Lock you up and throw away the key?

[ QUOTE ]
Never before have we had to face wave after wave of young suicide bombers...
...No government is going to purposely misuse the new powers because our system allows us to vote them out...

[/ QUOTE ]
Forgive me but I'm not sure if the above is a wind up?
 
Missing numbers

Curious that missing from your list appears to be the numbers of gunshot injuries and deaths in US.
Another piece of "knee jerk" removal of civil liberties type legislation was enabled after Dunblane and Hungerford.
Now either it worked or similer events using legally owned firearms are rife but being kept out of the Daily Wail...by the secret police perhaps. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
>But the point is that the terrorist threat is not like ordinary crime which is dealt with by the courts, not least because a terrorist suspect may not have committed any crime yet.

Surely preparing to murder someone is already a crime in itself, even in the UK? So they don't have to wait for the bomb to explode anyway.
 
Re: ah but then again

Important I think to separate out the system from the principles.

The fundamental principle underlying British Judice is that all men are innocent until proved guilty.

This is supported by the priciple that it is better that 7 guilty men walk free than one innocent man should lose his liberty.

That is why the burden in any criminal case is that the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt.

This legislation flys in the face of these principles

Further it seems that the government will not accept any limit on the duration of these extraordinary powers.

We are asked to approve of this on the basis of "intelligence" from the same source who brought us WMD that don't exist, failed to mention an invasion of Falklands - which did exist and was run for many years by agents of the major country they were supposed to protect us from. HArdly a promising CV

A further point is that it simply will not work.

We have tried internment without trial in Ulster. Different in a legal sense but same effect.

The result was that IRA recruitment increased and terrorism continued unabated. In fact it got worse following the famous hunger strike, perhaps another version of the suicide bomber. Certainly Bobby Sands and Co did more harm to the British cause in Ulster with their deaths than they ever did during their lives.

I can see no reason why Al Qaeda should not achieve similar results.

The fact is that we are vulnerable to terrorists. Every country is. The advantage is always with the terrorist, particularly if they are prepared to die for their cause, as many are.

The Virt Cong were terrorists, and were quite prepared to die in the cause, they used the bicyle bomb as a suicide weapon on many occasions, and despite years of being subject to enormous firepower they won.

The only way to overcome the terrorist is to remove the cause. This is not to say surrender to them but to recognise their cause and address it. I would quote the Malaya campaign as perhaps the best example. Where Communist terrorists were exploiting the appaling living conditions of most people to instigate a political change. By addressing the living conditions, setting up hospitals etc (and giving the CTs a good kicking) the army was able to drive a wedge between the terrorists and their support base - the result Malaysia, a prosperous and democratic(ish) country.

We will not defeat Al Qaeda by increasingly draconian legislation such as this incompetant crew of a government want. We must recognise the issues as seen by the potential recruits and then act politically to marginalise UBL and his crowd to the point where they are deprived of the support they rely upon. At that point there will be little difficulty presenting evidence in the normal way and locking them away where they belong.

You may say a soft mamby-pamby approach - but look at whats happened in Ireland over the last few weeks, where the family of a man murdered by IRA members refused their offer to murder the murderers, and insisted on true justice. Those are the people and others like them who defeat terrorism.
 
The problem is that this is a very slow evolution. Maybe when people finally realise that the government has gone too far, they don't have the power to change it any more.

Still, I don't think this is a real danger right now. But it is also true that there is a trend of increasing control legislation all over Europe and the US and that it is very handy to use a terrorist threat to push it through. But all these laws are not terrorist related at all. Some are related to "personal safety", some are to secure "intellectual property" (file sharing comes as an example). But there is one thing all this has in common and that is that it decreases individual freedom.

And be aware that this is not at all national issues. There is currently a terrorist law debate in Sweden also (mainly has to do with phone tapping), and I am sure in many other countries. There was an EU official on TV this evening who said basically exactly the same thing that some have expressed in this thread. (I wonder if they would change their mind if they realised how pro EU they'd become....).
 
[ QUOTE ]
The people who die daily in Iraq

To imagine that extremist forces are not trying to attack the UK is naive at best.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem unable to reconcile these 2 statements. People are dying in Iraq because they are an occupied country and we are one of the resented occupying powers. The insurgents now see themselves as freedom fighters. The days when they may have thanked us for a regime change are long over. Which makes it highly likely that they would wish to strike back at us here in the UK.

