new anti terror laws proposed 22/2

#1
Charles Clark, the home secretary, has unveiled his new plans for anti terror laws. Lots of tagging, house-arrest and watching them.

What i want to know is if they are not uk citizens why dont we just deport/shoot, deport and then shoot them. If the intelligence but not evidence is there why cant we just send them out the country

if they are uk citizens, i think it is absurd that we have to let them ahve this liberty, they are a threat and these liberals want to let them go and cause the next 9/11 or madrid.
 
#2
Unfortunately, since we signed upto the european human rights charter, we cannot send a suspect back to a country where there is a chance of the suspect being tortured or killed. That sort of rules out half the planet! 8O

A_S
 
#3
eyee half these fecking countries support/fund them in the first place, get rid of them. If the government really thinks they are a danger we should not have them in this country or have them locked up where they can do no harm
 
#4
Agent_Smith said:
Unfortunately, since we signed upto the european human rights charter, we cannot send a suspect back to a country where there is a chance of the suspect being tortured or killed. That sort of rules out half the planet! 8O

A_S
This is something I don't understand. If they are fighting for a cause that is supported by at least one country/religious sect then there is no reason for them to be tortured or killed. Send them to any country that supports their ideals. Problem solved.
 
#5
Now what is concerning about the anti terror laws is that it proposes to subject people to house arrest without trial based upon there being some secret intelligence- meaning that even the detainee may not know why they are being put under arrest except for reasons of national security. I'm not saying it will happen, but there is possibillity for abuse.
 
#6
Again there is a subtext here: This legislation WILL be debated and FORCED through within the next TWO days. No matter what the house of commons and house of lords feels about this it will become law. Use of the parlimentry act is inevitable.

Government by knee jerk reaction.
 
#7
Why on earth is this ? terrorist going to get tortured or killed?

The chances are he will get a pat on the back for being a good little Infidel hater - defender of the faith, by the local government not killed!!!!

Lets face it half the terrorists are backed by there own goverments anyway!!!!!

If we are to stick to this pathetic hiuman rights law , then it should be up to the individual to prove he will be killed in his own country and should be detained at her pleasure until either he proves the point or is deported!!!

D.D. :evil: :evil:
 
#8
the only reason that there is no trial is that our laws say that evidence gained by the intelligence services is not alllowed in court, how else does one find stuff out about these people than to spy on them. we would also give away sources which is damaging long term and could comprimise the persons life. The government is worried about these people, good enough for me, get rid of them one way or another.
 
#9
wereRed is wrong.

Our law doesn't say you can't use int. as evidence. It's just that to protect the int. sources, it isn't generally used.

That means that the courts can't test the evidence, so you can't have a fair trial.

Therefore, this being the UK, for whose limited freedoms so many have died, the suspect can't be convicted.

if you want to live in a police state/terrorist enclave/dictatorship, you fill your boots. Heathrow is near London, mate, just follow the big planes and pi$$ off to turkestan or somwhere else where you will fit in.

Mind, the way things are going with this home secretary, the UK will turn into Turkestan soon enough, so maybe then you can stop whinging your mindless Sun reading drivel and give us all a day off.
 
#10
i am looking for a safe country to live in without fear of what may happen.
the media and government are very capable of over playing the threat to get people scared, but if something was, more likely is, to happen it will show who is right.
I for one would rather scrafice some "liberty" in this counrty if it means feeling that little bit safer.
IIs it not right to stop the problem before it becomes the problem. Let us remember Hitler, he was not stopped early and looked what happened. If we had dealt with him in the mid 1930's it would have stopped a lot of what went on afterwards. Let us remember history, and not let it happen again and take preventive measures against those that seek to hurt the west
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#11
johnojohnson said:
Again there is a subtext here: This legislation WILL be debated and FORCED through within the next TWO days. No matter what the house of commons and house of lords feels about this it will become law. Use of the parlimentry act is inevitable.

Government by knee jerk reaction.
Unfortunately Johno, I don't think is a knee-jerk reaction.

I believe that this type of legislation has been prepared for quite some time, and has been kept ready for an opportunity to enact it.

We should be proud to watch history in the making. The blatant removal of still more rights, paving the way for a future government to control the individual to an even greater extent than now.

It may be many things, but hasty, reactionary legislation ? I doubt it.
 
#12
Cutaway said:
johnojohnson said:
Again there is a subtext here: This legislation WILL be debated and FORCED through within the next TWO days. No matter what the house of commons and house of lords feels about this it will become law. Use of the parlimentry act is inevitable.

Government by knee jerk reaction.
Unfortunately Johno, I don't think is a knee-jerk reaction.

I believe that this type of legislation has been prepared for quite some time, and has been kept ready for an opportunity to enact it.

We should be proud to watch history in the making. The blatant removal of still more rights, paving the way for a future government to control the individual to an even greater extent than now.
I'll aggree with some of youre arguments (see italics) but I think this legislation is in response to the government having it's nose put out of joint when they were forced to release these "Suspects". Instead of looking closely at returning them to the country of origin they feel it necessary to remove some of our deminishing libities and keep these fcukers here in the UK.

JJ
 
#13
wereRedYourDead said:
I for one would rather scrafice some "liberty" in this counrty if it means feeling that little bit safer.
A People Who Would Sacrifice Liberty for Security Will Lose Both, and Deserve Neither

wereRed - this is how the salami-slicing of liberty has gone on over the last century. I cannot stress this enough.
 
#14
Cutaway is right, IMHO.

The thing to be scared of isn't the largely fictional terrorist - in the long run, it's the tendency of the current Govt (and of the only remotely credible replacements) to screw the lid down nice and tight on the public.

I am about as left wing as you can get in my personal politics, many of my friends are equally far to the right, but no - one I know (who bothers to think about these things) is easy in their mind about the direction of the State in this country, as Cutaway succinctly put it.

Scare stories - asylum seekers, immigration, the 'war' on drugs, the 'war' on terror - all seem to have a solution in Whitehall that somehow involves us knuckling under to government control in area after area. Scary.

And then, people like wereRedyourdead fall for it - going to somewhere safer, Red? I say again, Turkmenestan, or some other place where the despot in charge can have you boiled for wearing the wrong hat. Much safer than Blighty, eh, after all, you might get a traveller in your garden here, unless we all get ID cards.
 
#16
wereRedYourDead said:
i am looking for a safe country to live in without fear of what may happen.
the media and government are very capable of over playing the threat to get people scared, but if something was, more likely is, to happen it will show who is right.
I for one would rather scrafice some "liberty" in this counrty if it means feeling that little bit safer.
IIs it not right to stop the problem before it becomes the problem. Let us remember Hitler, he was not stopped early and looked what happened. If we had dealt with him in the mid 1930's it would have stopped a lot of what went on afterwards. Let us remember history, and not let it happen again and take preventive measures against those that seek to hurt the west
WereRed, just to let you know how "Safe" some countries you might like to go to are. This was spotted on the printed version of the TDT for today and lifted verbatim from the web site

Two-year-old nice betrothed

A Pakistani man who was found guilty of adultery by a village council has been ordered to betroth his two-year-old niece to the wronged husband.

Mohammed Akmal, 20, must also pay £2,300 to his mistress's husband, according to the decision of the panchayat in Kacha Chohan, 215 miles west of Multan in the Punjab.

The ruling, which effectively decides the destiny of a child's life before she is barely able to talk, was criticised by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan yesterday.

Betrothal of minors remains legal in Pakistan but Rashid Rahman, a lawyer with the commission, said the village council had no legal authority to make the ruling. "Nobody has the right to take a decision about a child's life."
 
#17
johnojohnson said:
Again there is a subtext here: This legislation WILL be debated and FORCED through within the next TWO days. No matter what the house of commons and house of lords feels about this it will become law. Use of the parlimentry act is inevitable.

Government by knee jerk reaction.
The Parliament Act cannot be invoked until the Commons passes something and the Lords rejects it twice. As that hasn't even happened once yet, it is going to be a long while yet before it becomes law, if at all. By that time, the chaps in Belmarsh will be long gone, each almost certainly carrying half a million pounds of our money in their pockets.
 
#18
Awol said:
johnojohnson said:
Again there is a subtext here: This legislation WILL be debated and FORCED through within the next TWO days. No matter what the house of commons and house of lords feels about this it will become law. Use of the parlimentry act is inevitable.

Government by knee jerk reaction.
The Parliament Act cannot be invoked until the Commons passes something and the Lords rejects it twice. As that hasn't even happened once yet, it is going to be a long while yet before it becomes law, if at all. By that time, the chaps in Belmarsh will be long gone, each almost certainly carrying half a million pounds of our money in their pockets.
Awol, you may well be right and I hope that both houses are sentient enough to see this legislation for what it is; a reduction on our liberties. But I won't hold my breath.
 
#19
the thing is i dont want ot leave here, i would just rather the security laws had that little bit more to prevent aything from happening.

again i say, is prevention not better than having to deal with the potential consequences.

If the government can prove that the ID card system WORKS, and that is a prob at the moment, i would have no problem with it. Much of europe all ready carry them and there is no government plot to control their lives there.
Those who have nothing to hide should have no problms with ID cards, the point of them is to stop breaches of our system which do happen all to often. If the systm is working properly, it seems a very simple one, carry a card and if anything happens, everybody knows who you are. would also cut the problem with all the various fake ones if there was ONE card and it could not be faked, hard to do but why not possible.
 

Cutaway

LE
Kit Reviewer
#20
wereRedYourDead said:
i am looking for a safe country to live in without fear of what may happen.
the media and government are very capable of over playing the threat to get people scared, but if something was, more likely is, to happen it will show who is right.
I for one would rather scrafice some "liberty" in this counrty if it means feeling that little bit safer.
IIs it not right to stop the problem before it becomes the problem. Let us remember Hitler, he was not stopped early and looked what happened. If we had dealt with him in the mid 1930's it would have stopped a lot of what went on afterwards. Let us remember history, and not let it happen again and take preventive measures against those that seek to hurt the west
You're not using joined-up thinking yet are you ?

Neither we, nor the German people, would not have stopped Hitler's rise to power by curtailing our or their rights.
Quite the opposite is true. Hitler brought in the restrictive laws, both against minorities and against the all German citizens.
It was Hitler who enacted the first complete registration of all privately owned firearms - if the people were disarmed they could not rise against him.

I'm sure young Adolf would have loved you !
Adolf Hitler said:
What luck for rulers that men do not think.
But Bliar follows the same mantra.

Adolf Hitler said:
The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a great lie than to a small one.

I'll leave you with a thought on the line in your post which I highlighted:

Benjamin Franklin said:
They that can sacrifice essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety will lose both and deserve neither.
(Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759)


Edited to add apologies for reposting the quote Stoatman used, I type very slowly.

No, on second thoughts the apologies are withdrawn. That statement can not be repeated too often !
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top