mr2mk1g 10 #1 December 17, 2004 Yesterday the House of Lords (Britain’s highest court) handed down a judgement against the British Government’s powers to detain terrorist suspects without trial. They stated that there were no grounds to suspend their human rights in this way and that such action was a “real threat to the life of the nation". For background: Three years ago the British Government created new powers to indefinitely detain foreign nationals without trial, on suspicion of links to terrorism. The individual would be arrested on the basis of intelligence inadmissible in UK courts (such as evidence gained by wire taps or through torture by other nations) and either deported or interred in one of Britain’s highest security prisons. To the system’s credit they have a right of appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Court where a High Court Judge would consider the case against them. It should be noted however, that they are not permitted to know what evidence is held against them or to challenge that evidence in open court. It should also be noted that they may ask to be deported back to their home country (although it is often the case that they would face torture on their return_. At present we have 12 such individuals in British custody. They are detained in the same manner as ordinary prisoners, that is to say there is no torture, interrogations depravation or anything of that manner; these people simply become part of the overall prison population. This is a UK case. It has direct implications for the UK only. But other democratic nations who value the rule of law would do well to head the comments of the highly esteemed judges who handed down this judgement. [I]"In my opinion, there are no adequate grounds for abolishing or suspending the right not to be imprisoned without trial, which all inhabitants of this country have enjoyed for more than three centuries,"[/I]: Lord Hoffmann [I]"The real threat to the life of the nation ... comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."[/I]: Lord Hoffmann [I]"[Such detentions] call into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention."[/I]: Lord Hoffmann "This ruling should send a message to the legislators that 'national security' can never take precedence over human rights."[/I]: Baroness Hale [I]"[This] is the stuff of nightmares, associated with France before and during the revolution, with Soviet Russia in the Stalinist era, and now associated, as a result of section 23 of the 2001 Act, with the United Kingdom".[/I]: Lord Scott Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Erroll 80 #2 December 17, 2004 Quote "This ruling should send a message to the legislators that 'national security' can never take precedence over human rights."[/I]: Baroness Hale Only until London experiences it's own 9/11? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #3 December 17, 2004 Hmmm... There seems to be a sudden outbreak of "Short Memory Syndrome" among our law lords. This is strange because they're usually Red-Hot on what happened in 1811 (dear diary, went to school. Latin homework to do). It's what they had for lunch & how much a pint of milk is that usually confuses them. Still. Let's cast our minds back to 1939-45, 1933-36, 1914-18, 1904-11, etc... In the times of the Napoleonic wars, It was lawful to hang anyone reasonably believed to be a French spy. A law that was to have particularly unfortunate consequences for the first Chimpanzee to go to Hartlepool (but in fairness it was 3ft tall, covered in hair, bandy-legged and smelled - the good burghers of Hartlepool had never seen or smelled a Frenchman either so it was an easy mistake to make)!!! National Security has ALWAYS taken precedence over personal liberties any time the government said so. Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #4 December 17, 2004 QuoteNational Security has ALWAYS taken precedence over personal liberties any time the government said so. The crucial difference today though is that we have the Human Rights Act 1998. That is one of the key points on which this law failed - the 2001 law has been judged to be incompatible with our nation's stated benchmark on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act is the closest thing you’ll find to a written constitution here, and enjoys as much special protection from repeal as our constitution offers. Never before has Parliament been put in this position - whilst constitutionally they are perfectly at liberty to do nothing following this judgment... they are, to all intents and purposes, now compelled to change the law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #5 December 17, 2004 QuoteOnly until London experiences it's own 9/11? Britain (London) has been fighting terrorism for DECADES. This isn't something that we started doing recently.---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #6 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnly until London experiences it's own 9/11? Britain (London) has been fighting terrorism for DECADES. This isn't something that we started doing recently. Not on the scale of 9-11, though. By the way, this isn't something the US is new to either. We've had many terrorist attacks prior to 9-11. But, like I said, not on this scale. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,108 #7 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote "This ruling should send a message to the legislators that 'national security' can never take precedence over human rights."[/I]: Baroness Hale Only until London experiences it's own 9/11? Absurd. More Brits have been killed in terrorist attacks in the last 30 years than Americans, courtesy mainly of the IRA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #8 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote "This ruling should send a message to the legislators that 'national security' can never take precedence over human rights."[/I]: Baroness Hale Only until London experiences it's own 9/11? Absurd. More Brits have been killed in terrorist attacks in the last 30 years than Americans, courtesy mainly of the IRA. Very true. Wasnt Thatcher and her cabinet almost killed by the Brighton bomber too. No terrorist group has even come that close to the POTUS. One could even say that the bombing of the King Davig Hotel in 1946 was the birth of modern terrorism and it was an attack on the Brits by Jewish terrorists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #9 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnly until London experiences it's own 9/11? Absurd. More Brits have been killed in terrorist attacks in the last 30 years than Americans, courtesy mainly of the IRA. Right, because car-bombs and exploding garbage cans have the same effect on a people as 3,000 citizens dying in one day. He said 9/11, not "terrorist attack."witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #10 December 17, 2004 QuoteAbsurd. More Brits have been .... It's not that I don't like "absurd"', but "rubbish" is so much more fun to read and type. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #11 December 17, 2004 actually the fact that it is a much more common occurrence, in a wide variety of places and means shows there is a higher chance of it happening to YOU... i'd imagine that would justifiably create more public fear than a spectacular 'one off' attack that fundamentally changed the way the average American viewed terrorists... of course the American public is apparently still afraid of kniting needles and lighters as well, so its not so difficult to imagine why the sheep continue to approve of and even intentionally vote away, their rights in exchange for a feeling of greater security everytime a scary shadow crosses the grass........____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #12 December 17, 2004 Quoteof course the American public is apparently still afraid of kniting needles and lighters as well You know, that's the funny thing... One of the red jacketed asswipes tried confiscating my zippo. Mind you, this was engraved as a gift for someone at my destination, and I wasn't checking any luggage. Well, first he tried taking it wihtout even saying anything to me. When he saw that I was about to raise holy hell, he said you have to put it in checked baggage. You know what? TSA regulations say a person can carry two lighters or four books of safety matches onto their plane. Know what else? Lighters and matches are banned from checked baggage. Anyone want to lay odds that the zippo never would've made it to the "confiscated" bin? I tried getting a supervisor over there to ask him about theft complaints and his underlings' knowledge (lack thereof). I was told to move along or I "might be detained long enough to miss my flight." God damn I wish I hadn't arrived late so I could have actually gone through the motions with these imbeciles. ps - knitting and crochet needles are allowed on planes as well, according to the TSA site. Good luck getting one of the brainless Thousands Standing Around to understand that, though.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #13 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteOnly until London experiences it's own 9/11? Absurd. More Brits have been killed in terrorist attacks in the last 30 years than Americans, courtesy mainly of the IRA. Right, because car-bombs and exploding garbage cans have the same effect on a people as 3,000 citizens dying in one day. He said 9/11, not "terrorist attack." I have to say, I don't see your logic here. Is it a contest? Are we the biggest victim of terrorism? Do you believe we hold some kind of corner on the market of victimization? Not to downplay the terrible significance of the 9/11 attacks, but I DO think that "car bombs and exploding garbage cans" have the same, if not a worse, effect on a populace when they happen on a day to day basis spread out among the population. Having been there at the time, the people of Washington, DC were MUCH more scared of the sniper than of a terrorist attack BECAUSE the incidents was so singular and random. If memory serves, you are somewhere near College Park, how did it affect you?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #14 December 17, 2004 QuoteI have to say, I don't see your logic here. Is it a contest? Are we the biggest victim of terrorism? Do you believe we hold some kind of corner on the market of victimization? Not to downplay the terrible significance of the 9/11 attacks, but I DO think that "car bombs and exploding garbage cans" have the same, if not a worse, effect on a populace when they happen on a day to day basis spread out among the population. Having been there at the time, the people of Washington, DC were MUCH more scared of the sniper than of a terrorist attack BECAUSE the incidents was so singular and random. If memory serves, you are somewhere near College Park, how did it affect you? It's the difference between a mosquito bite on the arm and a punch right to the nose. Looking at it on a macro level. One would be considered more of a true attack on your country whereas the other might only be considered a nuisance. We can’t keep thinking of terrorism as a nuisance anymore. It must be looked at as a serious threat to national security. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #15 December 17, 2004 Quote It must be looked at as a serious threat to national security. I agree with this point completely, I just think that it is incorrect to define an ongoing terror campaign resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents like as a "nuisance"... Are you saying that if those type of incidents were occuring here over the years they would NOT be a "serious threat to national security"?"I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #16 December 17, 2004 Obviously Britain has suffered more casualties to terrorism over the course of decades (I wonder who has had larger finacial damages). However, you have to look at the effect each type of attack has on a nation - many small attacks versus one unimaginably large attack. People learned to live with the IRA and "just get on with life" when things weren't at their worst. In the US, we had one big traumatic event. I'm not saying ione's worse that the other, just that the effects are significantly different.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #17 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote It must be looked at as a serious threat to national security. I agree with this point completely, I just think that it is incorrect to define an ongoing terror campaign resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents like as a "nuisance"... Are you saying that if those type of incidents were occuring here over the years they would NOT be a "serious threat to national security"? Sure they'd be taken seriously. But, as with the prior Trade Center attack, they might not prompt quite the overhaul in the systems that we're witnessing today. I'm just saying, it's on a whole new level. I'll bet a dumpster blown up by the IRA doesn't drastically affect the UK economy like what happened to the US on 9-11. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TypicalFish 0 #18 December 17, 2004 Quote they might not prompt quite the overhaul in the systems that we're witnessing today. I'm just saying, it's on a whole new level. Got it. This is actually a good point; I hope that Port Security isn't the next thing we learn a "lesson" from..."I gargle no man's balls..." ussfpa on SOCNET Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #19 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote they might not prompt quite the overhaul in the systems that we're witnessing today. I'm just saying, it's on a whole new level. Got it. This is actually a good point; I hope that Port Security isn't the next thing we learn a "lesson" from... Me too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #20 December 17, 2004 QuoteIt's the difference between a mosquito bite on the arm and a punch right to the nose. Looking at it on a macro level. One would be considered more of a true attack on your country whereas the other might only be considered a nuisance. We can’t keep thinking of terrorism as a nuisance anymore. It must be looked at as a serious threat to national security Bombs in commuter trains, garbage dumpsters in front of department stores, and public trash cans sting a little more than a mosquito bite... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #21 December 17, 2004 QuoteBombs in commuter trains, garbage dumpsters in front of department stores, and public trash cans sting a little more than a mosquito bite... And three thousand people, along with countless dollars lost, hurt a little more than a punch in the nose. It's called an analogy.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #22 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote It must be looked at as a serious threat to national security. I agree with this point completely, I just think that it is incorrect to define an ongoing terror campaign resulting in the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocents like as a "nuisance"... Are you saying that if those type of incidents were occuring here over the years they would NOT be a "serious threat to national security"? Sure they'd be taken seriously. But, as with the prior Trade Center attack, they might not prompt quite the overhaul in the systems that we're witnessing today. I'm just saying, it's on a whole new level. I'll bet a dumpster blown up by the IRA doesn't drastically affect the UK economy like what happened to the US on 9-11. The IRA changed tactics (I think in the mid 80s) and started bombing stock exchanges and business centers like Canary Wharf on mainland U.K. They also disrupted major highway arteries with bomb scares. I think it started to get expensive. Meanwhile our American cousins counjured up romantic images of freedom fighters and funded child murdering terrorists from a minority faction (at least in Northern Ireland), even as Ghadaffi shipped the IRA boat loads of semtex and other weapons in retalliation for Reagan's bombing run on Tripoli, itself a response to the terrorist attack on Pan Am 103 which hit a small Scottish Village (in the Northern part of the U.K.). The worlds a complex place. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #23 December 17, 2004 Quote It's the difference between a mosquito bite on the arm and a punch right to the nose. Have you ever heard of anyone dying from malaria due to a mosquito bite?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #24 December 17, 2004 I guess they all just really don't like my analogy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #25 December 17, 2004 QuoteQuote It's the difference between a mosquito bite on the arm and a punch right to the nose. Have you ever heard of anyone dying from malaria due to a mosquito bite? Sure, but it's not going to cripple a country of the size and power of the United States. A much bigger attack, on the other hand, might be felt more. It was just an example, fellas. Don't get caught up on the mosquito thing. Don't feel belittled. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
