NationStates Jolt Archive

I know a lot of people's gut reaction to this is "No, if you let the government break the tiniest law then we'll all be goose stepping in an instant!" but I think there are situations where it's called for.

As a lot of you know, Britain is a country run by cowards. Our society is constantly under threat from all sorts of extremists but our pathetic government still thinks that you can solve these problems using a vote in parliament, or at the most, a quick media condemnation.

Some examples: we've always had a big animal rights extremist problem in this country, more so than anywhere else in the world. These people are committed, they don't even fear the law and are willing to plumb the depths of inhumanity to get what they want (One time they branded the initials ALF onto an investigative journalist who crossed them). The Animal Liberation Front has a press officer who arrogantly boasts of attacks, saying that the victims (Such as medical researchers) have to expect those sorts of attacks and even thinks that the children of researchers are legitimate targets. He only says this stuff because he's given no reason to fear. If something happened like him being framed as a paedophile or something cruder like being shot, then it would put a lot of fear up the animal rights extremists, particularly if it was coupled with other forms of repression against the movement.

Another example, there was that recent case where soe muslims were protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs saying things like "Behead those who insult islam". Police should have been sent in to attack. It showed our society to be weak. They were laughing at us. They wouldn't have been laughing too much if they had a police dog attacking them. Other things we could start doing is deporting foreign extremists, even if they face a little rough treatment back home.

Now I know a lot of people see this as a step on the road to dictatorship, but it isn't. Even the US has got up to those sort of antics, look at J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the sixties. Potentially dangerous organisations like the Black Panthers were crushed using completely illegal means, including warrantless searches, beatings, framings and even of occasions murder. America didn't turn into a dictatorship. Another example is France. They committed a brutal mass murder of Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. Even after that they didn't turn into a dictorship!

Plenty of countries have done and always will resort to extremely dirty means to eliminate threats to society, without leading to despotism. Violence is necessary to keep a society together, and some of that violence has to come from outside the law. Our government seems too weak to realise this. WHat does everybody else think?

*Puts flame suit on*

This is just my opinion here-

I agree with you on you comments on your government.
I really dont think your government has much control over it's people.
They act like parents and the citizens are children.
It seems like most things they try to do is 'punishment' for something or another.
I firmly believe you that you have a weak government.
It's like a dictatorship masked as a democracy that is very afraid of losing any power at all.

Another example, there was that recent case where soe muslims were protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs saying things like "Behead those who insult islam". Police should have been sent in to attack. It showed our society to be weak. They were laughing at us. They wouldn't have been laughing too much if they had a police dog attacking them. Other things we could start doing is deporting foreign extremists, even if they face a little rough treatment back home.

*Puts flame suit on*

WTF? If you would like to live in a police state, I'm sure there are a few around that would take you. Those people who broke the law are now going through the justice system.
I thought it was only Mr Burns who said 'unleash the hounds':rolleyes:

WTF? If you would like to live in a police state, I'm sure there are a few around that would take you. Those people who broke the law are now going through the justice system.
I thought it was only Mr Burns who said 'unleash the hounds':rolleyes:
It's not just police states who get up to that sort of thing. American police against civil rights protesters, Italian police in Genoa. Police brutality has been used in plenty of times in western that don't conform to the common definition of a police state.

Laws are meant to be bent, not broken.. And certainly a government should act to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law..
Also, I'm too lazy to have read much more than the title..

Laws are meant to be bent, not broken.. And certainly a government should act to the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law..
Also, I'm too lazy to have read much more than the title..

I read it, and I LOL'ed.

It's not just police states who get up to that sort of thing. American police against civil rights protesters, Italian police in Genoa. Police brutality has been used in plenty of times in western that don't conform to the common definition of a police state.

I can't speak to the Italian police in Genoa, but the police who attacked and brutalized civil rights protesters were considered to be on the wrong side of the question. That makes that particular example incorrect, as those police were acting against people who were well within their rights and whose cause has been judged to be the correct one.

I can't speak to the Italian police in Genoa, but the police who attacked and brutalized civil rights protesters were considered to be on the wrong side of the question. That makes that particular example incorrect, as those police were acting against people who were well within their rights and whose cause has been judged to be the correct one.
That may be true, but it was nontheless and example where police brutality was used in a way which didn't lead to a police state.

