Ministers lose terror law appeal

[editor]

Copeland (the 1999 nailbomber) should be at a firing squad, not the 5 star hotels we call prisons.

Ah. So you are a troll.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Someone using the term 'Mozzy' is the least of anyones concern.

Let us pay attention to what the Muslims think and say of us, because what they say about British people is not a very picture at all.

Not to mention what they actually do to us, such as mass murder and terrorism, Muslims have a tonne of things to do before they even get one fraction of my respect for them.

But I know that is not going to happen, living in peace with non-Muslims is not part of their plan for Europe and Britain.

ok so muslims need to earn your resepct when your govt has invaded their countries bombed their peoples, killed a significant number of their children and are continuing to arm those who do likewise...

Me thinks you have that arse about face...

 

[TAE]

So you believe that not even one Muslim calls for the deaths of non-Muslims or their enslavement?

I can give you many websites to prove otherwise and qoutes that prove otherwise. Or just read the selected speeches andwritings of Usama bin Laden or even Al Zarqawi (AZ however spent more time killing 'impure' Muslims than he did non-Muslims).

Out of all the religions, Islam has the most well organised, most deadly and most largest community of theocrats and extremists.

[...]

They can keep their oil, build their nuclear weapons, build their armies and can implement Islamic Law upon their own people without a single word of judgement from the West.

You think they want to wipe us out, yet you are happy for them to have nukes?

 

[cybertect]

So you believe that not even one Muslim calls for the deaths of non-Muslims or their enslavement?

I can give you many websites to prove otherwise and qoutes that prove otherwise. Or just read the selected speeches andwritings of Usama bin Laden or even Al Zarqawi (AZ however spent more time killing 'impure' Muslims than he did non-Muslims).

Out of all the religions, Islam has the most well organised, most deadly and most largest community of theocrats and extremists.<snip>

This is really one of the most bizarre and obnoxious pieces of writing I have seen anywhere lately.

 

[Plato1983]

I'm getting bored with listening to this racist twat.

I am not racist. I would also suggest you learn some manners, As editor, are you not there to ensure flaming and insults being thrown about are not tolerated?

But do tell me - specifically - what "Muslims" have done to *you.*

Nothing, it is just that I am concerned about what some of the leading figures in the Islamic world want to do to us.

There is no worldwide famous moderate Islamic leader who urges a global peace, Bin Laden runs the show when the Muslim world speaks, why do you think the media make a point of this, for that is how it is.

And FYI, I have lived in Morocco for 4 years of my life, a nice and serene country, so my views are not based on what you call ignorance, for I did and still do find the Moroccans to be a charming and very welcoming people, dare I say they are more well mannered than many a Englishman.

However, Morocco is lucky in that they have avoided the mess in the Middle East and extreme Islam is a very small movement out there, a true fringe group, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

Fundamentalism really has little sway out there.

 

[Streathamite]

Plato1983; you certainly ARE a racist, in that you have taken the views of a small and extremist fringe and slapped them indiscriminately on the world's 1 billion+ muslims. your repeated saying of 'they' this and 'they' that kinda tends to give the game away. And there certainly is a strong, underground, MB in tunisia, just as there is in algeria and tunisia and egypt.

However, the majority of the people want little to do with them. BUT they have a streong appeal to disaffected young men - it is simply that tunisia is small, prosperous and cohesive enough to dull that appeal.
finally, to repeat; the core of the jihadist argument is that their mission is defensive; to stop 'us' taking over their lands. wanna know a way to defuse that and stop the jihadists in their tracks? well you've alrready said that, so who's a silly boy then?

 

[Azrael]

While I don't agree with the views in question, calling someone a racist for attacking a religion composed of many races doesn't really follow.

 

[editor]

While I don't agree with the views in question, calling someone a racist for attacking a religion composed of many races doesn't really follow.

Someone who lumps together a whole religious group with tens of millions of followers and and then tars them all with the same, big, negatively stereotyping brush certainly fits my definition of a racist.

 

[Plato1983]

Someone who lumps together a whole religious group with tens of millions of followers and and then tars them all with the same, big, negatively stereotyping brush certainly fits my definition of a racist.

Is that not what you do, Mr. Editor, with your posts about car users, especially 4x4 drivers.

Not to mention the many 'tar with the same brush' posts I can see on this forum about Conservative Party members, the police, the CoE and the American population.

Talk of the pot calling the kettle black.

PS: If you think that my posts about Muslims are 'racist' then you have no idea of the meaning of the word.

Muslims are made up of Arabs, Pashtus, Azeris, Berbers, Kurds, Persians, Ayran-Indians, Uzbeks, Turks, Mongoloids, Chinese, Malay, Black African, Croat, Albanian etc...

