Cable Forum

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   House Arrest (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=23196)

Chris 27-01-2005 11:11
House Arrest
 
So, what do these three men have in common:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Answer: They all think that House Arrest is a convenient way of dealing with people you don't like the look of, but whom you happen not to have hard evidence against.

This country is beginning to scare me.

EDIT

Here's a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4211127.stm

STONEISLAND 27-01-2005 11:15
Re: House Arrest
 
Chris you will have no worries there. As far as I'm concerned there's no smoke with out fire. I think its a good idea and the only people who has to worry is the people involved with terrisum (spellt wrong) I have no fear whats so ever as I'm sure YOU dont being honest.

Oh and the other 2 are dictators the 1 in the middle is not.

Graham F 27-01-2005 11:18
Re: House Arrest
 
What would you think is better then Chris?

To be honest I thought the laws we had were good, as all those held were/are free to leave the country at anytime. I do agree I think these new powers which apply to British Nationals as well are worrying, but what option were they left with? The Security services can only watch so many people at once.

philip.j.fry 27-01-2005 11:22
Re: House Arrest
 
The photo on the BBC site is pretty apt, very Big Brotheresque.

Chris 27-01-2005 11:42
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
What would you think is better then Chris?

To be honest I thought the laws we had were good, as all those held were/are free to leave the country at anytime. I do agree I think these new powers which apply to British Nationals as well are worrying, but what option were they left with? The Security services can only watch so many people at once.
Well, I think the 'security assurances' the UK has made to the US almost certainly amount to each of the Guantanamo Four having their own personal Spook for the forseeable future. They are going to have to endure re-sealed envelopes and quiet breathing in the background on their phone lines. Even this makes me uncomfortable but at least those men will be free unless and until they are actually proven to have done something wrong.

The detention of foreigners suspected of terrorism actually bothered me slightly less, because they were not UK nationals and I think we as a nation should have the right to remove foreigners from the country by revoking whatever visa they had to be here in the first place, and I think when considering visas it is reasonable to proceed on the grounds of suspicion, as you can't take every visa case to Court. Let's not forget, they had the right to leave jail at any time, by leaving the UK at the same time. Still not something I was comfortable with, but something I was ok about living with for a limited time under extreme circumstances.

This, however, is very different. These powers would have allowed the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six to be detained under house arrest, indefinitely. The police would not even have needed to bother fitting them up for the crimes. We are returning to the bad old days of internment and it is utterly inexcuseable.

The thing that scares me is that pronouncements from Blair and others about our very nation being at stake are sounding increasingly hollow. We are asked to trust Blair and Clarke because they say we should, on the basis of information they say they have seen, but which we are forbidden from seeing and evaluating ourselves for security reasons. How very convenient for them.

I think that all the money we are wasting pursuing illegal legislation, and designing an ID card scheme that will never work, should be spent on improving and expanding MI5. That way, we might actually get the evidence we need to nail some of these people under the laws we already have, and which have served us well for years.

dr wadd 27-01-2005 11:49
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
As far as I'm concerned there's no smoke with out fire.
Then perhaps you would care to pull your head out of the sand and pay attention to the myriad miscarriages of justice that have plagued the courts over the years. Between politicians scrabbling for votes, the paranoia of the press and the closed-minded attitude of certain segments of the population of this country they've managed to come up with a most impressive magic-smoke machine.

Chris 27-01-2005 11:55
Re: House Arrest
 
Sorry, I couldn'r resist playing with this:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

I think he makes a very convincing tinpot dictator myself.

Graham F 27-01-2005 12:01
Re: House Arrest
 
Those laws might of served us well in dealing with the threats we have had in the past. However how many of the terrorists these laws worked against would consider sucide bombings? or the mass killing of people like 9/11? These are extreme people and extreme measures are needed to deal with them. Unless someone can come up with a better solution that doesn't discriminate against foreigners this seems the only logical step, as the British people would not stand for British nationals being locked up in prision without charge. So the house arrest system seems the only way forward.

Its not nice, but it is a way of dealing with the threat!

What gets me, are organisations like Liberty saying this is outragous keeping these people locked up, but they never give an alternative way of dealing with it. Saying the law is no good, isn't good enough what we need are other ways of dealing with the threat!

Do people think the 'threat' is real or do you think it is overstated by Government?

STONEISLAND 27-01-2005 12:03
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Then perhaps you would care to pull your head out of the sand and pay attention to the myriad miscarriages of justice that have plagued the courts over the years.
My head is well out of the sand I'm a news addict as you can see from some of my threads. Are we talking miscarriages of justice on terror of normal offences? I'm talking terror as the thread is mainly about terror. You do not see many cases of miscarriages of justice on terror suspects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Between politicians scrabbling for votes, the paranoia of the press and the closed-minded attitude of certain segments of the population of this country they've managed to come up with a most impressive magic-smoke machine.
Smoke screen for what? :confused: At the end of the day surly they are doing it for mine and your safty. I'm not scared by the govoment as what seems you are?
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
Sorry, I couldn'r resist playing with this:

http://homepage.mac.com/towny/gen-clarke.jpg

I think he makes a very convincing tinpot dictator myself.
Very good :clap: But wrong :( Is he evil? I think not.

gary_580 27-01-2005 12:11
Re: House Arrest
 
the whole thing is a joke. House arrest? pffftttttt doesnt stop them ploting as opposed to doing.

Graham F 27-01-2005 12:13
Re: House Arrest
 
it does stop them planning as well, as there would be restrictions on phone adn internet access and i'm sure that those under house arrest would be closely monitored

Chris 27-01-2005 12:15
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
Those laws might of served us well in dealing with the threats we have had in the past. However how many of the terrorists these laws worked against would consider sucide bombings? or the mass killing of people like 9/11? These are extreme people and extreme measures are needed to deal with them. Unless someone can come up with a better solution that doesn't discriminate against foreigners this seems the only logical step, as the British people would not stand for British nationals being locked up in prision without charge. So the house arrest system seems the only way forward.

Its not nice, but it is a way of dealing with the threat!

What gets me, are organisations like Liberty saying this is outragous keeping these people locked up, but they never give an alternative way of dealing with it. Saying the law is no good, isn't good enough what we need are other ways of dealing with the threat!

Do people think the 'threat' is real or do you think it is overstated by Government?
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 were of an extreme kind. They took an age to plan and prepare and they cost a fortune to execute. They relied also on extremely lax security on the part of US domestic airlines. The chances of anything that severe happening again in our lifetime are, I would say, remote.

What confuses me is that we lived with the IRA threat for 30 years and at no time did we start throwing away our liberties in the way we are doing now - except for that disastrous experiment in internment whose results are there for all to see. Yet the Troubles in Northern Ireland resulted in some 3,468 deaths between 1969 and 1998 (source). That is equivalent to those who died in New York and Washington, and a mere drop in the ocean compared to WWII, which, in my opinion, is the last time this country faced an emergency severe enough to justify draconian powers such as those now being contemplated.

