link a plot to murder some guy in Scandanvia to being a thread to Irish national security. lol

Another apologist for mindless murder of innocent people, because their special friend was in a cartoon, it is a crime in the Irish state to plot to murder someone even if they reside in another state. Irish national security is best served without these people, citizenship should be revoked at once and let them live in a society that suits their beliefs, the problem is Muslim want it both ways, you can't have it both ways

BennyLava

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

Depends on if they will be punished in their home country. If not, they should be put in jail here.

and if put in Jail here, after they have finished their sentence, do you think they should be allowed to stay in the country?

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

irishconvert wrote: »

So if convicted, put them in jail like anyone else. Why the drama and scaremongering?

Not what I'm trying to do at all.

Throughout this thread you have used terms like 'hysteria', 'drama', 'scaremongering' and other terms to try to deflect and undermine legitimate concerns of Irish people.

It's nothing of the sort to say that as they are refugees here on our charity then by planning to murder innocent people for islamist ideals they have undermined their right to our charity. We should therefore deport their asses far back to wherever the hell they are from. That way the next lot may think twice. Or at the least this lot if convicted when released in a few short years will no longer be a threat to our security. That's not hysterical, drama scaremongering or anything of the sort as you well know.

ynotdu

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

Morlar wrote: »

Welcome to the club.

Morlar You seem to be determined to make little of those who don't agree with You.
Intolerence is a dangerous thing......................

the keen edge

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

What we need is a "Gang bang for Peace". So if there are any hot, any female islamic fundamentalist active services unit or sleeper cell groups, in the west of Ireland who are tried of all this warmongering, and would just like to fu*k instead, please PM me so we can come together and take those brave first steps to peace.

I'am willing to wear a burkka as a sex aid to add to the romance. Although as I'am pretty ugly, the wearing of it by me in fact be necessary for you to climax.

Morlar

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

ynotdu wrote: »

Morlar You seem to be determined to make little of those who don't agree with You.
Intolerence is a dangerous thing......................

Yes, yes I am so intolerant I support butchering anyone who dares make a cartoon or piece of art I don't like. That's me !!

SWL

Morlar wrote: »

Throughout this thread you have used terms like 'hysteria', 'drama', 'scaremongering' and other terms to try to deflect and undermine legitimate concerns of Irish people.

It's nothing of the sort to say that as they are refugees here on our charity then by planning to murder innocent people for islamist ideals they have undermined their right to our charity. We should therefore deport their asses far back to wherever the hell they are from. That way the next lot may think twice. Or at the least this lot if convicted when released in a few short years will no longer be a threat to our security. That's not hysterical, drama scaremongering or anything of the sort as you well know.

+1, next he will accuse you of not been very christian.

Biggins

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

There is high "value" in awarding people citizenship. If we allow anyone that is up for application for this prestigious gift, to break the law SERIOUSLY in their waiting intervening period - and stay, we de-value our own state and the honour of being an Irish citizen.
An "Irish citizen" status till recently was very highly regarded!

What, they are only coming in the door of our state and they are taking the piss out of our laws?
Sorry, but they can do a u-turn and get the hell out again!

ynotdu

No - they should be allowed to stay even if guilty

SWL wrote: »

Another apologist for mindless murder of innocent people, because their special friend was in a cartoon, it is a crime in the Irish state to plot to murder someone even if they reside in another state. Irish national security is best served without these people, citizenship should be revoked at once and let them live in a society that suits their beliefs, the problem is Muslim want it both ways, you can't have it both ways

Wait for the trial,if there is enough evidence to have one!

That's My default answer to those who have already convicted the people arrested today!