greg
Its a G thing
In theory the invasion of Iraq could be classified as exactly that.julian2002 said:the new terrorism bill will outlaw 'glorifying terrorism'
In theory the invasion of Iraq could be classified as exactly that.julian2002 said:the new terrorism bill will outlaw 'glorifying terrorism'
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 said: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.
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?It's a balance of liberty vs security
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.michaelab said: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.
Oh come one Michael you're being stubborn.michaelab said:I would disagree. I don't think there's anything fundamentally new or more threatening about fundamentalist Islamic terrorism than IRA terrorism.
Don't quite think so;Keeping people without prosecution for 3 months is only a stones throw away from Guantanimo Bay.
auric said: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?
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.michaelab said: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.
greg said: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.
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.Uncle Ants said: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.
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.Uncle Ants said: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 said: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
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.Uncle Ants said:I wasn't being pejorative,
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).Uncle Ants said: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.
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.Uncle Ants said: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).
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.Uncle Ants said: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.
Of course that's the fear and I share your fear.Uncle Ants said:I suspect given these powers, you will soon find them being used in situations for which the government currently claims they are not intended.
Stereo Mic said: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.
7_V said: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