That may be true, but it was nontheless and example where police brutality was used in a way which didn't lead to a police state.Well, yes, but they could shoot and skullfuck you without turning your country into a police state, that doesn't make it an ok thing to do. At least not in my opinion, you are of course free to have your own.

It's not just police states who get up to that sort of thing. American police against civil rights protesters, Italian police in Genoa. Police brutality has been used in plenty of times in western that don't conform to the common definition of a police state.I can't speak to the Italian police in Genoa, but the police who attacked and brutalized civil rights protesters were considered to be on the wrong side of the question. That makes that particular example incorrect, as those police were acting against people who were well within their rights and whose cause has been judged to be the correct one.
both are a gross Generalization. if the Civil Rights Protest is peaceful and "orderly" then American Police will just watch. But if you get something like the "Rodney King Riots", which started out a "Civil Rights Protest," then the police HAS to step in.

As long as the Gathering is legal (no illegal drugs, violence, etc), peaceful (not a riot) and orderly in some fashion. American Police will just maintain a watchful eye to insure the safety of both the protesters as well as those not involved in the protest.

That may be true, but it was nontheless and example where police brutality was used in a way which didn't lead to a police state.

In that narrow context, yes, I suppose so. But the givernment should always be very wary of using violence against its own citizens. Done enough times, it can provoke the removal of said government.

both are a gross Generalization. if the Civil Rights Protest is peaceful and "orderly" then American Police will just watch. But if you get something like the "Rodney King Riots", which started out a "Civil Rights Protest," then the police HAS to step in.

As long as the Gathering is legal (no illegal drugs, violence, etc), peaceful (not a riot) and orderly in some fashion. American Police will just maintain a watchful eye to insure the safety of both the protesters as well as those not involved in the protest.

Certainly if the protest itself becomes violent, yes, the police should step in. I got the impression flightless friend was referring more to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, where the police in the South actively went after peaceful protests.

Certainly if the protest itself becomes violent, yes, the police should step in. I got the impression flightless friend was referring more to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, where the police in the South actively went after peaceful protests.
just making sure.

yes, that did happen, but now days, cops who do that will find themselves under review.

I know a lot of people's gut reaction to this is "No, if you let the government break the tiniest law then we'll all be goose stepping in an instant!" but I think there are situations where it's called for.

As a lot of you know, Britain is a country run by cowards. Our society is constantly under threat from all sorts of extremists but our pathetic government still thinks that you can solve these problems using a vote in parliament, or at the most, a quick media condemnation.

Some examples: we've always had a big animal rights extremist problem in this country, more so than anywhere else in the world. These people are committed, they don't even fear the law and are willing to plumb the depths of inhumanity to get what they want (One time they branded the initials ALF onto an investigative journalist who crossed them). The Animal Liberation Front has a press officer who arrogantly boasts of attacks, saying that the victims (Such as medical researchers) have to expect those sorts of attacks and even thinks that the children of researchers are legitimate targets. He only says this stuff because he's given no reason to fear. If something happened like him being framed as a paedophile or something cruder like being shot, then it would put a lot of fear up the animal rights extremists, particularly if it was coupled with other forms of repression against the movement.

Another example, there was that recent case where soe muslims were protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs saying things like "Behead those who insult islam". Police should have been sent in to attack. It showed our society to be weak. They were laughing at us. They wouldn't have been laughing too much if they had a police dog attacking them. Other things we could start doing is deporting foreign extremists, even if they face a little rough treatment back home.

Now I know a lot of people see this as a step on the road to dictatorship, but it isn't. Even the US has got up to those sort of antics, look at J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the sixties. Potentially dangerous organisations like the Black Panthers were crushed using completely illegal means, including warrantless searches, beatings, framings and even of occasions murder. America didn't turn into a dictatorship. Another example is France. They committed a brutal mass murder of Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. Even after that they didn't turn into a dictorship!

Plenty of countries have done and always will resort to extremely dirty means to eliminate threats to society, without leading to despotism. Violence is necessary to keep a society together, and some of that violence has to come from outside the law. Our government seems too weak to realise this. WHat does everybody else think?