The High Court ruled the detention of foreign nationals was 'grossly disproportionate' to the threat, and I see no reason to view house arrest as less disproportionate. Detention is detention, denial of liberty, whether it's in your front room or a prison cell.

And yes, I think the current theat is being grossly overstated for the purposes of political advancement. It makes me sick and with the spineless Tories apparently happy to go along with it, I am now very seriously thinking about voting Lib Dem and taking my chances on beating them in a referendum on their loony ideas about Europe. And coming from me, believe me, that is a seismic shift in personal politics.

gary_580 27-01-2005 12:22
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
it does stop them planning as well, as there would be restrictions on phone adn internet access and i'm sure that those under house arrest would be closely monitored
oh right, and they are the only ways to communicate?

Graham F 27-01-2005 12:36
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
The terrorist attacks of September 2001 were of an extreme kind. They took an age to plan and prepare and they cost a fortune to execute. They relied also on extremely lax security on the part of US domestic airlines. The chances of anything that severe happening again in our lifetime are, I would say, remote.

What confuses me is that we lived with the IRA threat for 30 years and at no time did we start throwing away our liberties in the way we are doing now - except for that disastrous experiment in internment whose results are there for all to see. Yet the Troubles in Northern Ireland resulted in some 3,468 deaths between 1969 and 1998 (source). That is equivalent to those who died in New York and Washington, and a mere drop in the ocean compared to WWII, which, in my opinion, is the last time this country faced an emergency severe enough to justify draconian powers such as those now being contemplated.

The High Court ruled the detention of foreign nationals was 'grossly disproportionate' to the threat, and I see no reason to view house arrest as less disproportionate. Detention is detention, denial of liberty, whether it's in your front room or a prison cell.

And yes, I think the current theat is being grossly overstated for the purposes of political advancement. It makes me sick and with the spineless Tories apparently happy to go along with it, I am now very seriously thinking about voting Lib Dem and taking my chances on beating them in a referendum on their loony ideas about Europe. And coming from me, believe me, that is a seismic shift in personal politics.
Then you look at the Madrid train bombings though Chris over 200 people killed, this is a new kind of terror threat, they want to kill as many people as possible and don't give a damn what who or how. The Northen Ireland issue was different as alot of the attacks were against the security forces or to inflict damage to property. (please don't get me wrong here any kind of loss of live is terrible regards of who it is) Now the goal posts have moved they want to kill as many as possible regardless of job, race, age, gender.

During the 70's, 80's and 90's all the security was based around army bases, police stations, and busy centres. Where as now they are showing a will to strike against 'soft' targets with NO warning, I find this more terrifying than anything else.

Do I think the threat to us here and now is overstated, no i don't. The 'new breed' of terriorist are extreme and very difficult to deal with. While the High Court ruled the detention 'grossly disproportionate' they did not say it was illegal (correct if i am wrong), which is why it ended up going to the Law Lords who deemed it unlawful, strangley enough the Government do not have to abide by any ruling from the law lords (hence they have not been released) where as if the High Court said it was unlawful they would have to (again I might be worng on that, am doing this from memory).
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by gary_580
oh right, and they are the only ways to communicate?
Such as letter, face to face, all of which would be monitored, how do you think they would plan things?

gary_580 27-01-2005 12:38
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
Such as letter, face to face, all of which would be monitored, how do you think they would plan things?
Theyre not in solitary confinement

Graham F 27-01-2005 12:42
Re: House Arrest
 
That i am aware of, if someone is under house arrest I am sure they would be watched very step of the way, phone lines tapped, house bugged, directional mircophones, every letter outgoing read, people that come to house would be looked into. It would be hard/foolish for them to try and arrange something being so closely watched.

dr wadd 27-01-2005 13:11
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
My head is well out of the sand I'm a news addict as you can see from some of my threads. Are we talking miscarriages of justice on terror of normal offences? I'm talking terror as the thread is mainly about terror. You do not see many cases of miscarriages of justice on terror suspects.
The absolute numbers do not matter, one case is too many.

Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Smoke screen for what? :confused: At the end of the day surly they are doing it for mine and your safty. I'm not scared by the govoment as what seems you are?
I made no reference to a smoke screen. I was referring to the comments about there being no smoke without fire. I think you'll find that there is an awful lot of smoke without any fire, hence the magic smoke machine.

Chris 27-01-2005 13:11
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
Then you look at the Madrid train bombings though Chris over 200 people killed, this is a new kind of terror threat, they want to kill as many people as possible and don't give a damn what who or how.
I beg to differ - please do read the link which was the source of my stats for the Northern Ireland troubles. In 1972, 249 civilians (i.e. not army, not police and not members of any terror group) were killed. In the following four years, the civilian death toll was 119, 192, 174 and 207.

To suggest that these figures are less significant than the Madrid train bomb because each set took 12 months to accumulate, rather than being incurred in any single event, is to wilfully misrepresent the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Troubles occurred over 30 years and generally saw people die in ones, twos and sometimes tens, should not detract in any way from the seriousness of them. There was virtually a civil war on British territory and yet we did not start eroding liberties as we are now doing, or talk about threats to the very fabric of our nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
The Northen Ireland issue was different as alot of the attacks were against the security forces or to inflict damage to property. (please don't get me wrong here any kind of loss of live is terrible regards of who it is) Now the goal posts have moved they want to kill as many as possible regardless of job, race, age, gender.
As above, this is simply not true. In 1972, the single worst year, while there were 249 civilian deaths, there were 149 police and army deaths and 78 paramilitary deaths. Civilians took more than 50% of the total casualties. Civilians were the single biggest casualty group in 18 of the 29 years for which stats are available on this site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
During the 70's, 80's and 90's all the security was based around army bases, police stations, and busy centres. Where as now they are showing a will to strike against 'soft' targets with NO warning, I find this more terrifying than anything else.
IRA warnings were as often as not designed to confuse the security and emergency services, rather than to prevent loss of life. Security establishments were heavily fortified because they were the obvious targets, not because they were the only targets. Again, the statistics prove that soft, civilian targets were most frequently the target of IRA attacks. Canary Wharf, Warrington, Manchester, pubs in Guildford and Birmingham, the Grand Hotel, Brighton, good heavens, 10 Downing Street itself ... need I go on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
Do I think the threat to us here and now is overstated, no i don't. The 'new breed' of terriorist are extreme and very difficult to deal with. While the High Court ruled the detention 'grossly disproportionate' they did not say it was illegal (correct if i am wrong), which is why it ended up going to the Law Lords who deemed it unlawful, strangley enough the Government do not have to abide by any ruling from the law lords (hence they have not been released) where as if the High Court said it was unlawful they would have to (again I might be worng on that, am doing this from memory).
There is no 'new breed' of terrorist. Just the same bunch of religious nutters the world has endured throughout history. It so happens that one particular bunch of nutters were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time - just when an incredibly rich nutter with a grudge against the USA was looking for someone to do his dirty work for him.

The religious nutters may be still less respectful of life and property than were the IRA, but they are not fundamentally cleverer or more powerful. They are more disparate, which might make them harder to catch, but I am confident the security services will catch up with them the way they caught up with the IRA.