I suggest you invest in a dictionary, as you have no idea of what a racist even is.

 

[Streathamite]

jesus, this guys too thick to bother with...
<gives up>
<leaves it to others>
<deep, weary sigh>

 

[Streathamite]

While I don't agree with the views in question, calling someone a racist for attacking a religion composed of many races doesn't really follow.

Ok - a prejudiced, ignorant, hate-filled bigot?

 

[Azrael]

Think that covers all the bases.

Someone who lumps together a whole religious group with tens of millions of followers and and then tars them all with the same, big, negatively stereotyping brush certainly fits my definition of a racist.

Not mine, or the dictionary's for that matter. Racism is prejudice against another race or races and not a catch-all term for bigotry. What in the posts suggests hatred of a particular ethnic group? Islam's a religion. Much as I dislike the term, "Islamophobia" would better fit the bill.

Employing "racist" as a catch-all insult dilute's the term's integrity and runs the risk of it becoming the left's version of "political correctness gone mad!".

 

[editor]

Is that not what you do, Mr. Editor, with your posts about car users, especially 4x4 drivers.

I'm racist towards 4x4 drivers?!!!

 

[Streathamite]

I'm not sure it is (or would be for those killed or injured in that attack which could (arguably) have been prevented.

You are balancing conflicting rights here - the suspect's right to liberty against the potential victim's right to life. The State is obliged to uphold BOTH.

This is an impossible task in a situation where it is known that someone is actively planning or directing terrorism but, for whatever reason (perhaps the evidence is on phone intercepts) there is insufficient admissible evidence for trial and conviction. If, in such a case, the State simply shrugged and did nothing then the victims of any subsequent attack would have a strong case against the State for failing to protect their right to life.

It is easy to make glib statements ... but we are not dealing with easy or clear-cut situations here (practically or legally).

And I would suggest that control orders are not the mark of a police state - I suspect they would simply detain without trial for as long as they liked or, in the case of foreign nationals, simply chuck out, regardless of whether or not they are likely to be killed / tortured.

Ok....my problem here is the power and discretion it gives to the State.
It seems to me these orders are tantamount to the State - i.e. its' elected politicians etc taking it upon themselves to deprive an individual of his fundamental liberties for reasons they can't give us and instead are simply assuring us are sound, involving an allegation - a very serious one - against said individual that they can't or won't test by rule of law.
When you give the state that power, it is a power they hold over EVERYONE AND ANYONE (potentially) and it is too much power for them to have.
A british State - with its' long and semi-murky record - should be trammelled as much as possible by rule of law, not given carte blanche to step out side it.
They said they needed this cos they can't hold trials. i don't buy that. Scared of exposing security sources? simple hold the case in camera.
they said they couldn't try due to inadmissible evidence then make laws, applied equally to everyone, to make the evidence admissible.
when all is said and done, the 7/7/ bombers killed a grand total of 52 people. we are a nation of 56 million, and these orders remove rights - potentially - form all of us.
And I simply will never buy the assurance of an agent of a state - be it MP or DCI, judges, spooks or whitehallers - that amounts to "look mate, we know he's a wrong 'un, and if we could show you all we know, you'd agree with us, but we can't, and we can't tell you why we can't either, so you'll have to take our word for it".

 

[Streathamite]

I'm racist towards 4x4 drivers?!!!

"they come over 'ere, they take our roadspace, they honk at our pedestrians..."

 

[rich!]

I'm racist towards 4x4 drivers?!!!

Yes - you race away from them so they don't kill you.


*rimshot*


(gets coat)

 

[detective-boy]

Trial determines if these men really are a threat, and if there's insufficient evidence, the overwhelming likelihood is that they're not.

No. It doesn't. You totally ignored my point about there being inadmissible evidence (e.g. phone taps) anyway. But even acquittal at a criminal trial (burden of proof = beyond reasonable doubt = 85% certainty or more) means that there are some acquitted people where there is nore than 50% certainty that they were, and remain, a threat.

 

[detective-boy]

Ok....my problem here is the power and discretion it gives to the State.

I agree with the power of the State argument.

There is no reason why the Control Orders could not be issued by a judge on the basis of evidence given in camera by whoever has it in an ex parte hearing (i.e. one at which the subject is not represented). It would be nice to say that all the evidence should be revealed to the subject but that is not possible for some very practical reasons in some cases - not least the simple subject matter of the information received may reveal the identity of the source and would put their life at risk.

 

[Azrael]

Ok....my problem here is the power and discretion it gives to the State.
It seems to me these orders are tantamount to the State - i.e. its' elected politicians etc taking it upon themselves to deprive an individual of his fundamental liberties for reasons they can't give us and instead are simply assuring us are sound, involving an allegation - a very serious one - against said individual that they can't or won't test by rule of law.
When you give the state that power, it is a power they hold over EVERYONE AND ANYONE (potentially) and it is too much power for them to have.
A british State - with its' long and semi-murky record - should be trammelled as much as possible by rule of law, not given carte blanche to step out side it.
They said they needed this cos they can't hold trials. i don't buy that. Scared of exposing security sources? simple hold the case in camera.
they said they couldn't try due to inadmissible evidence then make laws, applied equally to everyone, to make the evidence inadmissible.
when all is said and done, the 7/7/ bombers killed a grand total of 52 people. we are a nation of 56 million, and these orders remove rights - potentially - form all of us.
And I simply will never buy the assurance of an agent of a state - be it MP or DCI, judges, spooks or whitehallers - that amounts to "look mate, we know he's a wrong 'un, and if we could show you all we know, you'd agree with us, but we can't, and we can't tell you why we can't either, so you'll have to take our word for it".

There's no reason to compromise with government over this, that's exactly the mistake the civil liberties lobby has made. Vigorously attack their underlying assumptions instead. Justice demands all trials must be fair and open. Secret trials are a recipe for abuse. The rules of evidence must not be changed; most of the evidence against the men is inadmissible for damn good reasons. It's either unreliable (extracted by torture etc) or too flimsy to justify a charge. The one exception is the inadmissibility of phone-tap evidence, which is all about letting the security services bug who the fuck they like without judicial oversight.

I do agree absolutely that government can't be trusted to decide who's guilty without trial. In effect it's a return to the divine rights of kings. Power without oversight is immediately abused, and low standards create a culture of arbitrary brutality and corruption, which does fuck all to make us safer. Just look at grim farce of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad.

The evidence against these men is feeble, and the notion that their liberty can be denied on the basis of dodgy arithmetic obscene. To turn Detective Boy's bad maths on its head, if the evidence is weak, it's infinitely more likely innocent people are going to be imprisoned than bombers stopped. Innocent people who are the public we're supposed to be protecting. You don't protect one lot of innocent people by imprisoning another. Human rights must apply to everyone.

Some more utilitarianism. These poor wretches must be the most watched men in Britain; any genuine terrorist will keep further away from them than Sure Start would from Gary Glitter. Also, the suggestion that they're going to run off and bomb people if restrictions are removed is absurd. If that was their intention, those fucking control orders already give them ample opportunity.

And if all that isn't enough for those who make us safe by making us unfree, you should know we have a case-study of your preferred approach. Exactly this logic underpinned our old treason laws. Type "Titus Oates" and "Bloody Assizes" into google to see just how safe it makes us.

 

[Azrael23]

The question of whether the govt can be trusted with this amount of power should not even be asked.

Those who are stupid enough to believe they are should still recognise that future governments may not be.

This is aside from the fact the war on terror is just a blatant excuse to treat us all like serfs and moves justified by terrorism are mostly shite. Its not as if laws don`t already exist to deal with them. I can`t believe people can be so ignorant.

Thank God for ye olde judges who actually remember their duty to the public and their place in political reasoning. I`m not so hopeful of the next generation of judges who will have received a nice shoddy education where civil liberties are treated as some kind of gimmick behind layer upon layer of hyperbole.
(Yes, I have some serious complaints about my Uni`s law course, having gone through it with a mate studying....God help us in the future. We`re going to have to educate eachother, like a real society)

 

[ZAMB]

Same as I would with any other Mozzy. If they want Islamic rule, I'd ask them why they don't bugger off and enjoy what they want.

Don't we still have freedom of religion in the UK?

You should be banned for that racist/bigoted epithet above, IMO.

 

[JoePolitix]

I'm racist towards 4x4 drivers?!!!

That's the sort of racism I can endorse!

 

[Azrael]

No. It doesn't. You totally ignored my point about there being inadmissible evidence (e.g. phone taps) anyway. But even acquittal at a criminal trial (burden of proof = beyond reasonable doubt = 85% certainty or more) means that there are some acquitted people where there is nore than 50% certainty that they were, and remain, a threat.

As it happens I've addressed admissibility in my previous post, but with regards to your warped view of the burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there's 50% "certainty" the accused is a "threat". It means the state has made claims it's unable to substantiate. You've just launched an attack on the presumption of innocence. The entire basis of the common law you once swore to defend is that we don't punish people without hard proof held to a high standard, and it was formed for a damn good reason.