*Puts flame suit on*

given your examples, NO.

they are not protecting the people; they are protecting the status quo.

sure those who break the law should be arrested and tried in a court of law. no matter if they are ALF, muslims, black panthers, or farmers. but those who protest without breaking the law should be left the hell alone. we dont need the government breaking heads just to keep the disadvantaged in line or to keep new ideas from being advocated.

Answer: no.

So you're saying the Government should assassinate, frame, and generally otherwise physically attack some of its citizens that (since they haven't been convicted) are acting within their rights?

I hope you're a trolling puppet, please tell me you are

given your examples, NO.

they are not protecting the people; they are protecting the status quo.

sure those who break the law should be arrested and tried in a court of law. no matter if they are ALF, muslims, black panthers, or farmers. but those who protest without breaking the law should be left the hell alone. we dont need the government breaking heads just to keep the disadvantaged in line or to keep new ideas from being advocated.
It is about protecting people. Violently intimidating the ALF would protect medical resaerchers from the ALF's violent intimidation. It would also protect public health by removing these unlawful obstructions to legitimate medical research. Beating the islamist protestors would show other extrmists that their ideology will not be tolerated and it will make them realise that we won't just be walked over any more.

Sometimes protecting the status quo and protecting the public can go hand in hand. You can't stick doggedly to the law when you're up against people who neither respect or fear the law. Violence is the only language these scum understand. If you play fair you'll only lose.

It seems futile to me to expect the Law to bind Governments, considering that it is the Governments themselves who write the laws.

Law is generally a silly concept anyway, it is fundamentally unable to act against everything that is wrong, and more frequently than not is perverted so that it actually ends up punishing people who have done nothing wrong at all.

But Governments should definitely, ALWAYS, be kept to the highest possible expectations. And they should expect to be punished if they fail to live up to those expectations.

Beating the islamist protestors would show other extrmists that their ideology will not be tolerated and it will make them realise that we won't just be walked over any more.

So they won't bother protesting and go to violence instead? That's a wonderful plan, really it is a wonderful way to keep people safe.

And the obvious point is, if we stoop to their level, how are we better than them?

Plus the quote regarding those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

Law is generally a silly concept anyway, it is fundamentally unable to act against everything that is wrong, and more frequently than not is perverted so that it actually ends up punishing people who have done nothing wrong at all.


You got a better idea?

Fuck police brutality. We should have mobs armed with axes. They can behead those buggers holding the beheading signs.

It is about protecting people. Violently intimidating the ALF would protect medical resaerchers from the ALF's violent intimidation. It would also protect public health by removing these unlawful obstructions to legitimate medical research. Beating the islamist protestors would show other extrmists that their ideology will not be tolerated and it will make them realise that we won't just be walked over any more.

Sometimes protecting the status quo and protecting the public can go hand in hand. You can't stick doggedly to the law when you're up against people who neither respect or fear the law. Violence is the only language these scum understand. If you play fair you'll only lose.

government doesnt need "jack-booted thugs". it has courts and prisons. if these people break the law, they get arrested, tried and put into prison.

beating a man to death in the street for advocating "beheading those who insult islam" will not make the rest of your islamic population behave themselves. it will make them hate you.

If laws do not apply in these situations, they are worthless.

It is about protecting people. Violently intimidating the ALF would protect medical resaerchers from the ALF's violent intimidation. It would also protect public health by removing these unlawful obstructions to legitimate medical research. Beating the islamist protestors would show other extrmists that their ideology will not be tolerated and it will make them realise that we won't just be walked over any more.

Sometimes protecting the status quo and protecting the public can go hand in hand. You can't stick doggedly to the law when you're up against people who neither respect or fear the law. Violence is the only language these scum understand. If you play fair you'll only lose.

Forsakia said it very well, but it bears repeating: when you descend to the level of the people you're supposed to be protecting your country from, you become no better than they are. When they break the law, you punish them under the law. Otherwise you are no better than a barbarian, and the world has quite enough of those already. "When lenity and cruelty play for a kingdom, the gentler gamester is the soonest winner."

So they won't bother protesting and go to violence instead? That's a wonderful plan, really it is a wonderful way to keep people safe.
But the extremist preachers would find it much harder to spread their ideology. They rely on their preaching, and if they were too afraid to preach in the open then it would damage their recruitment no end. Driving them underground is a price worth paying if you can prevent them from recruiting.

And the obvious point is, if we stoop to their level, how are we better than them?
Screw being whiter than white, in the real world you have to do whatever's necessary to destroy those who are a threat to you.

Plus the quote regarding those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
I don't care what Franklin said. He founded your nation, not mine.

government doesnt need "jack-booted thugs". it has courts and prisons. if these people break the law, they get arrested, tried and put into prison.
Well they're hardly doing a great job right now.

beating a man to death in the street for advocating "beheading those who insult islam" will not make the rest of your islamic population behave themselves. it will make them hate you.
Make it clear that the only people who feel the need to worry about it are the extremists and that the ordinary ones have nothing to worry about. If they still hate us for it then tough. Feelings are irrelevant if they're too afraid to act on them.

just making sure.

yes, that did happen, but now days, cops who do that will find themselves under review.

That would depend on the municipality and the cause. Also it would depend on the media presence. I have been hit, kicked and even knocked over with a horse for merely watching protests.

And if you protest for hot-button issues, such as native rights in the Canadian prairie, you can pretty much guarantee that the cops will crack a few skulls and then charge the victims with assault.

Current widespread problems of law enforcement officers in the USA abusing the citizenry involve racial profiling, sexual abuse of female criminals, killing people with tasers, and the continued violence of white officers against black youth.

Governments will break their ownlaws to preserve social order and the status quo. Each time, it is up to the citizenry to hold the government accountable.

Democracy is not always easy.

Current widespread problems of law enforcement officers in the USA abusing the citizenry involve racial profiling, sexual abuse of female criminals, killing people with tasers, and the continued violence of white officers against black youth.
Firstly, what exactly is racial profiling? I haven't heard the term used before.

Secondly, I've never heard of American police abusing the population in massive numbers. Violence, rape, what?

Firstly, what exactly is racial profiling? I haven't heard the term used before.

Secondly, I've never heard of American police abusing the population in massive numbers. Violence, rape, what?

"Racial profiling" is when the police act differently towards you because you're black or Hispanic or Asian, differently than if you were white. The phenomenon manifests itself in black people being pulled over in certain areas on DWB charges - "driving while black." As for rapes and beatings, etc., it certainly does happen. As Gift-of-God said, the government and the police in particular must be held to the highest standards by the citizenry.

Mass numbers, perhaps not, that wouldn't fly these days with instant communications and all, but individuals still get abused.

The problem with vigorously cracking down on racial profiling was illustrated here a while back. The police head honchos sent the word out for policemen to cease stopping black men driving more than white men, because it was "racist". The problem was that black men were wearing seatbelts less than white men, so the police had no choice. In fact the police in Britain are pretty much emasculated, so they wouldn't be likely to abuse anyone but themselves. :(

Can you link me to any incidents of recent police abuse?

Firstly, what exactly is racial profiling? I haven't heard the term used before.

Secondly, I've never heard of American police abusing the population in massive numbers. Violence, rape, what?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/us/index.do

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/engAMR511132002?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CUSA

Google is your friend.

Well they're hardly doing a great job right now.


Make it clear that the only people who feel the need to worry about it are the extremists and that the ordinary ones have nothing to worry about. If they still hate us for it then tough. Feelings are irrelevant if they're too afraid to act on them.

if they arent doing a great job now what you do is to change the laws not ignore the laws. sometimes laws need to be changed to reflect a new problem. sometimes theyjust need to be better enforced.

and no. you arent going to be able to scare anyone into compliance using any methods short of secret police and torture. if thats the kind of UK you want to live in, good luck to you.

That would depend on the municipality and the cause. Also it would depend on the media presence. I have been hit, kicked and even knocked over with a horse for merely watching protests. and did you sue? also, do you have evidence of this happening? Rules of evidence still apply.

And if you protest for hot-button issues, such as native rights in the Canadian prairie, you can pretty much guarantee that the cops will crack a few skulls and then charge the victims with assault. unless you have the cop's worse nightmare, the video camera. but then it sounds like a problem with Canadian police.

Current widespread problems of law enforcement officers in the USA abusing the citizenry involve racial profiling, sexual abuse of female criminals, killing people with tasers, and the continued violence of white officers against black youth.
1) Racial Profiling happens everywhere, not just America. A sad fact
2) Sexual Abuse? where? Prisions are not guarded by the police in America.
3) Killing people with Tasers? When did this happen?
4) and ONLY white officers are beating Black Youths? no other Racial Group beating on another Racial Group?

Democracy is not always easy.
yep.

Some examples...
animal rights extremists..
..muslims protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs..


..look at J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the sixties. Potentially dangerous organisations like the Black Panthers were crushed using completely illegal means, including warrantless searches, beatings, framings and even of occasions murder. America didn't turn into a dictatorship. Another example is France. They committed a brutal mass murder of Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. Even after that they didn't turn into a dictorship!

Violence is necessary to keep a society together..Someone told you that "state terrorism automatically leads to Dictatorship"?? He was wrong.

Terrorism does NOT automatically lead to Dictatorship.
US or France's terrorism did NOT and (probably) will NOT lead to dictatorship.

If you don't want to live in a free country, as your OP suggests, move somewhere else.

and did you sue? also, do you have evidence of this happening? Rules of evidence still apply.

unless you have the cop's worse nightmare, the video camera. but then it sounds like a problem with Canadian police.


1) Racial Profiling happens everywhere, not just America. A sad fact
2) Sexual Abuse? where? Prisions are not guarded by the police in America.
3) Killing people with Tasers? When did this happen?
4) and ONLY white officers are beating Black Youths? no other Racial Group beating on another Racial Group?


yep.

No. I did not sue as I had no proof. Nor do we have a society where it is easy to sue. I was merely addressing your claim that police officers who perpetrate such crimes will come under eview. I would argue that such a thing would only occur if the police department had absolutely no choice, i.e. solid evidence is found proving the police officers broke the law. Like you said, the cops worst nightmare is the video camera.

I have very little experience with US police. What I have seen on your news does not cause me to think that they are morally superior to Canadian police officers.

I agree that racial profiling is a problem that many countries face. By pointing out how it is a widespread problem in the USA, I hoped to show that police officers are not coming under review for breaking the law, despite your claim.

If you read the links I provided upthread, you will find confirmation of my previous claims.

I know a lot of people's gut reaction to this is "No, if you let the government break the tiniest law then we'll all be goose stepping in an instant!" but I think there are situations where it's called for.

As a lot of you know, Britain is a country run by cowards. Our society is constantly under threat from all sorts of extremists but our pathetic government still thinks that you can solve these problems using a vote in parliament, or at the most, a quick media condemnation.

Some examples: we've always had a big animal rights extremist problem in this country, more so than anywhere else in the world. These people are committed, they don't even fear the law and are willing to plumb the depths of inhumanity to get what they want (One time they branded the initials ALF onto an investigative journalist who crossed them). The Animal Liberation Front has a press officer who arrogantly boasts of attacks, saying that the victims (Such as medical researchers) have to expect those sorts of attacks and even thinks that the children of researchers are legitimate targets. He only says this stuff because he's given no reason to fear. If something happened like him being framed as a paedophile or something cruder like being shot, then it would put a lot of fear up the animal rights extremists, particularly if it was coupled with other forms of repression against the movement.

Another example, there was that recent case where soe muslims were protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs saying things like "Behead those who insult islam". Police should have been sent in to attack. It showed our society to be weak. They were laughing at us. They wouldn't have been laughing too much if they had a police dog attacking them. Other things we could start doing is deporting foreign extremists, even if they face a little rough treatment back home.

Now I know a lot of people see this as a step on the road to dictatorship, but it isn't. Even the US has got up to those sort of antics, look at J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the sixties. Potentially dangerous organisations like the Black Panthers were crushed using completely illegal means, including warrantless searches, beatings, framings and even of occasions murder. America didn't turn into a dictatorship. Another example is France. They committed a brutal mass murder of Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. Even after that they didn't turn into a dictorship!