If your answer to this is to lie down and surrender the very civil freedoms we hold precious then I cannot think of a better way of signalling that we are a nation of cowards who can be attacked with impunity.

And you never answered my question. How on earth do you think this new legislation will prevent an attack such as Madrid?
 
Re: ah but then again

Well put Bergman

A nice, intelligent, reasoned argument.

For those who still think that this legislation is a good idea, tonights news shows that it is being very much watered down, and if these 11 people in Belmarsh are really such a threat, then either arrest them or deport them. Obviously they are a unique kind of criminal in that 'someone' knows they are guilty, but mysteriously there's absolutely no evidence.
I still maintain that the terrorist threat is no different to when the IRA were blowing the hell out of us every weekend, and is probably alot less. Certainly the economic disruption is less, given the IRA regularly managed to close roads and railways with massive disruption. I also maintain that this is political posturing. If this really was such a problem then it would have been dealt with instead of the fox hunting 3 months ago. As it wasn't, it means that its not really a problem, more a political exercise.
And for those who think that I'm 'blair bashing' I would campaign against anyone who tried to implement this draconian legislation, whatever their poltical leanings.
 
It's worse than that, though.

The proposal isn't "on balance of probability". Rather, the evidential requirement is "reasonable suspicion".

In other words, "probably not, but just maybe, so we'll lock you up, not tell you why, and prevent you from telling anyone that we've done any of this".

It's a free country. Or it was once. Maybe.
 
[ QUOTE ]
>Surely preparing to murder someone is already a crime in itself, even in the UK? So they don't have to wait for the bomb to explode anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, preparing to murder someone isn't in itself a crime in the UK. Conspiring with others to do so however is a crime (= conspiracy). And actually attempting to murder someone is a crime (= attempted murder). Or murdering them (= murder /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif) 'tho interestingly there isn't actually any act of parliament that says that it's illegal to murder anyone.
 
Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it that only 5 (?) countries out of about 200 world wide, have a terrorist problem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only country I can think of that doesn't have a terrorist problem is Lichtenstein, but not sure how things stand in Switzerland? /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
>No, preparing to murder someone isn't in itself a crime in the UK.

Interesting. What about "preparing a dangerous demolition". Sorry about the bad term, it's just a direct translation. But you see my point probably.

Don't know really what the difference is between preparing to murder and conspiracy? The latter needs at least two people? Or can you conspire by yourself? If yes this would then be what I mean by preparation (and can't find a better translation of the Swedish word "förberedelse").

Example. If you gather a few items that can be used to make a bomb, get a chart of the area around a military base, steal a rubber dinghy with an outboard and potter around there suspiciously a few nights then you could be arrested and tried (and convicted if the evidence was strong enough). Could that not be done today with Britsh law? In that case you would need no terrorist act but only sharpen the usual criminal ones somewhat?
 
[ QUOTE ]
>What about "preparing a dangerous demolition". Don't know really what the difference is between preparing to murder and conspiracy? The latter needs at least two people? Or can you conspire by yourself? If yes this would then be what I mean by preparation (and can't find a better translation of the Swedish word "förberedelse").

Example. If you gather a few items that can be used to make a bomb, get a chart of the area around a military base, steal a rubber dinghy with an outboard and potter around there suspiciously a few nights then you could be arrested and tried (and convicted if the evidence was strong enough). Could that not be done today with Britsh law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, to have a conspiracy you need more than one people. Doing the things you describe only involves incidental illegalities: eg. stealing the dinghy is a crime! Pottering around suspiciously is the relatively minor offence of "loitering with intent". Carrying an offensive weapon is also a crime, and a bomb is an offensive weapon. Posession of some explosive materials may be illegal without a licence. Obviously if you made the bomb with others it would be conspiracy. Maybe there are some new crimes introduced under recent anti-terrorist legislation that I don't know about. But merely intending to murder someone, even taking steps towards it (without conspiring with others), isn't a crime.

There are all sorts of people that I have felt like murdering in my life, but haven't yet been locked up for it.
 
I think most people care more about the fundamental issue at stake than "their 'rant' over Blair et al".
___________________________________________________

"Now try to explain the hysterical language to the 2000 victims of the twin towers
The victims of the Spanish train explosions
The people who die daily in Iraq"

These people were not given the luxury of chosing death in the name of freedom or life!
Why not canvass the victims? Oh, I forgot, they no longer have a voice!

