terrorism bill

[greg]

the new terrorism bill will outlaw 'glorifying terrorism'

In theory the invasion of Iraq could be classified as exactly that.

 

[greg]

In the UK you are innocent until proven guilty. That applies to suspected terrorists just as much as anyone else. The police locking someone up for what they think that someone might do is rather horrifying Orwellian prospect.

Michael.

It's a balance of liberty vs security. More of one means less of the other these days. Depending how I look at it I might fancy more of either on any given day. IMO it's an almost impossible task to devise policies which balance these poles and it's an easy task to heckle from the sidelines.

 

[michaelab]

It's a balance of liberty vs security

The balance we have now and which we've had for at least the last 100 years or so seems to have worked very well IMO and I don't see why terrorism should suddenly be seen as such a threat that it's necessary to change the balance. It wasn't when the IRA were in full swing so why now?

Michael.

 

[Stereo Mic]

Because the threat is potentially greater?

This is a new breed of terrorism. Surely Mike you would not disagree with that?

Also the IRA had clearly defined "legitimate targets" for the majority of the campaigns and generally issued warnings. It was a totally different threat, but even allowing for this, the government was able to gain powers in the terrorism act following the Birmingham bombings.

 

[michaelab]

I would disagree. I don't think there's anything fundamentally new or more threatening about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism than IRA terrorism.

 

[Stereo Mic]

See the edits above Michael. I think you are being somewhat selective.

 

[greg]

The balance we have now and which we've had for at least the last 100 years or so seems to have worked very well IMO and I don't see why terrorism should suddenly be seen as such a threat that it's necessary to change the balance. It wasn't when the IRA were in full swing so why now?

Michael.

The IRA were not really much of a threat and the prospect of the use of a nuclear, chemical or bio attack by the IRA was non-existant. Things have changed and we are IMO effectively witnessing a kind of WW3. The threat is real, but equally I think the police have asked for 90 days for no real formal reason other than more is better. I think it will probably be passed in the bill amended to 28 days.

 

[greg]

I would disagree. I don't think there's anything fundamentally new or more threatening about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism than IRA terrorism.

Oh come one Michael you're being stubborn.

 

[michaelab]

No, not really. OK, I'll admit the threat/danger is worse but not an order of magnitude worse. Not so much worse that the rules of the game need to be altered. Talking of the terrorist threat in terms of WW3 is just blowing things completely out of proportion. The US and UK governments are whipping up a frenzy of completely irrational fear about terrorism to allow them to push through draconian freedom reducing measures that are completely unnecessary. Did you see the Power of Nightmares documentary series? It showed just how much this "unprecedented threat" has been grossly overstated.

It's saddening to see that so many people have been taken in and that as a result the terrorist have pretty much already won

Michael.

 

[bottleneck]

Our tube bombings werent as bad (to my mind) as the likes of Canary Wharf, and certainly didnt display the sheer callousness of bombings like Enniskillen.

I dont think its as bad now as the worst we had from the IRA, not by a long way.

Keeping people without prosecution for 3 months is only a stones throw away from Guantanimo Bay.

 

[auric]

Keeping people without prosecution for 3 months is only a stones throw away from Guantanimo Bay.

Don't quite think so;
Rendition vs Habeas Corpus & judicial reviews.

If the police can not finish their investigation into a suspect (bomber or not) within the existing time limit but feel that allowing that person back onto the streets will not allow them to collect enough facts to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other what are they to do?

A person can be released with strict conditions attacked such as no access to phones, computer, tagging, reporting to police as and when which looks a lot like house arrest or they can be held by the police and the holding subjected to judicial review as required by the law and safeguarded by the act of Habeas Corpus. This I feel can by no stretch of the immagination be considered in the same breath as being held without trial and as long as Habeas Corpus is still in operation then I feel I must support the proposed changes to the law.

The safeguard offered by Habeas Corpus is in direct contrast with the safeguards offered by the process of Rendition (see warning) and thought to be favoured by the CIA.

 

[bottleneck]

If the police can not finish their investigation into a suspect (bomber or not) within the existing time limit but feel that allowing that person back onto the streets will not allow them to collect enough facts to arrive at a conclusion one way or the other what are they to do?

They can apply for an extension.

I cant remember the exact figure, but they can exten up to a few weeks at present without pressing charges.

They can also remove internet access, phone calls and other such devices of a suspect if they can show it is necessary.

I'd also raise the question, if you're going to bring a suspect into a police station, you've pretty much blown the chances of getting evidence on him/her - evidence will dissapear as quickly as his compatriots can make it happen once they realize where he/she has been taken.

Im not at all convinced this request has come from the grass roots of policing and is what the police force really need to beat terrorism.