Graham F 27-01-2005 13:20
Re: House Arrest
 
Chris I feel you have taken my comments out of context, or maybe i didn't put it very well myself. I am in no way saying that the people that died in Northern Ireland are less signifigant and i would never say that. if it came across that way then I apologise.

Chris 27-01-2005 13:26
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham F
Chris I feel you have taken my comments out of context, or maybe i didn't put it very well myself. I am in no way saying that the people that died in Northern Ireland are less signifigant and i would never say that. if it came across that way then I apologise.
Sorry, maybe it's me that's not expressing clearly. I know you're not trying to lessen the seriousness of any loss of life, but what I think you are trying to do is suggest that the current situation is, for various reasons, of a different and more perilous nature than the Northern Ireland situation was.

What I am trying to say is that this is not true, the height of the Troubles were a very dark time ideed, and I think letting time dim the memory and the pain is dangerous because it allows people like Blair and Clarke to say we are facing something different when I do not believe we are.

Even nuclear terrorism is not a new idea. Let's not forget, Roger Cook and others were smuggling fake nuclear bombs into the Square Mile to prove a point on their TV shows long before anyone had ever heard of Al Qaeda.

Stuart 27-01-2005 13:27
Re: House Arrest
 
I think I understand what Chris is concerned about. He is concerned that these people will be under house arrest with NO right to trial.

There are two reasons this worries me.

What if the government is wrong (not necessarily in this case, but maybe in others)? There would be an attack. The government will have some people arrested. If they have the wrong people (as has happened in the past), then the real terrorists will still be free.

What if the government started classifying those who disagreed with the government as terrorists (after all, weren't the French resistance classed as terrorists in the second world war)? AFAIK, this has never happened in this country, but it HAS happened in other countries. You may argue that it would never happen in this country, and you may be right. However, the Government is rumoured to be very good at hiding it's actions from the population, so it's entirely possible they would do this.

andyl 27-01-2005 14:17
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
So, what do these three men have in common:

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

Answer: They all think that House Arrest is a convenient way of dealing with people you don't like the look of, but whom you happen not to have hard evidence against.

This country is beginning to scare me.

EDIT

Here's a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4211127.stm
Brilliant post. As for 'no smoke without fire' type comments elsewhere; three years detention without proper legal representation and still not enough evidence to bring charges. There's no bleedin' smoke, let alone fire. Not forgetting that the people doing the detaining were the ones whose 'intelligence' said Iraq had WMDs, despite independent evidence to the contrary.

STONEISLAND 27-01-2005 14:32
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Brilliant post. As for 'no smoke without fire' type comments elsewhere; three years detention without proper legal representation and still not enough evidence to bring charges. There's no bleedin' smoke, let alone fire. Not forgetting that the people doing the detaining were the ones whose 'intelligence' said Iraq had WMDs, despite independent evidence to the contrary.
Fair enougth lets just sit back do nothing let them all go, and kick ourselfs if something did happen.

If only we did........

If only we where more CAREFULL.........

Have they knocked on your door yet?

dr wadd 27-01-2005 14:38
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Fair enougth lets just sit back do nothing let them all go, and kick ourselfs if something did happen.

If only we did........

If only we where more CAREFULL.........

Have they knocked on your door yet?
These "terrorists" actually do not cause me great concern. I know full well that my personal risk is only slightly higher now than it has been throughout my life as I simply do not buy into the FUD that gets thrown about like so much fact.

What does scare me and cause concern is the attitude that we should simply abandon all concept of human and civil rights in order to protect ourselves from a largely non-existant threat that has been cooked up by the powers that be. I`m not saying that there is no risk of terrorist attack but various governments have attempted to sell us a steaming pile of propaganda.

STONEISLAND 27-01-2005 14:40
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
These "terrorists" actually do not cause me great concern. I know full well that my personal risk is only slightly higher now than it has been throughout my life as I simply do not buy into the FUD that gets thrown about like so much fact.

What does scare me and cause concern is the attitude that we should simply abandon all concept of human and civil rights in order to protect ourselves from a largely non-existant threat that has been cooked up by the powers that be. I`m not saying that there is no risk of terrorist attack but various governments have attempted to sell us a steaming pile of propaganda.
Would you say the same if you lived in the USA?

andyl 27-01-2005 14:47
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Fair enougth lets just sit back do nothing let them all go, and kick ourselfs if something did happen.

If only we did........

If only we where more CAREFULL.........

Have they knocked on your door yet?
Detain people against whom you have evidence. But you can't go locking people up without good, just cause. Where's that going to end? And you seem to have remarkable faith in the US intelligence services despite their recent track record - and, I note, didn't bother to respond to the point re the quality of their 'intelligence' over Iraq which led to our going in which in turn led to our becoming a bigger target.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
These "terrorists" actually do not cause me great concern. I know full well that my personal risk is only slightly higher now than it has been throughout my life as I simply do not buy into the FUD that gets thrown about like so much fact.

What does scare me and cause concern is the attitude that we should simply abandon all concept of human and civil rights in order to protect ourselves from a largely non-existant threat that has been cooked up by the powers that be. I`m not saying that there is no risk of terrorist attack but various governments have attempted to sell us a steaming pile of propaganda.
Praise be to the good doctor.

An Avian flu epidemic is probably a bigger risk. But as a dad of two, lunatic drivers top my list of things to worry about, not terrorists.

STONEISLAND 27-01-2005 15:01
Re: House Arrest
 
At the end of the day as far as I'm concerned I don't care about innocent terrorist. I know full well that 'Big Brother' under no circumstance will be watching me. I know there will be no 'House arrest's' as far as me my family and I guess all of CF are concerned.

Quote:
didn't bother to respond to the point re the quality of their 'intelligence' over Iraq which led to our going on which in turn led to our becoming a bigger target.


I admit the whole thing is a scandal but what can the goverment do about? Put there hands up and say sorry we are all wrong lets leave the county in the mess its in and just go?

And as you said your not worried about terrorist. So whats with the bigger target thing?

AndrewJ 27-01-2005 17:20
Re: House Arrest
 
Either nature will whipe us out, or we will whipe ourselves out.

One thing is certain we need to deal with these people, they are clever and take months while in captivity to track down there contacts and find bombs etc, things take time. Far to many people expect results now and faster, won't work like this, this is 21st century warfare us agaisnt the terrorist networks. I agree locking them in a cell, in a island somewhere far away is a bloody good idea, I won't want them near to where I am living.

But for saying the above, they are human and have a right to a trial but we have to watch our backs and just because we only have "intelligence" we should be able to take them into custody, If they have nothing to hide and are innocent then a apology and a payout could be by the goverment awarded, sadly we all want this perfect world..but no one is willing to play ball or come up with the answers to how to get it. And with all the law's the goverment has to stick to they are working bloody hard.


awaits someone to rip his post into little quotes and slam there point in my face.. :D

Maggy 27-01-2005 17:25
Re: House Arrest
 
Oh here we go again.Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows. :rolleyes:

I believe this is STILL a democracy here is it not?So what has happened to the ideas of justice ,truth and human rights?

