House Arrest

[punky]

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.

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'' 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.

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.
__________________

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]

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.
__________________

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]

Originally Posted by Chris T

So, what do these three men have in common:



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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

Enniskillen

[kronas]

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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

Great... .... 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.