Plenty of countries have done and always will resort to extremely dirty means to eliminate threats to society, without leading to despotism. Violence is necessary to keep a society together, and some of that violence has to come from outside the law. Our government seems too weak to realise this. WHat does everybody else think?

*Puts flame suit on*

Yeah! Let's have the police fucking attack people for speaking freely! That's a great idea, and certainly won't lead to extremists who are usually all bark and no bite actually counterattacking.

Overall, the very idea of this enrages me. If my government can do whatever the fuck it pleases to us, with no repercussions, then it basically WILL become the USSR.

But the extremist preachers would find it much harder to spread their ideology. They rely on their preaching, and if they were too afraid to preach in the open then it would damage their recruitment no end. Driving them underground is a price worth paying if you can prevent them from recruiting.

Make it clear that the only people who feel the need to worry about it are the extremists and that the ordinary ones have nothing to worry about. If they still hate us for it then tough. Feelings are irrelevant if they're too afraid to act on them.

Then they'll just go underground, with more ammunition to recruit people with. And if you start killing people without clear evidence, then you're going to kill some non-extremists. Which means the ordinary ones do have something to worry about, and they become extremist ones too.


Screw being whiter than white, in the real world you have to do whatever's necessary to destroy those who are a threat to you.

Whiter than white? How about Whiter than black.

At the end of the day, I'm an elitist arsehole, I like feeling morally superior (though with British History that's rarely possible), and I don't like feeling the moral equal of terrorrsts.:)


I don't care what Franklin said. He founded your nation, not mine.

Benjamin Franklin founded Wales? Never knew that. He did make useful and sensible quotes though.

... Benjamin Franklin founded Wales? Never knew that. He did make useful and sensible quotes though.
Considering the number of offspring he fathered ... ;)

No. I did not sue as I had no proof. Nor do we have a society where it is easy to sue. I was merely addressing your claim that police officers who perpetrate such crimes will come under eview. I would argue that such a thing would only occur if the police department had absolutely no choice, i.e. solid evidence is found proving the police officers broke the law. Like you said, the cops worst nightmare is the video camera.Unfortunatly, one claim of abuse with no evidence usually doesn't warrant a review. Crimes that are not reported in are not investigated.

I have very little experience with US police. What I have seen on your news does not cause me to think that they are morally superior to Canadian police officers.and you are watching US shows. I can bet you that Canadian shows will show Canadian officers morally superior to other police officers... same with British shows and British Officers... etc.

I agree that racial profiling is a problem that many countries face. By pointing out how it is a widespread problem in the USA, I hoped to show that police officers are not coming under review for breaking the law, despite your claim. Racial Profiling is NOT illegal. it's not right, but it's also not Illegal. All Racial Profiling does is open the door for a discrimination lawsuit.

If you read the links I provided upthread, you will find confirmation of my previous claims.
I have read them, so where does it say that those claims of discrimination as well as Taser related deaths are NOT investigated?

I know a lot of people's gut reaction to this is "No, if you let the government break the tiniest law then we'll all be goose stepping in an instant!" but I think there are situations where it's called for.

As a lot of you know, Britain is a country run by cowards. Our society is constantly under threat from all sorts of extremists but our pathetic government still thinks that you can solve these problems using a vote in parliament, or at the most, a quick media condemnation.

Some examples: we've always had a big animal rights extremist problem in this country, more so than anywhere else in the world. These people are committed, they don't even fear the law and are willing to plumb the depths of inhumanity to get what they want (One time they branded the initials ALF onto an investigative journalist who crossed them). The Animal Liberation Front has a press officer who arrogantly boasts of attacks, saying that the victims (Such as medical researchers) have to expect those sorts of attacks and even thinks that the children of researchers are legitimate targets. He only says this stuff because he's given no reason to fear. If something happened like him being framed as a paedophile or something cruder like being shot, then it would put a lot of fear up the animal rights extremists, particularly if it was coupled with other forms of repression against the movement.

