War on Terror setting new standards for idiocy.

[Liberal]

@Dominic Mulligan

It was a joke, surely?

Surely.

[Liberal]

@Scuba_Ben

Technical question: What is the name of the fallacy that justifies police powers with “If you’ve got nothing to hide…”?

Red herring.

[askeptic]

@Liberal

Red herring.

Nice. Subtle, but nice.

[Otto]

@C K Dexter Haven

Good to know that the US isn’t the only place with good-old fashioned fascist rules.

If only the US were limited to 28 days.

[alphaboi867]

@Liberal

Good thing you disempowered the monarchy. With people like Elizabeth or William in charge, God only knows what you people would have to endure.

I don’t think Britons have much to worry about with Elizabeth or William actually ruling, but just imagine all the crazy laws Charles would issue. Non-organic food would become illegal and the NHS would start making coffee enemas compulsory for all. :eek:

[GorillaMan]

@OtakuLoki

My understanding is that The Anarchist’s Cookbook is out on the web in one form or another where anyone could find it.

It took a lot of searching - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anarchist-Cookbook-Peter-M-Bergman/dp/0974458902/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1195766103&sr=8-1

@Gala Matrix Fire

The article says nothing about why the man is a terror suspect. It would be good information to have in order to understand what the hell is going on. I doubt he’s the only person of Iraqi origin in England, and I doubt all the rest of them are terror suspects.

View the control orders as the British analogy to Guantanamo, and the lack of information makes more sense. But not in a reassuring or convincing way.

[athelas]

Psh. Atkin’s books are full of errors. You’re going to trust him with terrorism?

[OtakuLoki]

@Gala Matrix Fire

The article says nothing about why the man is a terror suspect. It would be good information to have in order to understand what the hell is going on. I doubt he’s the only person of Iraqi origin in England, and I doubt all the rest of them are terror suspects.

The problem is not that he’s a terror suspect.

The problem is the government presuming to try to control access to a level of information that is so basic, and so easily available, that it appears to my mind that the idea of preventing anyone with even a basic fluency in the local language from acquiring that knowledge is … myopic is the most charitable word I can imagine. Orwellian fits better.

We’re talking about a man who is described as having had medical training back in Iraq. Now, it’s quite possible that what is medical training there would not qualify for first year college chemistry or biology. Unlikely, but possible. What is completely unreasonable is the government’s presumption that by preventing this man from getting the certifications he needs to begin to get other certifications he needs to start rebuilding a career in the UK they’ve actually improved the security of the people in the UK.

For that matter, ask yourself, would this kind of restriction have provided any protection against those people whom I can think of who used their medical knowledge to commit murder: Dr.s Shipman and Swango. My belief: Not one life would have been saved by such a restriction - because they were basically poisoners who took adavantage of the weak. And we both caucasian men.

If the gov’t can prove that the man is a threat, to the standards of proof required for a criminal trial, or even to deport him, let them do that. And the issue of what he may or may not learn becomes moot. If they cannot meet that bar, how can they justify restricting what a man can study in his own time, when he’s not accused of any crime?

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

I just reread the article and now I understand the part about the “Control Order.”

Control orders were introduced under the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act. They are used when a terror suspect cannot be prosecuted in court because the evidence against them has either been obtained through bugging � and is therefore inadmissable in court � or would endanger informers or reveal sensitive intelligence. They allow the Home Office to impose curfews and travel bans, and to restrict certain activity such as internet access, mobile phone use and education.

He is one of 14 people under a control order in England. I was wondering, does England also have dozens or hundreds of people who were swept into secret prisons after 9/11 without recourse to legal counsel or any way of contacting their families? You never hear about what happened to the people the US made disappear.

I don’t know anything about medical training or what a person can learn that would help commit a terrorist act, so I’ll stay out of that aspect of the argument.

Yeah, my opinion is that it’s probably an unfair screwing of the Iraqi guy.

[GorillaMan]

@Gala Matrix Fire

I was wondering, does England also have dozens or hundreds of people who were swept into secret prisons after 9/11 without recourse to legal counsel or any way of contacting their families? You never hear about what happened to the people the US made disappear.

By ‘swept into secret prisons’, do you mean from Afghanistan, or from the UK (or just England :rolleyes: )? If the former, google ‘Tipton Three’. If the latter, then are you claiming that anything like this has happened in America?

[tagos]

@Gala Matrix Fire

He is one of 14 people under a control order in England. I was wondering, does England also have dozens or hundreds of people who were swept into secret prisons after 9/11 without recourse to legal counsel or any way of contacting their families?

Not that we know of but I’ll bet that’s because we let the USA do the dirty work for us.

Amnesty report on UK anti-Terror laws

Since 11 September 2001, the UK authorities have passed a series of new laws, even though the UK already had some of the toughest “anti-terrorism” laws in Europe. These laws contain sweeping provisions that contravene human rights law, and their implementation has led to serious abuses of human rights.

People suspected of involvement in terrorism who have been detained in the UK under the new laws have found themselves in a Kafkaesque world. They have been held for years in harsh conditions on the basis of secret accusations that they are not allowed to know and therefore cannot refute.

The Terrorism Act’s broad definition of “terrorism” became the standard for all future anti-terrorism laws in the UK. “Terrorism” is defined as the use or threat of action where the action is designed to influence the government or advance a political, religious or ideological cause.(7) The Act also brought into permanent statutory form numerous provisions identical or similar to offences which had been enshrined in so-called “temporary” emergency legislation in the UK over the previous three decades at least.(8)

Amnesty International has repeatedly expressed concern about the vagueness and breadth of the definition of “terrorism”, which leaves scope for political bias in making a decision to bring a prosecution.(9) The definition is open to subjective interpretation. In addition, such a broad and vague definition easily lends itself to abusive police practices. In the UK peaceful protestors have been stopped, searched and items have been seized from them on the basis of the broad powers that are granted under anti-terrorism legislation to the police.

All the subsequent anti-terrorism laws have been based on the broad and vague definition of “terrorism” set out in the Terrorism Act 2000. Because the definition of “terrorism”, and therefore any offence based on it, fails to meet the precision and clarity needed for criminal law, conduct that is criminalized under the various bits of anti-terror legislation may not amount to a “recognizably criminal offence” under international human rights law and standards. The danger is that people may end up being prosecuted for political reasons for the legitimate exercise of rights enshrined in international law.

The Terrorism Act 2000 also created a permanent distinct system of arrest, detention and prosecution for “terrorist offences” that Amnesty International considers may violate the internationally recognized right of all people to equality before – and equal protection of – the law without discrimination.(10) This different treatment is not based on the seriousness of the criminal act itself but rather on the alleged motivation behind the act, defined in the Act as “political, religious or ideological”. This parallel criminal justice system provides fewer safeguards for the suspect than under ordinary criminal law. Amnesty International believes that any departure from ordinary procedures and safeguards may be unjustified and therefore unlawful.

[Stranger_On_A_Train]

Would you go to war to do that?..Well, I have, too. Would you do it again? Isn’t that why you’re here? I guess so. And if you go to war again, who is it going to be against? Your “ability to fight a two ocean war” against who? Sweden and Togo? Who you sitting here to go to war against? That time has passed. It’s passed. It’s over. The war of the future is nuclear terrorism. It is and it will be against a small group of dissidents who, unbeknownst, perhaps, to their own governments, have blah blah blah. And to go to that war, you’ve got to be prepared. You have to be alert, and the public has to be alert. Cause that is the war of the future, and if you’re not gearing up, to fight that war, eventually the axe will fall. And you’re gonna be out in the street. And you can call this a “drill,” or you can call it “job security,” or you can call it anything you like. But I got one for you: you said, “Go to war to protect your way of life,” well, Chuck, this is your way of life. Isn’t it? And if there ain’t no war, then you, my friend, can go home and prematurely take up golf. Because there ain’t no war but ours.[right]–Conrad ‘Connie’ Brean, Wag The Dog[/right]

Oh, and I thought Liberal’s non-sequitor was a pretty clever fallacy, although I would have classified it as “poisoning the well”. And it seemed pretty obviously a joke to me, sitting, as it does, in essential opposition to that poster’s stated philosophy.

“Albania’s hard to rhyme.”

Stranger

[Gala_Matrix_Fire]

@GorillaMan

By ‘swept into secret prisons’, do you mean from Afghanistan, or from the UK (or just England :rolleyes: )? If the former, google ‘Tipton Three’. If the latter, then are you claiming that anything like this has happened in America?

The latter, and yes I am claiming that this has happened in America. Here’san article from 2006 about this issue:

@an Associated Press story

In a jail cell at an immigration detention center in Arizona sits a man who is not charged with a crime, not suspected of a crime, not considered a danger to society.

But he has been in custody for five years.

His name is Ali Partovi. And according to the Department of Homeland Security, he is the last to be held of about 1,200 Arab and Muslim men swept up by authorities in the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

There has been no full accounting of all of these individuals. Nor has a promised federal policy to protect against unrestricted sweeps been produced.

Human rights groups tried to track the detainees; members of Congress denounced the arrests. They all believed that all of those who had been arrested had been deported, released or processed through the criminal justice system.

Just this summer, it was reported that an Algerian man, Benemar “Ben” Benatta, was the last detainee, and that his transfer to Canada had closed the book on the post-9/11 sweeps.

But now The Associated Press has learned that at least one person — Partovi — is still being held. The Department of Homeland Security insists he really is the last one in custody.

Is it the *secret prisons * part that you doubt? A quick Googling of “black sites” will get you plenty of information about that, including President Bush’s admitting that there are such things.

[j666]

@RedFury

Yeah, perhaps it was and in fact I’ve been whooshed. Though I thought jokes were supposed to be…you know…funny? :dubious:

It was.

Maybe not ‘you owe me a new monitor’ funny, but at least ‘coffee dribbling out of my nose’ funny.

[Lust4Life]

Well if this adult Iraqi terrorist suspect has such a desperate desire to brush up on the chemistry education he so obviously dipped out on in school then he is perfectly welcome to go back to Iraq and learn it there prefereably at his own or the Iraqi governments expense.

[Will_Repair]

@Lust4Life

Well if this adult Iraqi terrorist suspect has such a desperate desire to brush up on the chemistry education he so obviously dipped out on in school then he is perfectly welcome to go back to Iraq and learn it there prefereably at his own or the Iraqi governments expense.

Yeah! and since Iraq is such a peaceful country now.

Seriously, you people amaze me. You act as if tyranny is something new and not a constant struggling pestilence.

[Lust4Life]

@Will Repair

Yeah! and since Iraq is such a peaceful country now.

Seriously, you people amaze me. You act as if tyranny is something new and not a constant struggling pestilence.

I dont actually understand your post but Iwill clarify mine.

Lets suppose that this Iraqi with the unquenchable thirst for knowledge is falsley held under suspicion by the security services and they have nothing else on him except that he wishes to be taught something that potentially gives him the ability to make explosives and/or teach others to do the same.

Though just being an Iraqi does not normally result in a person being subject to a supervision order in the UK.)
Yes lets assume that.

He came to our country uninvited and passed through how many safe countries to get here?

He has absoloutley no right to make any demands at all on our hospitality let alone demand this that or the other favour particulary at the taxpayers expense.
Britain has had too many terrorist atrocities in the past to pander to uninvited guests apparent whims.

He should be greatful for being allowed here in the first place and greatful for the other benefits he 's receiving.

It would be nice if he and is comrades went somewhere else and annoyed them for a change and give the long suffering British taxpayer a rest .

[Pushkin]

@Lust4Life

He should be greatful for being allowed here in the first place and greatful for the other benefits he 's receiving

Considering we the taxpayer paid to blow up his country and all that…

[Lust4Life]

@Pushkin

Considering we the taxpayer paid to blow up his country and all that…

So it would be a REALLY good idea to train up someone in the ability to do some more blowing up,someone who may or may not return to Iraq,someone who almost certainly knows others who are likely to return to Iraq.

The people who are killing,torturing and blowing up the most Iraqi civilians are other Iraqis not the allies.

Personally I’m against our intervention in Iraq,I think that we were sent in under false pretences ref WMD.

What pisses me of the most is hearing Islamic extremists spouting off about how the U.K. is the “Little Satan”,about how we are all heretics and blasphemers in the West and how they totally despise us and our way of life and then travel thousands of miles,passing through other countries to come and live in the very countries that they profess to loathe and despise alongside the very people they so loathe and despise .

And then start whining because we wont give them a course they want,or they dont like the council flat they’ve been given or they’re not being paid enough welfare.

You feel sorry for them if you wish to but for me the cupboard is bare when it comes to feeling any sympathy towards these obnoxious parasites who are quite open about their desire to see our way of life ended and all “unbelievers” in hell.

[Pushkin]

@Lust4Life

So it would be a REALLY good idea to train up someone in the ability to do some more blowing up,someone who may or may not return to Iraq,someone who almost certainly knows others who are likely to return to Iraq

Quite a few known unknowns there.

It may please you to know that I, descendant of Irish Catholics, learned nothing about blowing up soldiers in my A-Level chemistry classes in Northern Ireland, so how would this silly sod do so?