A Conversation for The Forum
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Mister Matty Posted Sep 22, 2006
"So it would have to be you or someone you knew then? That's an interesting attitude. I believe there's a certain poem attributed to Martin Niemoeller that you might read, particularly the last few lines."
You've missed my point entirely. I recall someone saying "I'll believe our freedoms are at risk when there's something I could do yesterday in my day to day life that I can't do today". It's not happening. The average person has considerably more rights than they did decades ago and the state is considerably weaker. For decades we've had to listen to the paranoid-left and paranoid-right claiming that the "other side" is determined to erode basic freedoms and is endlessly doing so. By their logic we should have been living in Nazi Germany around ten years ago. The "war on terror" is to the libertarian left what "Brussels" and "the welfare state" is to the liberarian right: a bureaucratic nuisance that is pretended to be some sort of equivalent to Soviet Russia. People seem to wallow in the idea of being The Last Free Man Alive living in a world of accepting drones. It's both immature and spoiled. People in the world who live in genuine repressive societies would balk at people in the West thinking paying income tax or using emergency powers to deal with terrorists as being the slippery road to totalitarianism. We really have no idea what a repressive society is here because we've never actually lived in one.
Not, of course, that I'm saying that the state is always right or that emergency powers are necessary. I'm happy to argue those points and happy to listen to people but as soon as all this stuff about it turning us into a genuinely "illiberal" society or creating an "elected dictatorship" or any other such claptrap shows up I switch-off because I know I'm dealing with a very fixed mentality.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Dogster Posted Sep 22, 2006
Zagreb,
"I recall someone saying "I'll believe our freedoms are at risk when there's something I could do yesterday in my day to day life that I can't do today". It's not happening."
That's exactly the same thing! And it's just as wrong. Our freedoms are "at risk" now, but they haven't yet gone. Although actually some of them have gone, and the ones that just pop into my head after 3 seconds of thought are:
You can't protest within a mile of parliament without permission. You can't protest outside the animal testing lab in Oxford (am I right about this? my memory is a bit hazy about this one).
You can't encrypt data without risk. (You might be forced to decrypt it with a penalty of 2 years in jail if you refuse to do so.)
You can't smoke in various places that you used to be able to. You can't hunt foxes.
"the state is considerably weaker"
In many ways this is not true. They can imprison you without trial for 28 days now instead of 7/4/2 (depending how far back you are comparing it with). They can imprison you without being required to tell anyone that they have done so. They have enormous new powers to spy on you. Have you looked at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act?
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Mister Matty Posted Sep 22, 2006
"You can't protest within a mile of parliament without permission. You can't protest outside the animal testing lab in Oxford (am I right about this? my memory is a bit hazy about this one)."
But you can still protest, unlike in properly oppressive countries where you are baton-charged for daring to do so.
Come on, that's weak. Especially given that we're aware so many protesters are violent - there tends to be good reason for a lot of this legislation.
"You can't smoke in various places that you used to be able to. You can't hunt foxes."
I've argued why banning smoking in indoor public places is not the great risk to social liberalism you claim it is. As for fox hunting, bloodsports have been banned for decades (rightly) and fox hunting was, for a long time, made an exception. That exception has now ended. I don't support the ban any more because I think it has completely failed to do what was intended but that's another story. Certainly I'll listen to the arguments about the Right To Hunt Foxes For Sport crowd as long as they accept that dimwit kids should also have the right to kick a stray cat to death for fun - equality before the law and all that.
"In many ways this is not true. They can imprison you without trial for 28 days now instead of 7/4/2 (depending how far back you are comparing it with). They can imprison you without being required to tell anyone that they have done so. They have enormous new powers to spy on you. Have you looked at the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act?"
They can't imprison me for ever without trial, though, and that's the sort of things properly repressive states do frequently (if they don't simply indulge in extra-judiciary execution). 28 days isn't a terribly long time, and there are arguments in favour of such things (although, as I said before, an independent body should exist to monitor the use of such powers and punish with prison sentences anyone who abuses them). As for their "enormous" new powers to spy on "me", they're not interested in spying on me or most of the people in this country since a) they don't have the resources and b) nothing I am saying could be of interest or could seriously be used to prosecute me. The only people they're interested in spying on are terrorists and drug smugglers, neither of whom are people I think the state should be disinterested in.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Dogster Posted Sep 25, 2006
"But you can still protest, unlike in properly oppressive countries where you are baton-charged for daring to do so."
OK so where would you personally draw the line here? What if I were allowed to protest only away from areas with a high population density where there would most likely be trouble if a demonstration got violent? Would that be an acceptable law from your point of view? How about if I were allowed to protest only in written form? How about if we were allowed to protest only in Latin? Your argument (such as it is) shows nothing except that we're not living in a completely totalitarian society. Try harder.