Another example, there was that recent case where soe muslims were protesting the Danish cartoons, holding signs saying things like "Behead those who insult islam". Police should have been sent in to attack. It showed our society to be weak. They were laughing at us. They wouldn't have been laughing too much if they had a police dog attacking them. Other things we could start doing is deporting foreign extremists, even if they face a little rough treatment back home.

Now I know a lot of people see this as a step on the road to dictatorship, but it isn't. Even the US has got up to those sort of antics, look at J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI's COINTELPRO operation in the sixties. Potentially dangerous organisations like the Black Panthers were crushed using completely illegal means, including warrantless searches, beatings, framings and even of occasions murder. America didn't turn into a dictatorship. Another example is France. They committed a brutal mass murder of Algerian protestors in Paris in 1961. Even after that they didn't turn into a dictorship!

Plenty of countries have done and always will resort to extremely dirty means to eliminate threats to society, without leading to despotism. Violence is necessary to keep a society together, and some of that violence has to come from outside the law. Our government seems too weak to realise this. WHat does everybody else think?

*Puts flame suit on*

Just to clear up a few things: There is a MAJOR difference between animal rights groups and animal rights "extremists" - animal rights groups exist because they believe that all lives are important, animal and human. Animal extremist groups are prepared to harm humans in order to prevent or halt animal suffering - they only seem to care for animal life, and should perhaps more correctly be called terrorists.

The Muslim "protests": They weren't protests, they were incitements to murder and terrorism. The culprits should have been arrested immediately. I don't know why they weren't, except maybe it's just that London police forces are crap.

Deporting foreign extremists: Judges CAN and should. The Human Rights Act has been wrongly interpreted too many times - despite the fact that, as someone said (I'm paraphrasing), almost every paragraph has an exception for the case of security/safety.

America DID turn into a dictatorship - you speak out against the government, you risk arrest under trumped-up charges of "terrorism" and an indeterminate stay in Guantanamo Bay. You're just too blinded to see it. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV)

... America DID turn into a dictatorship - you speak out against the government, you risk arrest under trumped-up charges of "terrorism" and an indeterminate stay in Guantanamo Bay. You're just too blinded to see it. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:3-5 (NIV)

Bullshit. Name one American citizen who was arrested "under trumped-up charges of 'terrorism' and an indeterminate stay in Guantanamo Bay" for speaking out against the government? Cindy Sheehan camped out practically on Bush's doorstep and she's not be whisked away to Gitmo. If anyone was ripe for that, she was. Get over yourself. "Judge not, that you be not judged." Matthew 7:1.

But the extremist preachers would find it much harder to spread their ideology. They rely on their preaching, and if they were too afraid to preach in the open then it would damage their recruitment no end. Driving them underground is a price worth paying if you can prevent them from recruiting.

And who, exactly, defines what is extreme? Oh, right, the government. So you would allow the government to violate the law in such situations as deemed "necessary" and you give them the power to determine what is necessary.

And you can't see why this might be a bad idea? Civil rights laws exist for two principle purposes. To protect the people from the government, and to protect the government from itself.

I don't care what Franklin said. He founded your nation, not mine.

Fine, do whatever the fuck you want in your country. Keep it the hell out of mine.

Make it clear that the only people who feel the need to worry about it are the extremists and that the ordinary ones have nothing to worry about. If they still hate us for it then tough. Feelings are irrelevant if they're too afraid to act on them.

Because that line of thinking has stopped it before. See Ireland, Al Qaeda and the Basq seperatists.

Killing people tends to drive them to kill you back.

And you've still failed on saying exactly how we would define "extremists".

Orwell would give you a great big ole hug.

Bullshit. Name one American citizen who was arrested "under trumped-up charges of 'terrorism' and an indeterminate stay in Guantanamo Bay" for speaking out against the government? Cindy Sheehan camped out practically on Bush's doorstep and she's not be whisked away to Gitmo. If anyone was ripe for that, she was. Get over yourself. "Judge not, that you be not judged." Matthew 7:1.


Just because US citizens haven't been arrested on such charges yet, it doesn't mean they won't be - there are many people in Guantanamo who have never even been charged and US citizens have so far done nothing about it; what makes you think they won't start arresting US citizens and dumping them in Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial?