If someone is guilty prosecute them then comes the sentence.Not sentence and if we get around to it we will give you a trial.

Sounds just like the Cardassian's form of Justice in Star Trek. :D

andyl 27-01-2005 17:29
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
At the end of the day as far as I'm concerned I don't care about innocent terrorist. I know full well that 'Big Brother' under no circumstance will be watching me. I know there will be no 'House arrest's' as far as me my family and I guess all of CF are concerned.



I admit the whole thing is a scandal but what can the goverment do about? Put there hands up and say sorry we are all wrong lets leave the county in the mess its in and just go?

And as you said your not worried about terrorist. So whats with the bigger target thing?
Could you define the interesting concept of an 'innocent terrorist'?! Someone who just happens to be Muslim (or sometime ago Irish cf Birmingham Six) in the wrong place at the wrong time, perhaps? As has been repeatedly pointed, out there is no evidence against the Guantanamo captives just released which is why they have not been charged and are not terrorists.

Big Brother is already watching you; the average UK citizen is filmed 300 times a day by CCTV!

The issue of whether we should leave the mess we created in Iraq is an interesting one, but not for this thread.

And yes, of course we face a terrorist threat. That threat has increased as a result of us blundering, illegally, into Irag on the coat-tails of America. But as a parent I do worry much, much more about idiot drivers etc than I do about terrorism. And I certainly do not think victimising people and curtailing everyone's civil liberties is going to reduce that threat one iota. In fact it's likely to have the opposite effect. Certainly didn't work in Northern Ireland. Jury-less trials and detention created martyrs and achieved diddly squat except continuation of hostilities.

punky 27-01-2005 17:39
Re: House Arrest
 
House arrest seems like a dumb idea. It won't achieve anything, except bring more negative feeling on us.

Besides, if you suspect someone might be up to no good, the idea is to monitor them, without disrupting them. You want them to do something stupid. At least it would vindicate the US/UK somewhat. I can only think that UK don't have enough court admissible evidence, but some strong inadmissible evidence (illegally gained, but helpful nonetheless) which might say they are upto no good. Still I didn't know you could house arrest without a charge. Unless this is fo less than 14 days as per the new terrorism law? If that is the case, then it puts a different slant on things. The UK government could have just left them in jail for 14 days, instead of being at home.

Earl of Bronze 27-01-2005 17:48
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
These "terrorists" actually do not cause me great concern. I know full well that my personal risk is only slightly higher now than it has been throughout my life as I simply do not buy into the FUD that gets thrown about like so much fact.

What does scare me and cause concern is the attitude that we should simply abandon all concept of human and civil rights in order to protect ourselves from a largely non-existant threat that has been cooked up by the powers that be. I`m not saying that there is no risk of terrorist attack but various governments have attempted to sell us a steaming pile of propaganda.
Having been born in Belfast in 1971, not long after the start of ''the troubles'', I can honestly say, I feel just as safe now, as I did when I was a kid. When I was growing up it was ''normal'' to see heavily armed soldiers patrolling the streets, and body searches when entering Belfast city center. Now that we have ''peace'' :rofl: its strange not to see the squadies on the streets, and the police not wearing body armour.


As to the possibility of attacks by Islamic terrorists, Tony 'The Liar' and his cohorts are deffo overplaying the threat. My only hope is that if the mad mullahs do attack the UK, then they drive a truck bomb into the houses of parliment. Bye-bye to all those lazy, lying wasters.

dr wadd 27-01-2005 18:09
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Would you say the same if you lived in the USA?
Most certainly, they have an even bigger liar in charge.

Think about this sensibly for a moment, taking the USA as an example. Given the size of the country, unless there are a great many terrorist attacks all over the country at the same time, probability dictates that you are not likely to be affected. Your risk will obviously be higher if you live in a big city like New York, but any risk is going to be spread across all big cities.

Even if there is a sharp increase in the number of terrorist attacks across the USA, that would still be a fairly low number. Factor in the fact that you would have to be in geographical proximity of an attack, and then even if you are there you also have to be a victim, the odds really haven`t increased by a meaningful amount. An event suchj as 9/11 may have caused an enormous loss of life in a single incident, the probability of being in that incident is negligible.

So yes, while you are technically correct that at the moment there is more risk of being killed in a terrorist attack, statistically the risk isn`t worth considering as an individual.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
At the end of the day as far as I'm concerned I don't care about innocent terrorist. I know full well that 'Big Brother' under no circumstance will be watching me. I know there will be no 'House arrest's' as far as me my family and I guess all of CF are concerned.
For now you may be correct, but the whole problem with this issue is that it rapidly leads to a very slippery slope.

I have sitting on my bookshelf a copy of The Anarchist's Cookbook which I bought in the local Waterstones. Saw it sitting on the shelf and thought it would make interesting reading, which it does. That doesn`t mean I have any intention of following their instructions for blowing up bridges, bombing cars or the like.

I`m not sure about the UK, but I`m pretty sure that in the US at the moment that would be enough to get me arrested on terrorism charges (material useful to a terrorist).

We've allowed our politicians to whip up such a climate of fear that simply owning a book, in some circles, could be seen as just grounds to suspect someone. If we don`t watch the situation very carefully we will end up with a situation where you could be detained simply due to your choice in reading material that can be bought in any high street bookstore.

One last point, I`m sorry to shatter any illusions you may have but Big Brother *is* watching you. Echelon doesn`t discriminate.

Ramrod 27-01-2005 18:13
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Oh and the other 2 are dictators the 1 in the middle is not.
Thats a very good point. All three of them eat, sleep and sh*t as well..........doesn't that those functions are suddenly wrong.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
The absolute numbers do not matter, one case is too many.
....and one atrocity is too many............you seem to have forgotten Madrid, Tailand, New York............

Escapee 27-01-2005 18:20
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
So, what do these three men have in common:

http://homepage.mac.com/towny/house-arrest.jpg

Answer: They all think that House Arrest is a convenient way of dealing with people you don't like the look of, but whom you happen not to have hard evidence against.

This country is beginning to scare me.

EDIT

Here's a link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4211127.stm
I am not worried about it in the slightest, there is no way that I could be connected with any terrorist activities. I would never be interested in going near any of these middle east countries.

Maggy 27-01-2005 18:22
Re: House Arrest
 
I for one do not intend to become like my enemy.They may torture,kill,maim,steal,hold hostages as long term prisoners but I intend not to allow myself or my country to adopt their practices.

If we do then we become no better and we need not fight them because we are them. :(

Graham 27-01-2005 18:54
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
I for one do not intend to become like my enemy.They may torture,kill,maim,steal,hold hostages as long term prisoners but I intend not to allow myself or my country to adopt their practices.

If we do then we become no better and we need not fight them because we are them. :(
Damn it, Inconitas, it's been too short a time since I green repped you to do it again!