"... there tends to be good reason for a lot of this legislation."
What is your basis for this claim? I occasionally read Hansard and watch House of Commons debates on the Parliament channel and my own experience is that they are characterised by their lack of good reasoning.
"They can't imprison me for ever without trial, though, and that's the sort of things properly repressive states do frequently (if they don't simply indulge in extra-judiciary execution)."
Now, from the first paragraph I wrote in this message, can you guess what my response to this sentence is going to be?
Yep, you guessed it (did you?) - where would you draw the line? Does 3 months seem reasonable to you? What about 6 months? A year? To get back to the quality of debate in the House of Commons, in the debate on the 28 days detention without trial bill, one Labour MP told us that in one case the police had mentioned that if they had printed out all the relevant computer data it would have been a pile of paper 66,000 feet high. Now I don't know about you, but I suspect a pile of paper 66,000 feet high might take a few years to sort through before we could be sure that someone wasn't a terrorist and could be tried normally.
"As for their "enormous" new powers to spy on "me", they're not interested in spying on me..."
Niemoller.
"The only people they're interested in spying on are terrorists and drug smugglers..."
You have a lot of trust in this government don't you? What could they do to shake that trust? As you made clear on another thread, using anti-terrorism powers to eject a demonstrator from a party conference doesn't do it for you. What about deceiving parliament in order to justify an illegal war? Deporting people in the middle of the night with no notice so that they can't contact their lawyers (which is what happened to some of my brother's clients recently)? Not doing it for you? Let me ask you this then - does your trust extend to all potential future governments who will inherit these powers too?
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Dogster Posted Sep 25, 2006
For those who are interested, the Commons debate I was referring to can be read online at:
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm051109/debindx/51109-x.htm
(Just scroll down to 12:44pm.)
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Alfredo Posted Sep 25, 2006
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
BouncyBitInTheMiddle Posted Sep 26, 2006
I would think the government would have a pretty big interest in spying on people in a massive, low-key manner to gather information useful for their electoral campaigns. Or, if you're feeling less cynical, in an attempt to more accurately represent public opinion in their policies.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Sep 26, 2006
The government may or may not have an interest in *spying* on the population.
What they lack is the will to make it happen or the infrastructure capable of making it happen. And that isn't going to change anytime soon under any government.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Ste Posted Sep 26, 2006
It *may* be true that the current government is not interested on spying on everyone ("total information awareness", anyone?), but remember, that does NOT mean it is ok for them to put laws and mechanisms in place that makes it possible.
Even if the current government is trustworthy (doubtful), we cannot trust future governments not to abuse this awesome power. We are digging the grave of our own democracy.
Ste
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Sep 26, 2006
Speaking from within the system, frankly we can't cope with the IT and information gathering systems we've got, let alone 'total information awareness'.
And i'm still fascinated why people think so lowly of their fellow citizens who are employed by the State, as i have to assume that you think we'd all turn our hand to spying on our fellow citizens with a happy smile a cheery 'heigh ho'.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Ste Posted Sep 26, 2006
The point was that if we put the mechanisms/laws in place to spy on everybody we should not be surprised in the future when a less scrupulous government actually uses them for spying on everybody. Do you not see the danger?
I know you are arguing that the State is too incompetant to deal with such information right now, but it might not be in the future. And yes, I think State employees would help spy on fellow citizens.
Ste
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Sep 26, 2006
Thank you for your vote of confidence in my integrity and that of my colleagues. Is it just civil servants you have such a low opinion of or is it only your bowels that don't produce a stink?
It's not that I 'don't see the dangers', as you so patronisingly put it. It is that I have a sense of perspective about them which some others apparently do not.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Ste Posted Sep 26, 2006
Oh c'mon...
I did not say "all" State employees, did I? You tried to frame the debate in that manner but I did not fall into such a lame trap.
I'm sure there are enough people in the civil service who think the argument "If they are not doing anything wrong then they have nothing to worry about" is a good one. Enough people to administer a domestic spying programme. That same argument has already made the UK populace the most watched in the world.
All I have got from your "sense of perspective" so far is that state employees are not capable of handling large amounts of data! Apart from this confidence-boosting revelation of the competance of government, what other perspectives could assuage my fears?
Ste
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like Posted Sep 27, 2006
>And yes, I think State employees would help spy on fellow citizens.<
If you'rd like to point out the qualifier in that statement that prevents it from being a reference to *all* state employees I'd be grateful.
In the meantime I'm going to let this go because your belief that I was laying a 'trap' indicates that this is seen by you as little more than a facile points scoring exercise and not a discussion.