The freedom of staying alive is the prime fundamental issue here surely, with freedom of choice/speech the desirable (but secondary) icing on the cake.
If this or any future government go feral, we would still have the opportunity to redress the situation. Victims of terrorist atrocities seldom have that option.
 
Thank you all for your thoughts. It's quite clear that the overwhelming majority of views (with one or two notable exceptions) do not support the government on this issue. One thing we all agree on however, is that none of us want to see people killed by terrorists. Unfortunately I don't think this bill will stop that from happening. Let's hope the politicians, as daft as many of them appear to be, eventually come up with a more intelligent, realistic and workable solution that actually addresses the problem.
 
Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

>>>
No country has ever won a terrist war, in the bush wars, one terrorist keppt 20 regular soldiers busy, neither side could win.
>>>

Britain, Malaysia.

It can be done, but require political will as well as "hearts and minds"

I strongly suspect that studies, on a cost/benefit basis, have been done as to the possible final result, for world peace/security, or turning the Middle East into a continuous area of 1m deep radioactive glass.

So far it seems that the benefits are outweighed by the costs.

If those who oppose Israel really want the US to change its policy they would need to make offers along the lines of "free oil for ten years":-)
 
Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

[ QUOTE ]
I strongly suspect that studies, on a cost/benefit basis, have been done as to the possible final result, for world peace/security, or turning the Middle East into a continuous area of 1m deep radioactive glass.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand that allied planners in Iraq are expressly prohibited from carrying out "worse case scenario" planning. The reason being that it might create a scandal if it were to be leaked that any plan exists that admits the possibility of defeat.
 
Right then , lets ban alcohol coz you cant have drunk drivers without alcohol.
Lets ban motorised vechicles so you cant have car smashes.
Lets ban electricity so you cant get electrocuted
Better ban work too....lok at all those industrial accidents
HMMMMMMMMMMM!!
 
IRA were terrorists!

The only way to overcome the terrorist is to remove the cause.!!!!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always believed that the IRA were a form of freedom fighters and, notwithstanding the present problems, there had to be a dialog to sort the problem and the cause had to be removed.

Muslim extremists - extremists are fighting a religious war - like Badder Mijnhoff - they seek to disrupt and destroy our society - the new problem is that it is a world problem - The difference with this problem is that there are no limits to the level of destruction and murder.

In the past the IRA - Basque terrorists et AL had a political agenda and tried to keep their activities withing certain limits.

Muslim extremists know no such boundaries - if they can kill a thousand, a million then that is fine because all Christians are bad - non believers - better dead. And they can do it. The Atom bomb in Piccadilly (Manchester or London) is a reality - not a work of fiction -

I find it extraordinary that people on this forum think there is some dark plot by our government to become dictators - overthrow the rule of law - create a state in which all human rights are disenfranchised - Why? Why what would be the point - At a time when a general election is close it would be politically expedient to try to not do anything controversial. It takes courage and honesty to do things to try to keep us safe when they know the opposition will take every opportunity to politicize actions which are intended to fight a new and terrible form of terrorism that knows no boundaries.
 
Re: IRA were terrorists!

How do you justify IRA freedom fighters blowing up two pubs used by teenagers ?
The only difference between a terrorist, and a freedom fighter is if you are on there side, or the other.

Brian
 
Right then , lets ban alcohol coz you cant have drunk drivers without alcohol.
Lets ban motorised vechicles so you cant have car smashes.
Lets ban electricity so you cant get electrocuted
Better ban work too....lok at all those industrial accidents
HMMMMMMMMMMM!!
___________________________________________________

Few drivers drunk or otherwise, deliberately go out with the intention of killing & maiming a victim!
Similarly electricity users & industrial accidents, are caused by neglect and/or accident (an unforeseen incident), not intent.

Terrorists have the sole intention of causing death, injury, mayhem, so that the media & potential victims (us) give them a publicity platform which justifies (?) these vile acts!

Hardly the same surely.

Even then, according to this latest crop, doing so in order to reach Paradise - which if it exists (a land of available virgins, milk & honey) is being done for purely selfish reasons! Fanatics - yes! but hardly describable as an act of a brave freedom fighter however its dressed up in pseudo-religious cant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top