This is *exactly* the sort of comment I was about to post, but you've done it for me.

dr wadd 27-01-2005 19:02
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
....and one atrocity is too many............you seem to have forgotten Madrid, Tailand, New York............
Not at all, but if we become, in our own way, as bad as the minority which do pose a risk we may as well give up now and join them. Miscarriages of justice aren`t going to prevent terrorist attacks, and as scary as it is to agree with a Tory, only risk turning moderate Muslims against the "West", thus being counterproductive.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, the real increase in the risk level is actually very small, therefore the response of the authorities must be equal to that. The current situation is a sledgehammer/nut response. Even a proportionate response runs the risk of resulting in a miscarriage of justice, I cannot see that possibility ever going away, but the widesweeping measures in place now will only increase that risk many times over.

cookie_365 27-01-2005 19:13
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris T
I beg to differ - please do read the link which was the source of my stats for the Northern Ireland troubles. In 1972, 249 civilians (i.e. not army, not police and not members of any terror group) were killed. In the following four years, the civilian death toll was 119, 192, 174 and 207.

To suggest that these figures are less significant than the Madrid train bomb because each set took 12 months to accumulate, rather than being incurred in any single event, is to wilfully misrepresent the seriousness of the situation in Northern Ireland. The fact that the Troubles occurred over 30 years and generally saw people die in ones, twos and sometimes tens, should not detract in any way from the seriousness of them. There was virtually a civil war on British territory and yet we did not start eroding liberties as we are now doing, or talk about threats to the very fabric of our nation.



As above, this is simply not true. In 1972, the single worst year, while there were 249 civilian deaths, there were 149 police and army deaths and 78 paramilitary deaths. Civilians took more than 50% of the total casualties. Civilians were the single biggest casualty group in 18 of the 29 years for which stats are available on this site.



IRA warnings were as often as not designed to confuse the security and emergency services, rather than to prevent loss of life. Security establishments were heavily fortified because they were the obvious targets, not because they were the only targets. Again, the statistics prove that soft, civilian targets were most frequently the target of IRA attacks. Canary Wharf, Warrington, Manchester, pubs in Guildford and Birmingham, the Grand Hotel, Brighton, good heavens, 10 Downing Street itself ... need I go on?



There is no 'new breed' of terrorist. Just the same bunch of religious nutters the world has endured throughout history. It so happens that one particular bunch of nutters were fortunate enough to be in the right place at the right time - just when an incredibly rich nutter with a grudge against the USA was looking for someone to do his dirty work for him.

The religious nutters may be still less respectful of life and property than were the IRA, but they are not fundamentally cleverer or more powerful. They are more disparate, which might make them harder to catch, but I am confident the security services will catch up with them the way they caught up with the IRA.
:clap:

Enniskillen

kronas 27-01-2005 19:19
Re: House Arrest
 
i have to say i agree alot with chris t and dr wadd, the state of the nation is pretty healthy at the moment, terrorism is coming to the forefront of life.

im not willing to trust any government with the right to house arrests, for an indefinate or any period of time.

its presuming guilty without being given a trail of the defendant proving his or her case.

cookie_365 27-01-2005 19:19
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
I for one do not intend to become like my enemy.They may torture,kill,maim,steal,hold hostages as long term prisoners but I intend not to allow myself or my country to adopt their practices.

If we do then we become no better and we need not fight them because we are them. :(
Absolutely. Freedom and democracy and rule of law are the weapons we should be using to defeat terroism.

kronas 27-01-2005 19:22
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie_365
Absolutely. Freedom and democracy and rule of law are the weapons we should be using to defeat terroism.
yes and smokescreens by government about 'protecting' civillians is priority :erm: but erosion of civil liberties is not ?

i understand that in this day and age things have changed, but freedom and lawfulness and civil and human rights cannot be infringed, its just making us as a country hypocrictical as a country to suggest freedom to other countries when our own is NOT.

Ramrod 27-01-2005 19:24
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr wadd
Not at all, but if we become, in our own way, as bad as the minority which do pose a risk we may as well give up now and join them. Miscarriages of justice aren`t going to prevent terrorist attacks, and as scary as it is to agree with a Tory, only risk turning moderate Muslims against the "West", thus being counterproductive.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, the real increase in the risk level is actually very small, therefore the response of the authorities must be equal to that. The current situation is a sledgehammer/nut response. Even a proportionate response runs the risk of resulting in a miscarriage of justice, I cannot see that possibility ever going away, but the widesweeping measures in place now will only increase that risk many times over.
Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.

kronas 27-01-2005 19:26
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
im not going to apologise for my scepticism about politicians and governments. but if your going to arrest someone you need evidence, house arrest samething, otherwise its wrong and against human rights.

Tezcatlipoca 27-01-2005 19:34
Re: House Arrest
 
Great... :rolleyes: .... The Govt gets rid of one stupid, rushed, & illegal law after the Law Lords rule against it, only to replace it with another affront to justice & liberty....


So now, instead of "only" foreign terror suspects being held on flimsy evidence without charge or trial, British citizens can be held too. OK, so it isn't Belmarsh anymore, but being placed under indefinite "house arrest" without ever having even been charged with something, let alone actually convicted of a crime, is simply wrong.

Escapee 27-01-2005 19:34
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
I think the law is to hold the ones who are a risk but theres not enough in the current law to hold them.

How many times do the police have to let criminals go when they know they are guilty as sin, but have no way of holding them. I can't believe these guys are the innocent angels some are making them out to be!

Damien 27-01-2005 19:37
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie_365
Absolutely. Freedom and democracy and rule of law are the weapons we should be using to defeat terroism.
Yes, because its worked so well before.

It may sound nice but freedom, democracy and the moral highground are not good tools against terrorism. They will commit their acts and kill and many people as possible to strike fear into the country and hopefully undermine the freedom and the rule of law.

I am not in support of house arrest or against it. I do not have the information that the goverment holds on these people but i am certain that they think they are a danger. So i cannot comment. But i do think that actual action whould be taken instead of talking about human rights (which is important) and preaching about freedom and liberty. Do you think the terrorists will see us talking about human rights and freedom and then think they need to change their ways.

SO the question is, if house arrest cannot be used. What can?

Ramrod 27-01-2005 19:38
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kronas
im not going to apologise for my scepticism about politicians and governments. but if your going to arrest someone you need evidence, house arrest samething, otherwise its wrong and against human rights.
Totally agree...........I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
Bl**dy hope not anyway..........why waste the scarce recourses and money? :erm:

edit........it comes down to trust and I (probably foolishly) trust the security services and govt more than terrorists.............

andyl 27-01-2005 19:50
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee
I think the law is to hold the ones who are a risk but theres not enough in the current law to hold them.

How many times do the police have to let criminals go when they know they are guilty as sin, but have no way of holding them. I can't believe these guys are the innocent angels some are making them out to be!
Please could you qualify your comment "they are as guilty as sin"? I'm interested on what FACTUAL basis you make this judgement.

