uk police state wants to hold suspects for 3 months without charge

[WageSlave]

Chico, I'm no fan of Islam, but this is a wider issue. What exactly constitutes a terrorist sect? You and I know. The esteemed members of this forum know. We can draw a rational and sensible conclusion. The problem is that such definitions can easily become a political weapon. It may start with radical Islamic clerics, but what is to prevent it being used against anyone who simply disagrees with government policy?

[xoggoth]

Terrorists can be fed into mincing machines feet first as far as I am concerned. BUT - For the umpteenth time, terrorists and suspected terrorists are not necessarily the same thing. A repressive state is much worse than any sort of terrorist activity we have seen to date.

PS Quite agree ws. Especially given the daft double think that goes on. Understanding to some degree why terrorists do what they do is same as supporting them. Did you see the nauseating Mad Messiah banging on about terrorism? "they exploit our disagreements" etc. Translation unless you agree entirely with my idiotic mad actions you are supporting and aiding terrorism.

[DimPrawn]

Look, the only way for the New Lie nanny state to protect us is to lock everyone up. That way we can't hurt each other. Can't you see the sense in it?

[Chico]

Ok you are missing the point - the police are not the bad guys. The terrorists are!! Particularly Islamic terrorists - because they unlike the IRA, animal rights, ETA etc etc are prepared to blow themselves up - they have no regard for any life including their own. Suicide bombers, if succesful, cannot be tried and convicted and so the rules have to change to deal with this. Mostly via intelligence and investigation. Obviously it would be easier to investigate an "alleged" terrorist if they were locked up in Paddington Green. How do you think the Met and M15 were able to apprehend the 21st of July bombers so quickly? Intelligence from someone connected to the terrorists who had been arrested. That fortunately prevented the second lot from having another go.

[sunnysan]

Missing the point

No I think you are.

As you have correctly stated the state already has the power to detain suspected terrorists, so why are they asking for increased power.

The point is fundementally whether we want to live in a society where the one of the cornerstones of human rights are upheld, which is that people need charges brought against them, should they be detained.

Would you like to be detained becuase you have Al Jehreeza.net in your browser cache , or becuase you have a spam email in your inbox from supposed Islamic fundementalists?

There is no reason the state should get more power. They can do what they need to already.

[WageSlave]

Chico, in your example you mention Islamic suicide bombers. Probably 90% of this board would agree with you on that point. The problem is that it's the thin end of the wedge. Such laws start as an excuse to combat something valid, but soon they are extended to suit the political masters.

What's to stop the leader of your church being arrested because someone in M15 thinks they're a bit of a cult figure? What's to stop Polly Jenkins from being arrested because she circulates anti war leaflets? What's to stop Sam Jones from being arrested because his neighbour shopped him for being 'a bit weird'?

[Chico]

WS you ask valid questions and the response is this. We either have to trust our police and security services in their duties or we become so cynical and distrusting of everything that we end up asking them to protect us with both hands tied behind their backs.

[sunnysan]

The police

The police are answerable to the state and the state is answerable to the electorate.

If the state does not have to abide by commonly accepted democratic principles it becomes to powerful and by virtue of that fact, no longer needs to account for its actions to the electorate.

An unaccountable state machine is not a democracy.

Its got nothing to do with cynicism or trust, its all about power. The state can do what they need to do without extra powers as they have displayed.

[Lucifer Box]

WS you ask valid questions and the response is this. We either have to trust our police and security services in their duties or we become so cynical and distrusting of everything that we end up asking them to protect us with both hands tied behind their backs.

I do not agree that we have to trust the state's machinery. Trust has to be earned and there have been too many miscarriages of justice in the not too distant past relating to terrorism for the state to be given extra powers that are not warranted (or needed).

[snaw]

WS you ask valid questions and the response is this. We either have to trust our police and security services in their duties or we become so cynical and distrusting of everything that we end up asking them to protect us with both hands tied behind their backs.

The police & government are always asking for new powers, which generally speaking encrouch on civil liberties. I'm sure no one want's to help terrorists blow people up, but that's not the issue - the issue is do police need this new power and will it stop terrorists. I don't think it would - if they have known suspects then 3 months locked up isn't generally going to make a difference, if they don't know them then we're buggered anyway.

Worst case you end up with an example like in N'orn Ireland in the seventies with internment where the RUC/Army locked up young catholic men, without trial. Once inside they were treated like they were terrorists when in actual fact most of them weren't - until they were interned. Net result, support & membership for the IRA exponentially increased. Sound familiar?

Plus I gotta be honest and say I don't really trust the police to get it right all of the time, and the last people I want making society changing decisions is coppers.

Then once they get the powers they generally start getting used for stuff that has nothing to do with the original reason - the terrorism extradition treaty with the US for example. The US can ask to extradite suspected terorists from the UK without provinding proof, or with them undergoing any trial here. Nothing wrong with that you say. Well there is if we can't do the same back (We can't).

Then the laws start getting abused - the Natwest three (three british bankers who committed a crime against a UK bank and loosley involved in the Enron thing) are getting extradited to the US under the terrorism extradition treaty - WTF is that about? Great example of us agreeing to new laws which then subsequently get abused by the powers that be. Three bankers, accused of doing some dodgy dealings with a bank and Enron are getting extradited to the US as terrorists ... thin end of the wedge indeed.