NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4285835.stm

The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced new anti-terror laws today. The provisions include things like house arrest without trial and monitoring telephone calls and internet usage. Are the government right to introduce such measures, or have they got it gravely wrong?

who knows if the Commons will even pass it?

if they do, will the Lords?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4285835.stm

The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced new anti-terror laws today. The provisions include things like house arrest without trial and monitoring telephone calls and internet usage. Are the government right to introduce such measures, or have they got it gravely wrong?

I'm an American, so I won't give the UK any advice on how to run its affairs.

There are already substantial differences between America and the UK on individual rights (and not always in the ways that one might expect). I feel that the UK has arrived at its current state by democratic means, so if someone really doesn't like the new terror laws, they will find a way to overturn them.

I think it is something we need to be very careful in doing, and which deserves a great deal of consideration and thought.

What we don't need is screaming fanatics, on either side.

who knows if the Commons will even pass it?

if they do, will the Lords?
Fair point. BBC indicates that it will probably get through the Commons, but there could be difficulty with the Lords - after all, they were very much against the laws brought after 11 September.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4285835.stm

The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, announced new anti-terror laws today. The provisions include things like house arrest without trial and monitoring telephone calls and internet usage. Are the government right to introduce such measures, or have they got it gravely wrong?As an American, I can only offer this.

Which is more important. Privacy/Liberty or Security. the answer you seek is in there.

Fair point. BBC indicates that it will probably get through the Commons, but there could be difficulty with the Lords - after all, they were very much against the laws brought after 11 September.
yup

and if they pass it, then it will still get challenged

and then will the Law Lords overturn it?

There are too many "ifs" right now to say whether or not these laws will actually happen

I would offer this:

If there is an attack in the US or in the UK that involves either chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, then the laws that get passed in the politically charged atmosphere of the aftermath will make what they're trying to pass now look like sweet missives to your lover.

There will be roundups of Muslims, and internment in camps.

If the attacks continue after those measures, there will be a Final Solution.

I'm not saying that's the right thing to do - I'm just saying that's where human nature will take us.

And to me, it's not a matter of if, but when. I believe that the terrorists won't stop until they can make that kind of attack. So to me it is a matter of time.

yup

and if they pass it, then it will still get challenged

and then will the Law Lords overturn it?

There are too many "ifs" right now to say whether or not these laws will actually happen
The old terrorism legislation expires next month, so they want it decided quickly. In fact, they want the vote in the Commons to take place by Wednesday - hardly enough time for other MPs, never mind the public, to properly familiarise themselves with the ins-and-outs of the Bill.

The old terrorism legislation expires next month, so they want it decided quickly. In fact, they want the vote in the Commons to take place by Wednesday - hardly enough time for other MPs, never mind the public, to properly familiarise themselves with the ins-and-outs of the Bill.
when do they then want the Lords vote to happen?

And to me, it's not a matter of if, but when. I believe that the terrorists won't stop until they can make that kind of attack. So to me it is a matter of time.
I quite agree...I'm sure the UK will be attacked sooner or later, and we do need to make provision for that eventuality now. I haven't made up my mind on this particular piece of legislation (if it goes through), but I do think we need measures to minimise any damage caused by an attack.

The old terrorism legislation expires next month, so they want it decided quickly. In fact, they want the vote in the Commons to take place by Wednesday - hardly enough time for other MPs, never mind the public, to properly familiarise themselves with the ins-and-outs of the Bill.


Entirely coincidental I'm sure.

I would offer this:

If there is an attack in the US or in the UK that involves either chemical weapons, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, then the laws that get passed in the politically charged atmosphere of the aftermath will make what they're trying to pass now look like sweet missives to your lover.

There will be roundups of Muslims, and internment in camps.

If the attacks continue after those measures, there will be a Final Solution.

I'm not saying that's the right thing to do - I'm just saying that's where human nature will take us.

And to me, it's not a matter of if, but when. I believe that the terrorists won't stop until they can make that kind of attack. So to me it is a matter of time.

This isn't going to happen in the UK.

Having said that, these laws are a disgrace.

You can already be arrested for owning a copy of Sun Zi's Art of War.

when do they then want the Lords vote to happen?
Dunno. Probably spring it on them on a day when no one's about except the ones they can get to toe the party line!

Entirely coincidental I'm sure.
Naturally! ;)

You can already be arrested for owning a copy of Sun Zi's Art of War.

You're kidding...