Pity. I expect more of you.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Ste Posted Sep 27, 2006
I thought it was clear that statement did not mean "all". You attempted to frame the debate in such a manner, perhaps you thought I was going along with it:
"...as i have to assume that you think we'd all turn our hand to spying on our fellow citizens with a happy smile a cheery 'heigh ho'."
Is it not reasonable to think there are State employees who would help moniter citizens? It's totally unreasonable and absurd to say ALL employees would help. That's getting into the realm of conspiracies. I would never imagine anyone would read that statement in such terms.
In the future, try and not take criticism of government policy as a personal attack.
Ste
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
BouncyBitInTheMiddle Posted Sep 27, 2006
It does beg the question, why would the government use civil servants to monitor the public, when it already has a dedicated internal Intelligence service with its employees under pretty strict NDA?
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Ste Posted Sep 27, 2006
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Rik Bailey Posted Sep 27, 2006
Have not read all this, but my two cents are...
No point in negotiating as once you given them one thing they will then come up woth another thing.
Best to just hunt them down and kill them, slowly. Perhaps 1 min of slow painfull death for every innocent person they have hurt or killed.
Sorry but Al Q deserve no respect and deserve no heading under human rights laws as they don't see or use those laws them selves, if they want to live lawlessly and kill all they want then they can suffer the concicrenses.
Ok over the top, but on my hate list they are rightup there near the to, along with peodos, rapists and wife beaters.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Effers;England. Posted Sep 27, 2006
>>Best to just hunt them down and kill them, slowly. Perhaps 1 min of slow painfull death for every innocent person they have hurt or killed<<
Adib and just the kind of simplistic and unintelligent approach that only ever acts as a recruiting seargeant for a fanatical movement. If such a group positively welcome martyrdom, how much more are you giving them by your suggestion than they could possibly dream of.
I think we are far more likely to defeat Al Quaeda by using our brains than your suggestion.
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
Rik Bailey Posted Sep 28, 2006
I know. I was just saying how I feel about them.
Best way to defeat them with out a on going struggle of ressurectin and with out mass murdering loads of people is by playing a better calling card.
Small changes in law would be a good place to start. By which i mean that there are small areas of british law and us for that matter where there is room for intermingling of laws. i.e. marriage and divorece etc.
Now at the moment in UK a imam can not marry or divorce a man or women legally, they can only do it islamiclly. Same goes for hinuds sikhs and jews if i remember right. Now if we relaxed the law slightly so that central places of worship can apply for marriage licenes (sorry for my spelling) for marraige and divorce then you are taking a step that disproves what the terrorists are saying. The reason why i say central places of worship is that is only the big main mosques, temples etc can do it then this makes it easier for the goverment to make sure the laws are not exploited or go against british law. By which i mean that though places of worship can marry people legally other laws stay the same such as only being ale to be married to one person, only 18 + can get married with out parents consent, miners can not be married. I think in england 16 and 17 need parents permission and 15 and below are not allowed to marry at all.
There would also have to be some certain screening time to make sure there is not forced marriages going on.
Anyway thats just a example. But if you kinda give some rights but keep it within the boundarys of UK law then it would disrupt terrorists plans as people would see more good in the UK law and goverment.
There are lots of other small things to that can all have a knock on effect.
Feel free to rip what i say apart.
Key: Complain about this post
Need we bother negotiating with a washed-up, shattered, virtually powerless terrorist bunch like al Qaeda?
- 201: Mister Matty (Sep 22, 2006)
- 202: Dogster (Sep 22, 2006)
- 203: Mister Matty (Sep 22, 2006)
- 204: Dogster (Sep 25, 2006)
- 205: Dogster (Sep 25, 2006)
- 206: Alfredo (Sep 25, 2006)
- 207: BouncyBitInTheMiddle (Sep 26, 2006)
- 208: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Sep 26, 2006)
- 209: Ste (Sep 26, 2006)
- 210: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Sep 26, 2006)
- 211: Ste (Sep 26, 2006)
- 212: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Sep 26, 2006)
- 213: Ste (Sep 26, 2006)
- 214: Blues Shark - For people who like this sort of thing, then this is just the sort of thing they'll like (Sep 27, 2006)
- 215: Ste (Sep 27, 2006)
- 216: BouncyBitInTheMiddle (Sep 27, 2006)
- 217: Ste (Sep 27, 2006)
- 218: Rik Bailey (Sep 27, 2006)
- 219: Effers;England. (Sep 27, 2006)
- 220: Rik Bailey (Sep 28, 2006)
More Conversations for The Forum
Write an Entry
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."