Bifta 27-01-2005 19:54
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Totally agree...........I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
Bl**dy hope not anyway..........why waste the scarce recourses and money? :erm:

edit........it comes down to trust and I (probably foolishly) trust the security services and govt more than terrorists.............
Foolishly indeed, the government were quite willing to intern countless innocent people in Long Kesh and the Maze over the last 30 years, including several senior citizens and plenty of others with absolutely no links to terrorism whatsoever. I think it's safe to say the new idiotic home secretary will waste as much money as he see's fit on his hare brained plans.

Escapee 27-01-2005 19:59
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Please could you qualify your comment "they are as guilty as sin"? I'm interested on what FACTUAL basis you make this judgement.
I didn't say these guys were as guilty as sin, although their reasons for being in that region were lame to say the least.

I am saying there are cases when the police know someone is guilty but are unable to proceed, it's a bit like a local problem recently near my parents house where they could not take someone to court because the witness had given evidence, on the false promise that the criminal would admit guilt as soon as he was aware of a witness. The criminal carried on protesting his innocence and the witness refused to go to court and wanted to retract their statement.

There are situations like that where the police cannot get a conviction for one reason or another, and guilty people walk free!

Maggy 27-01-2005 20:09
Re: House Arrest
 
I find this all very disturbing and worrying on the 60th anniversary of the holocaust. :(

First they came for the Communists,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I wasnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I wasnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Couldn't happen here?I'm sure that it was thought it couldn't happen in a 20th century Germany.

IF you waive the rule of law for some cases where does it stop?If one freedom is eroded it won't be long until the next one is deemed ok to wipe off the statute book.

andyl 27-01-2005 20:23
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee
I didn't say these guys were as guilty as sin, although their reasons for being in that region were lame to say the least.

I am saying there are cases when the police know someone is guilty but are unable to proceed, it's a bit like a local problem recently near my parents house where they could not take someone to court because the witness had given evidence, on the false promise that the criminal would admit guilt as soon as he was aware of a witness. The criminal carried on protesting his innocence and the witness refused to go to court and wanted to retract their statement.

There are situations like that where the police cannot get a conviction for one reason or another, and guilty people walk free!
Same goes, whatever. A factual basis is required otherwise you have a police state. I have in fact, many moons ago, been illegally arrested, held over night, had implied threats directed at me by a burly copper then chucked out of a cell in the neighbouring town in which I lived and was picked up. Trust me it's no fun - but a picnic at Henley Regatta compared to being held for three years with God knows what going on behind the scenes.

So, lame excuse for being in the region. As I said before wrong face, wrong place. Chuck away the key then.

Tezcatlipoca 27-01-2005 20:23
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Still I didn't know you could house arrest without a charge. Unless this is fo less than 14 days as per the new terrorism law? If that is the case, then it puts a different slant on things. The UK government could have just left them in jail for 14 days, instead of being at home.

This new proposal is for indefinite house arrest, without charge. It will apply to both foreign terror suspects *and* British terror suspects (unlike the previous law it is replacing). It could also be used against suspected domestic terrorists (e.g. animal rights extremists, Irish loyalist/nationalist terrorists, etc.), as well as people suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda etc.


So, instead of foreign suspects being held indefinitely in Belmarsh, without charge or trial, the Government will now be able to hold suspects of any nationality indefinitely, without charge or trial...but under "house arrest", rather than in an actual prison.


Like the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act before it, the new law will once again require the Government to derogate from part of the European Convention on Human Rights (the bit which guarantees the Right to Liberty).



Another story on it:

"Lawyers criticise house arrest plan"

edit: and another - http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...399018,00.html

punky 27-01-2005 20:34
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt D
This new proposal is for indefinite house arrest, without charge. It will apply to both foreign terror suspects *and* British terror suspects (unlike the previous law it is replacing). It could also be used against suspected domestic terrorists (e.g. animal rights extremists, Irish loyalist/nationalist terrorists, etc.), as well as people suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda etc.
Well as Ramrod correctly said a lot the time the security services collect evidence which is inadmissable in court or jeopardises ongoing investigations, but i'd still rather let these people go about their own free will. See who they are meeting etc. That's how you gather intelligence, not by isolating, but by encouraging it. Unless MI-5 is so overwelmed atm to do that, which it probably is. I don't think house arrests will solve much anyway. If Mohammed Atta was house arrested, there are probably a million more a***holes who would gladly take his spot.

Graham 27-01-2005 20:39
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
So what it's really saying is "we say they're guilty, but we're not going to let anyone actually *see* the evidence to prove the fact".

Hmm, sounds very "just" to me...
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
It may sound nice but freedom, democracy and the moral highground are not good tools against terrorism. They will commit their acts and kill and many people as possible to strike fear into the country and hopefully undermine the freedom and the rule of law.
So they want to undermine freedom and the rule of law and what do we do?

Remove people's basic rights, deny them fair trials and lock them up and throw away the key...

Civilised society 0 - Terrorists 1
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
Sure. Like nobody wasted time locking people up in Guantanamo Bay or HMP Belmarsh... :rolleyes:

Escapee 27-01-2005 20:42
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
So, lame excuse for being in the region. As I said before wrong face, wrong place. Chuck away the key then.
I am not in favour of giving police powers that they are able to abuse, but I wonder how many terrorist acts could be seen coming in countries that have previously not been used to those actions.

I would of thought we could all see that it's a bit strange when it's all added up that some of these guys change religions, I think at least one left his family and they go to a war torn place that is one of the most dangerous places in the world. As I said, if these guys were offering their services to a charity organisation like Red Cross, Oxfam etc etc, I would be agreeing with you all that they could be innocent and have been treated badly. However these guys were out there with lame excuses and I believe the Americans as always c***ed things up and this government has let them off without really getting to the bottom of their guilt or innocence. They have been let of because a portion of people in this country and the media are now making them out to be innocent without any time spent to investigate the facts.

I do have strong feelings on the subject of terrorism due to my present job, but I have to leave those things out of my discussions.

Stuart 27-01-2005 21:03
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skunk4u
Would you say the same if you lived in the USA?
They are currently under the same threat of terrorism that we have had for more than 30 years. We are still here.

I'll admit that 9/11 was the worst terrorist incident ever, but despite our governments trying to hype up the danger from terrorism, I don't believe we are any less safe than we were before.

Certainly no need to abandon the priniciples of democracy and justice that our society is built on.


If you give the government freedom to imprison who they want (which they can do if they don't have to go through a court of law), where will they stop? Will they imprison all the Muslims & Irish people because they MIGHT have links to terrorism? Clearly 99.99% of all those races will have nothing to do with terrorism.

andyl 27-01-2005 21:09
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee
I am not in favour of giving police powers that they are able to abuse.

.
Er, that doesn't seem to be the case from what you've said before. Power to detain without charge couldn't be abused? Be serious.


I take on board your comment about American incompetence but surely 3 years enough time to get to the bottom of innocent/guilt?

OOh, how mysterious your job sounds.

Final notes before I depart for the evening. The smoke without fire argument means that when I was picked up illegally, I was guilty (those cops are good cos even I didn't know that).

The good Dr Wadd is the wisest of all wise men and Incognitas his female counterpart.