You can already be arrested for owning a copy of Sun Zi's Art of War.
Is there an explicit law on that or does in rest on interpretation of a technicality (for example, it can be seen as illegal to carry money, since it is illegal to own/carry anything that could aid terrorism).

Just curious since I own the Art of War in both dead tree and MP3 formats

Since "al-Qaeda" is largely a fiction, and since the integrity of the state is in no way endangered by terrorist activites, I have to say that this sort of behaviour from the government is wildly disproportionate to the risk. Remember that in the UK we have NO fundamental rights, that Parliament has the power, literally, of life and death over all of us. Essentially we are being asked to trust that our good old government and our good old security services won't abuse these sweeping new powers. That's the same good old government which took us to war based on lies concocted more or less to order by those same good old security services.

Dunno. Probably spring it on them on a day when no one's about except the ones they can get to toe the party line!

wouldnt put it past them

Remember that in the UK we have NO fundamental rights, that Parliament has the power, literally, of life and death over all of us.
i believe that if the EU constitution is passed then some EU human rights thing becomes law in all EU countries

As an American, I can only offer this.

Which is more important. Privacy/Liberty or Security. the answer you seek is in there.

This carries the hidden assumption that it is in fact possible to buy security at the price of privacy/liberty.

Is there an explicit law on that or does in rest on interpretation of a technicality (for example, it can be seen as illegal to carry money, since it is illegal to own/carry anything that could aid terrorism).

Just curious since I own the Art of War in both dead tree and MP3 formats

I was told that it is specifically mentioned as an article that could be of use to terrorists.

This carries the hidden assumption that it is in fact possible to buy security at the price of privacy/liberty.

And since the CIA knew all about, for instance, 9/11 a long time before it happened, we know that we can get a reasonable amount of security, enough, for instance, to prevent 9/11, with the laws that were in place at the time.

i believe that if the EU constitution is passed then some EU human rights thing becomes law in all EU countries

Well, A) the EU Constitution isn't passed yet, and B) our FA-Cup lookalike Home Secretary has already said that the new legislation will include a "derogation" (i.e. an opt-out) from the European Convention on Human Rights -- a big document which we signed whereby we agreed to conform to basic minimum standards of behaviour, including not incarcerating people forever without trial.

The UK has NO Bill of Rights or equivalent. UK citizens have NO guaranteed rights that can't just be changed overnight, on a politician's whim. The assumption is, all our politicians are decent chaps who were all well-brought-up and went to jolly nice schools, and they can be counted on not to do anything gauche or impolite. That's our safeguard against tyrrany.

Since "al-Qaeda" is largely a fiction,

How so?

You need to see: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm

And since the CIA knew all about, for instance, 9/11 a long time before it happened, we know that we can get a reasonable amount of security, enough, for instance, to prevent 9/11, with the laws that were in place at the time.

So, the CIA knew that those 19 guys would board specific flights (and the CIA knew the flight numbers and schedules) and knew which places each team would fly into, on a specific date?

Really? Prove it.

The CIA can't find their ass with both hands.

Remember that in the UK we have NO fundamental rights, that Parliament has the power, literally, of life and death over all of us.

Not true, the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights) was incorporated onto British law in 1999 (IIRC), therefore all law has to be consistant with it.

AFAIK, there is a committee that checks all prospective bills to make sure they they don't clash with European Law and the ECHR. Which is why the current ID sceme is being delayed. Parts of it may clash with the ECHR.

Well, A) the EU Constitution isn't passed yet,
hence the "if"

and B) our FA-Cup lookalike Home Secretary has already said that the new legislation will include a "derogation" (i.e. an opt-out) from the European Convention on Human Rights -- a big document which we signed whereby we agreed to conform to basic minimum standards of behaviour, including not incarcerating people forever without trial.
im not sure how they think they can sign the constitution without taking on the human rights bit, i was fairly certain that if a country accepted the constitution, they automatically accepted the human rights convention


The UK has NO Bill of Rights or equivalent. UK citizens have NO guaranteed rights that can't just be changed overnight, on a politician's whim. The assumption is, all our politicians are decent chaps who were all well-brought-up and went to jolly nice schools, and they can be counted on not to do anything gauche or impolite. That's our safeguard against tyrrany.
yes, i know

theres also the judicial system/law lords who did quite well with the last anti-terror laws

Well, A) the EU Constitution isn't passed yet, and B) our FA-Cup lookalike Home Secretary* has already said that the new legislation will include a "derogation" (i.e. an opt-out) from the European Convention on Human Rights -- a big document which we signed whereby we agreed to conform to basic minimum standards of behaviour, including not incarcerating people forever without trial.

Seems a bit pointless having a Convention on Human Rights if we can 'derogate' from it.

*I've always liked Fungus the Bogeyman.

How so?

You need to see: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/al-qaida.htm

When the USA tried to prosecute Osama bin Laden in absentia in the late 1990s, they needed to use anti-racketeering laws that were passed in the 1930s. These laws required that the accused by a member of "a criminal organisation". So the FBI invented al-Qaeda -- Arabic for "the base", and the name of the Islamist training camp in Afghanistan where Osama was hanging out being sponged off for cash by a whole mixture of oddball Islamic fighters, ranging from Afghani nationalists to Wahabbi fundies to Palestinians. Osama himself didn't start using the term until some time after 9/11, when he realised that the Western states and their medias were referring to him as the head of this "organisation".

There are a wide variety of terror groups around the Islamic world, with a wide variety of agendas. Lumping them all under "al-Qaeda" makes it appear as if there is one enormous enemy, instead of a whole mass of fractured nutters with various grievances and widely varying targets. This works to Osama's advantage, as he gets to portray himself as leader of an international movement of great power. It also works to the advantage of any Western government who might be looking for a big bad new enemy to justify bloated military budgets and crackdowns on civil liberties. Plus, it eases the pressure on them to run functioning societies: sure, the country's going down the stank, but don't you know there's a war on?!

Seems a bit pointless having a Convention on Human Rights if we can 'derogate' from it.

*I've always liked Fungus the Bogeyman.

All countries can "derogate" from the Convention, because ultimately they are all still sovereign states. However, more advanced democracies, i.e. those with written constitutions and Bills of Rights, would incorporate the Convention into their constitutions and Bills of Rights, and have to undertake long and arduous legal procedures to initiate any "derogation". In the quaint little old UK, though, all it takes is a simple Parliamentary majority -- as currently held by the party which last election got the approval of 24% of the electorate.

I see from the BBC that jug-ears hasn't actually gone for an opt-out yet:

Mr Clarke said some [of the "control orders"] would require an opt-out from the European Convention on Human Rights but he would not be seeking one now.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4285835.stm

As an American, I can only offer this.

Which is more important. Privacy/Liberty or Security. the answer you seek is in there.

It was the ideals of liberty and privacy which used to make America a special place to so many, now you've not even got those things which made it special in the first place and you're left feeling how much more secure?

Put it another way, without your liberty and privacy you may as well be living under the yoke of the same tin pot dictators who your president claims to be running the axis of evil.

I'm appalled at the possibility of a politician deciding whether someone is guilty or innocent, and then deciding the punishment.

If we can't trust the home secretary not to abuse his powers to get a quick visa for his lover's nanny, how could we trust him not to cave in to tabloid pressure (e.g. the Sun, the Daily 'Hate' Mail) about individuals.

Politicians are generally less trustworth than estate agents, and have no place in the workings of the judicial process - if the guy is a terrorist, bring him (or her) to court. It could be a secure court, with security cleared, vetted judges (like they have in France), security cleared barristers, but EVERYONE is entitled to a fair trial - not the whim of some t*sser (Blunket and Clarke, I'm talking about you) who's trying to curry favour with the gutter press

I think the laws are over the top and are more to do with taking our rights rather than protecting us. Though I know that there's nothing I can do about it, so I've given up caring.

If we can't trust the home secretary not to abuse his powers to get a quick visa for his lover's nanny, how could we trust him not to cave in to tabloid pressure (e.g. the Sun, the Daily 'Hate' Mail) about individuals.

(its a different person)

I think the laws are over the top and are more to do with taking our rights rather than protecting us. Though I know that there's nothing I can do about it, so I've given up caring.

Does the government provide a jar of lubricant before they put their hand up your ass?

Does the government provide a jar of lubricant before they put their hand up your ass?
They used to.

Before Maggie decided it was 'crypto-communist'

I think the laws are over the top and are more to do with taking our rights rather than protecting us. Though I know that there's nothing I can do about it, so I've given up caring.

Way to go to lose them permanently. :(

Your attitude says that they've already won.

Does the government provide a jar of lubricant before they put their hand up your ass?
Nah, I have to pay. Have you seen the price of lubricant these days?

But seriously, what can I do about it? I can't see anything. First off I'm 15 so I don't have any real rights. And even if I was able to vote, who would I end up voting for? Even if a party promised to repeal the laws I have a strange feeling that they'd do an instant u-turn when they got into power.