I feel tackling the severe shortfall in police numbers in most parts of the country and moving away from what appears to be a strategy to take away regional policing by making a smaller number of stations cover a bigger area would be better methods of tackling rising crime.

 

[7_V]

The complexities of the London Underground and transport system make it difficult for foreigners to understand, thank goodness. Therefore it seems likely that any terrorist strikes would be by people living in the UK.

I don't know how many there are who are prepared to blow themselves up in the cause of total delusion but I'd guess that this is the weakest link in the terrorist network. I'm sure that there are many extremists overseas who would be happy to arrange attacks if they had willing mules. These people have no qualms whatsoever about launching attacks even worse in terror, frequency and magnitude than Canary Wharf or Enniskillen. The attack on the World Trade Centre comes to mind.

For once I'm glad that Blair & co. are in charge of our defence rather than people who rely on the truth of a theory put forward by a BBC documentary. That would really give me nightmares.

Regards
Steve

 

[greg]

No, not really. OK, I'll admit the threat/danger is worse but not an order of magnitude worse. Not so much worse that the rules of the game need to be altered. Talking of the terrorist threat in terms of WW3 is just blowing things completely out of proportion. The US and UK governments are whipping up a frenzy of completely irrational fear about terrorism to allow them to push through draconian freedom reducing measures that are completely unnecessary. Did you see the Power of Nightmares documentary series? It showed just how much this "unprecedented threat" has been grossly overstated.

It's saddening to see that so many people have been taken in and that as a result the terrorist have pretty much already won

Michael.

Yes I did see Power of Nightmares and Fahrenheit 9/11, etc, etc. Personally I take a critical view of the industry of fear created by and supportive of the US and to some extent the UK government. Though I also take a critical view of the industry of cynicism too (entertaining as it is). To suggest you are informed and imply I and others are overly fearful due to a lack of information is at best naive and at worst patronising.

The potential that exists in terms of extremity and severity in Islamist terrorism is enormously worse than that threat presented by the IRA. Simply the weapon of suicide bombing is several degrees worse due to the difficulty in preventing it.

Why is the concept of an existing WW3 silly? New wars always take a form unlike those before it and a form that could not have been predicted. What if WW3, instead of being an inter-continetal nuclear war (as we expected when we were kids) turned out to be a very very long, very sporadic world-wide battle between Nations and Religious (ie. non-national) terrorists. Of course I'm in no way suggesting this type of war is comparable in terms of lives lost or societies decimated regards WW1 or WW2, but a single chem bio or nuclear incident in a western city will change our society forever and may put into perspective what I am saying. Personally I expect this type of WMD incident to be inevitable in the next 10 years.

The use of encryption and the internet for the exchange of secret information makes planning and execution of this type of large incident far more likely. The IRA were a clearly identifiable organisation with clear geographic allegance and very clearly understood objectives and objections. Islamist terrorism is a different animal in terms of geography, means and objectives and has already shown a much greater determination and ambition than the IRA could ever have aspired to.

I am a liberal at heart, but having worked on a project for the Emergency Planning agency I heard enough commentary during meetings with Home Office staff to convince me the apparent threat is a real one, albeit one which is being played quite carefully by the UK Gov to its advantage.

Just take the callous horror of the Madrid bombings, incidents like that and of course the bombings and planned bombings in London will substantially undermine our society if the are allowed to happen. I see absolutely no evidence that taking a liberal approach will somehow appease the Islamist who wants to attack Western targets and I see plenty of evidence that such terrorists will attack soft targets in order to spread fear and terror.

I do believe new measures are required, though I also fear that new measures will be abused by the Police - there is already plenty of evidence that certain Police forces are exploiting the recently implemented anti-terror meaures simply to stop and search people without cause for suspicion. Its easy to read the Observer and John Pilger and Michael Moore (things I do too) and then take the ultra cynical view having no responsibilities or causes to make decisions (something I dont do).

 

[Uncle Ants]

It's a balance of liberty vs security. More of one means less of the other these days. Depending how I look at it I might fancy more of either on any given day. IMO it's an almost impossible task to devise policies which balance these poles and it's an easy task to heckle from the sidelines.

Hmm. Well that's an argument usually used by those hell bent on removing civil liberties and repeated by those who haven't thought too hard about it. Its fallacious of course.

We've had one devastating attack and one thankfully bodged attack. Neither of which would have been prevented one bit by the new legislation. To argue that its one or the other ignores the fact that ... well ... it ISN'T one or the other.

 

[greg]

Hmm. Well that's an argument usually used by those hell bent on removing civil liberties and repeated by those who haven't thought too hard about it. Its fallacious of course.

You clearly havent thought too hard about it. How is it perjorative to suggest it's an impossible task to find a balance? If you read my comment more carefully and think a little harder about it you'd spot that I'm ambivolent.

We've had one devastating attack and one thankfully bodged attack. Neither of which would have been prevented one bit by the new legislation. To argue that its one or the other ignores the fact that ... well ... it ISN'T one or the other.

I quite agree taking these events as examples, I also accept that the Madrid bombings make a poor case for ID cards. However there have been a stream of planned attacks which have been prevented. Though taking your sceptical view these are all of course fiction.

Edited to link to this

 

[Uncle Ants]

You clearly havent thought too hard about it. How is it perjorative to suggest it's an impossible task to find a balance? If you read my comment more carefully and think a little harder about it you'd spot that I'm ambivolent.

I quite agree taking these events as examples, I also accept that the Madrid bombings make a poor case for ID cards. However there have been a stream of planned attacks which have been prevented. Though taking your sceptical view these are all of course fiction.

Edited to link to this

I wasn't being pejorative, I was merely suggesting that you think a bit further when its suggested that the only way to be secure is to erode your civil liberties. Nor did I suggest that a balance wasn't possible. I was saying that it has been a favourite argument of authoritarian governments through history. The Reichstag fire being the most obvious example (and no I'm not suggesting the government are Nazis or that the threat is faked).

This stream of planned and prevented attacks, which I have no reason to believe are not real were not prevented by partial suspension of habeus corpus. Clearly this is the case as the the bill hasn't been passed yet.

Same is true of the Australian example you mentioned.

I suspect given these powers, you will soon find them being used in situations for which the government currently claims they are not intended.

 

[greg]

I wasn't being pejorative,

No I was referring to where you suggested my point that it's an issue of liberty vs security and the difficulty of striking a balance was falacious, I was saying I cant see why. I think striking a balance is almost impossible because there will always be valid arguments against any balance struck from one side or another.

I was merely suggesting that you think a bit further when i suggested that the only way to be secure is to erode your civil liberties.

Who is suggesting it is the only measure, there are countless other measures being utilised already. I personally dont agree 90 days is a fair balance, I'm yet to see evidence which supports it, yet I can appreciate that if terror suspects are caught, the necessary forensics (circumstantial, financial and encrypted data) may take considerable time to complete. Do you not, for example, see the proposed rolling 7 day judicial review as any kind of safeguard? This would surely also make it difficult to apply this legislation willy nilly (I love that term).

I was saying that it has been a favourite argument of authoritarian governments through history. The Reichstag fire being the most obvious example (and no I'm not suggesting the government are Nazis or that the threat is faked).

Yes that's true and trying to get the facts amongst the scare stories is difficult. There is little doubt that a society which can focus upon a bogeyman i a more ordered and generally more easily controlled one. The second and third Crusades (possibly one of the original causes of our current predicament) were a case in point.

This stream of planned and prevented attacks, which I have no reason to believe are not real were not prevented by partial suspension of habeus corpus. Same is true of the Australian example you mentioned.

I can see your point regards the attacks/planned attacks at hand, but the possibility that associates of the culprits could be traced and arrested and through proper investigation they could then reveal further associates you suddenly make progress in breaking the back of an organisation. I love your happy go lucky approach that someone somewhere in GCHQ or otherwise is just keeping it all at bay on your behalf - no worries.

I suspect given these powers, you will soon find them being used in situations for which the government currently claims they are not intended.

Of course that's the fear and I share your fear.

 

[GTM]

Michael I am less concerned about the supposed erosion of my civil rights than I am about using public transport in the capital. I'm sure a number of people are. I am even less concerned about the civil rights of suspected terrorists.

Well in that case you might just as well invite the terrorists in to our country to turn it in to an islamic state, as you have essentially given up the fight for our way of life.


We went to war in 1939 to defend our freedoms in this country. People died. Why are we now so afraid of casualties in this current war? what price do you put on our way of life?? why are people so willing to give up our freedoms as a nation and society at the drop of a hat for the sake of a loss of a few individuals?


GTM

 

[GTM]

Any loss of civil liberties is extremely sad and is, in itself, a victory for the terrorists but it would be irresponsible of parliament not to recognise the special threat that terrorism represents and the difficulty the police and intelligence services have in analysing today's digital information, particularly as the police have specifically asked for 90 days.

Steve M

The answer is very simple. Make it an offence not to give up the cyphers to any encrypted files on computers owned by you. In that way the police would have an offence with which to hold and convict people who impeded their investigation. There is absolutely no need to bring in new legislation to enable the police to hold people without charge for longer.

Anyway, the head of the met is the last person I would be listening to for advice. I read recently that he would like to extend the police powers of shoot to kill to stalker and hostage situations !! Those are not the thoughts of a rational man IMO. The man is quite clearly an authoritarian despot.

GTM