Anyway Escapee, shouldn't you be getting off now. Fahrenheit 9/11 is on C4 now :) :)

Escapee 27-01-2005 21:13
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
Er, that doesn't seem to be the case from what you've said before. Power to detain without charge couldn't be abused? Be serious.


I take on board your comment about American incompetence but surely 3 years enough time to get to the bottom of innocent/guilt?

OOh, how mysterious your job sounds.

Final notes before I depart for the evening. The smoke without fire argument means that when I was picked up illegally, I was guilty (those cops are good cos even I didn't know that).

The good Dr Wadd is the wisest of all wise men and Incognitas his female counterpart.

Anyway Escapee, shouldn't you be getting off now. Fahrenheit 9/11 is on C4 now :) :)
No getting off now to bed, another early start.

My job is not that mysterious or exciting, but I guess even the cleaner at number 10 gets to notice the odd occasional thing! ;)

Stuart 27-01-2005 21:15
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.
Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).

BTW, I was answering the point made on Radio 4, not arguing with you Ramrod (we do appear to agree the government shouldn't just be able to imprison people without proving they are terrorists).

Escapee 27-01-2005 21:20
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scastle
Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).

BTW, I was answering the point made on Radio 4, not arguing with you Ramrod (we do appear to agree the government shouldn't just be able to imprison people without proving they are terrorists).
Signing the official secrecy act doesn't mean someone can have access to all levels of security information. There are many different levels of security clearance, some of which the names cannot even be repeated.

Anyone who has been involved in this sort of thing should be able to confirm that from me!

Stuart 27-01-2005 21:33
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escapee
Signing the official secrecy act doesn't mean someone can have access to all levels of security information. There are many different levels of security clearance, some of which the names cannot even be repeated.

I do realise that. I was over simplifying, but I was trying to make the point that the government (logically) must already have procedures in place for trying crimes involving classified evidence. The "evidence" for these terrorist activities could be classified and the trial conducted using these procedures.

Unless the government has no evidence, and is just lying so that they can imprison who they want.

punky 27-01-2005 22:02
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by scastle
Fine. Classify the evidence as Top Secret. Make the judge, jury, barristers and everyone else involved in the case sign the Official Secrets act (thus ensuring they can be charged for treason if it is ever leaked). The government already have procedures in place for doing this (if they did not, they would never be able to charge any spys, or try any case involving the Official Secrets act as a lot of the evidence, by definition, would be classified).
But the whole reason MI-5 was secret in the first place, is that people on our level can't really comprehend the danger posed by us, and so what we don't know won't hurt us. We can go about our little lives without worrying about who is about to kill us. Like the "Men In Black" principle. Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.

Of course after 9/11 people found out that the intelligence agencies had some prior warnings or indications, and they pressed for a more transparent security service. Now threats are more public (like the Wall Street one), everyone is moaning about the culture of fear.

Graham 27-01-2005 22:05
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.
But of course the evidence to back those claims up isn't available to us, nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts.

So pardon me if I'm a little sceptical.

punky 27-01-2005 22:10
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
But of course the evidence to back those claims up isn't available to us, nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts.

So pardon me if I'm a little sceptical.
Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people. It is also foolish (I believe) to think that Al Qaeda are the only people that hate us, and they are in a couple caves in Afghanistan.

Graham 27-01-2005 22:49
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Quote:
Originally Posted by Graham
But of course the evidence to back those claims up isn't available to us, nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts.

So pardon me if I'm a little sceptical.
Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?
"nor, indeed, to any independant body whose opinions we can, hopefully, trust, even if we don't get the facts."

Quote:
Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people.
Or that, having had years of downsizing following the end of the Cold War, they're doing their damndest to make sure that they take every possible advantage of the current situation to re-establish their position.

Quote:
It is also foolish (I believe) to think that Al Qaeda are the only people that hate us, and they are in a couple caves in Afghanistan.
It is also foolish to assume that every time we hear of "an organisation with links to Al Qaeda" there is some sort of global conspiracy with Osama Bin Laden pulling the strings and orchestrating acts of terror instead of, much more likely, a bunch of vaguely related fanatics who share similar aims.

andyl 27-01-2005 22:54
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Well if there was some official facts to back it up, it wouldn't be secret, would it?

Their must be a present and ongoing threat to our country, or the security services wouldn't be over worked, or desperately trying to recruit more people.
I recommend Orwell for a nightime read. There's always a 'threat'. Remember too how over very short periods of time allies become enemies (Iraq, Afghanistan....).

Stuart 27-01-2005 23:00
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
But the whole reason MI-5 was secret in the first place, is that people on our level can't really comprehend the danger posed by us, and so what we don't know won't hurt us. We can go about our little lives without worrying about who is about to kill us. Like the "Men In Black" principle. Figures are hushed and sketchy at most, but I saw once that apparently England has upto 30 active threats against the country, each and every month, that need action to netralise.

Of course after 9/11 people found out that the intelligence agencies had some prior warnings or indications, and they pressed for a more transparent security service. Now threats are more public (like the Wall Street one), everyone is moaning about the culture of fear.
All well & good, but according to Ramrod, the government have said they cannot try these people as the evidence is inadmissable or revealing it would jeapordise ongiong ops. I was pointing out they could just classify any evidence therefore reducing any chance of leaking.

I didn't mention (and wasn't actually talking about) any security service.

punky 27-01-2005 23:25
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
I recommend Orwell for a nightime read. There's always a 'threat'. Remember too how over very short periods of time allies become enemies (Iraq, Afghanistan....).
I do too. I loved reading 1984. I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scastle
All well & good, but according to Ramrod, the government have said they cannot try these people as the evidence is inadmissable or revealing it would jeapordise ongiong ops. I was pointing out they could just classify any evidence therefore reducing any chance of leaking
Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.

danielf 27-01-2005 23:29
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I do too. I loved reading 1985.
1985 eh? As in the sequel to 1984? :)

punky 27-01-2005 23:34
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielf
1985 eh? As in the sequel to 1984? :)
ARGH!! That was a bad typo. I have read it, honest.

clairey 27-01-2005 23:46
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I do too. I loved reading 1984. I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.
did you understand the pount he was making about an ever changing enemy.

Your argument re jury's better off not knowing is positively scary.

Stuart 27-01-2005 23:48
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.
So you can justify the government imprisoning who it wants because any evidence presented might scare the jurors?

A lot of court cases expose the jury and other people in the court to information that they would probably be better off not knowing. Maybe we should imprison the defendants in those cases too?

soneill 28-01-2005 00:19
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
Yes, but that would mean exposing the jury, lawyers, judge, stenographers to information that they would be better off not knowing. What if a jury member had a brother who worked in Canary Warf and Canary Warf had been actively targetted 5 times in a month, every month? The jury member would be tormented.
I thought that they checked potential jurors for conflict of interest as part of jury selection. Your hypothetic juror should get "deselected" fairly early on in the process on that basis!

Maggy 28-01-2005 01:36
Re: House Arrest
 
Round and round we go,where we end up no one will know.....because it's a secret?Or it's scary and we might get frightened?It's inadmissable(will drop an informant in deep doo,doo)well why not keep informants names out of it.