Just because US citizens haven't been arrested on such charges yet, it doesn't mean they won't be - there are many people in Guantanamo who have never even been charged and US citizens have so far done nothing about it; what makes you think they won't start arresting US citizens and dumping them in Guantanamo Bay without charge or trial?

Oh, please. Not even the Bush Administration is that stupid. I think it won't happen because I believe in the way my country works, that's why. And we have started doing something about, we drove Bush's legislative allies out of Congress, and in two years we'll have the White House back, too.

Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Guantanamo prisoners' right to counsel. You do get the news in the UK, don't you?

Oh, please. Not even the Bush Administration is that stupid. I think it won't happen because I believe in the way my country works, that's why. And we have started doing something about, we drove Bush's legislative allies out of Congress, and in two years we'll have the White House back, too.

Oh, and in case you hadn't heard, the US Supreme Court has upheld the Guantanamo prisoners' right to counsel. You do get the news in the UK, don't you?

I would be very surprised to find a US citizen as a prisoner in Guantanamo. With the amount of press focused on there, it would be more logical to place a US citizen in one of the black camps or another undisclosed location. I am, of course, assuming that this has not already happened.

Unfortunatly, one claim of abuse with no evidence usually doesn't warrant a review. Crimes that are not reported in are not investigated....
I have read them, so where does it say that those claims of discrimination as well as Taser related deaths are NOT investigated?

I am simply responding to this post of yours:

just making sure.

yes, that did happen, but now days, cops who do that will find themselves under review.

I am arguing that the "cops who do that" will not "find themselves under review," because if they were, such problems as the ones I linked to, would not be so widespread as to warrant the interest of international human rights organisations.

I agree with you that reviews of police brutality against peaceful protestors are more prevalent now than during the civil rights movement. But I do not feel that they are the norm.

http://www.ilga.info/Current%20activities/Urgent%20actions/iglhrc/usa_police_brutality_breaks_up_g.htm

http://www.answerla.org/pic/2006/06-07-08-minute/pressconf.htm

http://libcom.org/news/janitors-civil-disobedience-ends-in-police-brutality-18112006

I invite you to provide a review or any proof that these police officers have been held accountable. Thank you.

I know of at least one American citizen (Of middle eastern descent) who was arrested on unrelated charges (supposedly serving drinks to minors, the charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence), they found out his name was on a list (It was thought that the local mayor might have put it there because he didn't like the man's restaurant/lounge, which had hookahs for smoking tobacco and belly dancers, and a very Persian atmosphere.)and he got sent to a CIA facility for six months, where he was beaten and abused, meanwhile his restaurant went under and ended up relocating.

I read about this in a local newspaper a while ago, somewhere in Florida (we were on vacation) and I'll go looking for an online source now.

Here's the first source I found for it.http://www.miaminewtimes.com/Issues/2006-03-30/news/feature.html

I am simply responding to this post of yours:



I am arguing that the "cops who do that" will not "find themselves under review," because if they were, such problems as the ones I linked to, would not be so widespread as to warrant the interest of international human rights organisations.

I agree with you that reviews of police brutality against peaceful protestors are more prevalent now than during the civil rights movement. But I do not feel that they are the norm.

http://www.ilga.info/Current%20activities/Urgent%20actions/iglhrc/usa_police_brutality_breaks_up_g.htm

http://www.answerla.org/pic/2006/06-07-08-minute/pressconf.htm

http://libcom.org/news/janitors-civil-disobedience-ends-in-police-brutality-18112006

I invite you to provide a review or any proof that these police officers have been held accountable. Thank you.
the fact that SOP is that any discharge of weapon calls for a review/investigation. add to that any verifiable report of abuse (medical reports on brusing, photos, vids, multiple witnesses/claims) all warrent an investigation/review.

Can you prove that those actions were not investigated? Investigating |= someone being held accountable. a review |= blame or accountability a review is to show that the officer has sufficant cause to use the force he did. if the review shows he didn't then action is taken against the officer. if it shows that he has/had cause to react the way he did, then no action is taken by the police force. One of the reasons why Patrol Cars are outfitted with Dash Cams. to provide evidence as to why the took the actions they did.

that doesn't mean he's not clear of any lawsuites the victim/families will hit them with.