Following this insane logic we'd have to start imposing control orders on anyone acquitted of violent crimes because they might "remain a threat". (Fuck, hope there's no Home Office types reading, or this'll be in the next Queen's Speech.) We'd have to keep the DNA of innocent people because they "might" commit a crime. (Oh wait, we already do that.) To your credit you don't support that shameful policy, so why support such a tyrannical piece of government power-grabbing?

 

[Azrael]

Thank God for ye olde judges who actually remember their duty to the public and their place in political reasoning. I`m not so hopeful of the next generation of judges who will have received a nice shoddy education where civil liberties are treated as some kind of gimmick behind layer upon layer of hyperbole.

Don't lionise those old judges too much, they've have a large share of responsibility for the erosion of civil liberties. It's the refusal of the common law to create an exclusionary rule after WWII that led to the police getting the power for warrant-less searches; the Law Lords have upheld the right of the police to keep innocent people's DNA (bastards); and in this latest ruling, they've only varied the terms of control orders instead of condemning the law outright. (The Court of Appeal ruled that their powers were sufficient, and anything under 12 hours a day house arrest is acceptable as it's a "restriction of movement", not a "restriction of liberty".)

Without a powerful constitution to shape their rulings judges can be just as bad as governments.

 

[ZAMB]

I do not want the forces of Hindu extremism (VHP/RSS/WHC), Jewish extremism (the Kach Movement), Buddhist extremism (Tibetan groups/JVP/Aum Movement) or Christian extremism (Army of God/Christian Voice/Christian Coalition) operating in Britain.

Are you sure that's all? No other citizens you'd like to dispose of?

I am a Buddhist, but I doubt that not belonging to one of the above sects would protect me - seeing that you lump all muslims in one big group.

Dunno where you get your info on Buddhism though - I've yet to meet a Tibetan Buddhist who was at all violent.

The following aspects of the European Human Rights Convention are relevant:
Article 9 -guarantees freedom of religion
Article 14 -provides that rights and freedoms shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

 

[Streathamite]

But even acquittal at a criminal trial (burden of proof = beyond reasonable doubt = 85% certainty or more) means that there are some acquitted people where there is nore than 50% certainty that they were, and remain, a threat.

umm...I think i'm being a bit slow here, but doesn't this thinking apply to all trials where a 'not guilty' plea is entered? and has always done? in fact is an inherent feature of the system? yet it doesn't seemed to have done too much harm until now?

 

[TAE]

And FYI, I have lived in Morocco for 4 years of my life, a nice and serene country, so my views are not based on what you call ignorance, for I did and still do find the Moroccans to be a charming and very welcoming people, dare I say they are more well mannered than many a Englishman.

However, Morocco is lucky in that they have avoided the mess in the Middle East and extreme Islam is a very small movement out there, a true fringe group, unlike Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan.

Fundamentalism really has little sway out there.

Have you been to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan too? Were you able to compare your (good) personal experiences in Morocco with personal experiences in other countries?

 

[detective-boy]

The one exception is the inadmissibility of phone-tap evidence, which is all about letting the security services bug who the fuck they like without judicial oversight.

....

To turn Detective Boy's bad maths on its head, if the evidence is weak, it's infinitely more likely innocent people are going to be imprisoned than bombers stopped.

Er, no it isn't. The inadmissibility of phone tap evidence makes absolutely no fucking difference at all to who is tapped. Prove fucking otherwise if you're so smart.

And HOW does my "bad maths" show innocent people are going to be imprisoned, smart ass?

 

[detective-boy]

As it happens I've addressed admissibility in my previous post, but with regards to your warped view of the burden of proof, beyond reasonable doubt does not mean there's 50% "certainty" the accused is a "threat". It means the state has made claims it's unable to substantiate. You've just launched an attack on the presumption of innocence. The entire basis of the common law you once swore to defend is that we don't punish people without hard proof held to a high standard, and it was formed for a damn good reason.

Stop foaming at the fucking mouth and go and re-read what I said and what you have said. You're talking shite.

 

[detective-boy]

umm...I think i'm being a bit slow here, but doesn't this thinking apply to all trials where a 'not guilty' plea is entered? and has always done? in fact is an inherent feature of the system? yet it doesn't seemed to have done too much harm until now?

You're not being slow at all. That has always been the case. It's why, occasonally, a rape victim has sued (successfully) a rapist acquitted of criminal charges. Or ba murder victis family have(occasionally) sued the murderers who were acquitted. And it's why the Daily Mail quitely blithely labels the Stephen Lawrence suspects "murderers".

But, in all these cases, you are not talking of people who are likely to kill dozens of people. Wth terrorists you are. Would you nt sue the government for failing to "do something" if you were the next victim?