I would rather 10 guilty people go free than one innocent person be locked up indefinitely mainly because that person might one day be me or a member of my family.There but for the grace.....

:)

punky 28-01-2005 04:49
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairey
did you understand the pount he was making about an ever changing enemy.
No matter who you are, you'll always have people disliking you, wether you are a person on a forum or a powerful country. Alliances tend to be tenuous at best. They get made, broken, made, broken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scastle
So you can justify the government imprisoning who it wants because any evidence presented might scare the jurors?
NO! I clearly said in post #31 that I am against the indefinite house arrest, and I clearly said in the "What to do with the Guantanamo four" (post #11) that they should be given due process. FFS people, at least read my posts before pouncing on me. Let me be abundantly clear on this:

1) I am against indefinite house arrest, of the Guantanamo 4 without charge.

2) I believe they should have been given due process all the way.

They same applies to other alleged terrorists. As most of the alleged terrorists have been, they have been arrested and then released through lack of admissable evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by soneil
I thought that they checked potential jurors for conflict of interest as part of jury selection. Your hypothetic juror should get "deselected" fairly early on in the process on that basis!
It doesn't get that detailed. For one thing you can't prejudice the jury. The questions they ask are things like, have you ever met the defendent before, etc. Reminds me of something funny

philip.j.fry 28-01-2005 09:02
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by punky
I haven't read Animal Farm yet, despite that it ridicules communism, and I am fiercely pro-capitalist.
If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.

andyl 28-01-2005 09:06
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.
And, Punky, Clairey's point about an ever-changing enemy judging by your riposte. We are talking about the same book aren't we?

Graham F 28-01-2005 09:16
Re: House Arrest
 
Just to make a point, I was under the impression that new laws brought in after 9/11 meant that terror suspects have a trail without jury. Just a panel of judges.

ntluser 28-01-2005 09:45
Re: House Arrest
 
The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.

Escapee 28-01-2005 17:04
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntluser
The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.
My view is we will never know the truth about these guys because the americans made a hash of it. I feel the government has let them go because of the uproar people are causing who are claiming they are innocent. I guess if I was in charge of the case and members of the public were complaining about them being held, the best thing to do is let them go and say "told you so" when they plant a bomb to kill loads of people.

The security services is totally different these days from the days of the cold war, during the cold war certain countries were against others. There is more of a definate split these days with countries sharing intelligence information as the two superpowers are not now at loggerheads.

The release of sensitive information in court cases would be a big concern, I have had to in my job drive to a location to be verbally told some information that seemed petty. When I later found out the bigger picture when the project became widespread, I could see how that information along with other bits of petty information from Tom, Dick and Harry could be very dangerous in the wrong hands and threat to life.

I am sure anyone with a forces background will back that up. (I am not ex-forces by the way)

Maggy 28-01-2005 17:13
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntluser
The problem for the government is that they have cause to suspect the "Guantanamo Four" but presumably not enough to secure a conviction.In that event their guilt is "not proven" but nor are they "not guilty".

They were obviously allowed to return to the UK after assurances being given to the USA by the British Government.

I'm with Graham on this. I suspect that they will be under surveillance for the rest of their lives and from today's papers it seems likely that their families will be too.

We can only hope that if they really are terrorists this surveillence willl reveal sufficient evidence for them to be tried and jailed.
Doesn't matter if they are or are not guilty.They have already been tried and judged by the public as witnessed in this thread.But there you go what does it matter what the evidence is because it is in the papers and they were arrested they MUST be guilty.After all the authorities never get anything wrong and there are WMD's in Iraq.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread because it has become a pointless exercise in trying to reason with the unreasonable. :(

andyl 28-01-2005 17:21
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Incognitas
Doesn't matter if they are or are not guilty.They have already been tried and judged by the public as witnessed in this thread.But there you go what does it matter what the evidence is because it is in the papers and they were arrested they MUST be guilty.After all the authorities never get anything wrong and there are WMD's in Iraq.

I'm unsubscribing from this thread because it has become a pointless exercise in trying to reason with the unreasonable. :(
For exactly the same reasons may I join you in the cyber wilderness. Parting shot: IN THIS COUNTRY PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY> IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS OF OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM. END OF CHAT.

punky 28-01-2005 17:59
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by philip.j.fry
If you get that from it you're missing Orwell's point.
Well like I said, I haven't read it despite meaning to. I always thought that the book was about Orwell's disillusionment with communism, and points out the fallacies thereof during the book, about how it doesn't create an utopia of happiness and equality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by andyl
And, Punky, Clairey's point about an ever-changing enemy judging by your riposte. We are talking about the same book aren't we?
If you honestly believe that the UK government deliberately causes a semi-state of animosity with other nations, to scare citizens into obedience and servitude to the Government, then you are far more cynical and paranoid than I.

For one thing looking at the protests and the current feeling of people, UK and abroad it doesn't seem to be working.

Ramrod 28-01-2005 18:14
Re: House Arrest
 
Just had an anti-terror expert in for treatment (ex-police, now employed by the govt, goes all over the world advising on terrorism vulnerabilities)......he said that he doesn't travel by tube anymore in London. Thinks the tube is the most probable location of the (inevitable) terrorist attack.

Escapee 28-01-2005 18:55
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Just had an anti-terror expert in for treatment (ex-police, now employed by the govt, goes all over the world advising on terrorism vulnerabilities)......he said that he doesn't travel by tube anymore in London. Thinks the tube is the most probable location of the (inevitable) terrorist attack.
Last weeks Tsunami concert in Cardiff was a place to stay away from as far as I was concerned! :disturbd:

Tezcatlipoca 18-02-2005 15:39
Re: House Arrest
 
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attac...417566,00.html

Quote:
Blair urged to compromise on house arrest

Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Friday February 18, 2005

Charles Kennedy will today push the prime minister to rethink the government's contentious proposals for house arrest, as Downing Street hosts a highly unusual anti-terrorism summit with the three main party leaders.

Tony Blair will hold successive meetings with Mr Kennedy and the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, as the government seeks a cross-party consensus on how to deal with terrorist suspects who have not been charged with any crime.

The Tories and Lib Dems both oppose new plans from the home secretary, Charles Clarke, to issue "control orders" which would see untried suspects confined to house detention on the orders of politicians.

(snip)

punky 18-02-2005 15:46
Re: House Arrest
 
Quote:
Tony Blair will hold successive meetings with Mr Kennedy and the Conservative leader, Michael Howard, as the government seeks a cross-party consensus on how to deal with terrorist suspects who have not been charged with any crime.
I think for once, either by sheer fluke or some good advice, Tony has done something right. It is everyone's problem, not jsut the government, so as many people as possible should have an input. I just hope that Kennedy will be a bit realistic and firm on the issue. Ultimately, I hope they can come to a mutual consensus.

Tezcatlipoca 18-02-2005 16:05
Re: House Arrest
 
I think they will come up with something.

Blair must know that it could be defeated in the Lords if they try & continue with the original plans.

Plus, I think Clarke has already suggested watering down the proposals.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum