Bush looks upon Blair in awe

[Whaleboy]

Pekka

The only reason this isn't a more major violation of civil liberties is the constant berating of the House of Lords and the Conservatives, that makes me think that actually British democracy is superior to all others because of its limits.

My problem with the whole thing is the principle of politicians ordering house arrests, and in general taking power away from the judges. More importantly is the general revulsion I have for any prohibitive measures taken against individuals without sufficient evidence or due process. Like Pekka said, terrorists are leading by a furlong.

I only see that the period of house arrest is extended to 7 days.... what's so dangerous about that? ( no slippery slope arguments please)

The problem with the way that you look at these things is that you seem to argue in terms of "why the big fuss over this one little thing", as if to blow the libertarian argument out of the water by superficially sensible utilitarianism. The problem with this however is lack of context; it's been a bill the government has been pursuing for a long time with no clear and well defined threat other than some vague "tehrrorists!! here be dragons", and their initial proposal (and thus statement of intent) was far more potent than this.

For anyone in the UK who believes in civil liberties, the presumption of innocence before guilt and fair and impartial justice, there is reason to be concerned.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, the worrying thing is that although I hate the concept of the House of Lords and what it stands for, sometimes they are the only ones with an ounce of common sense on the matter...

[Sandman]

Stuff like this wasn't needed when the IRA were blowing up pubs. It's not needed now. This is just more authoritarian busy-work from a government frightened of being labelled 'soft'.

[Pekka]

Sandman, my first impression exactly.. 'we're doing things, we're doing all we can to'... etc. Unfortunately, they should stop kissing people's ass in this regard and just continue as usual. Because this is just fooling ourselves.

I like how Carlin said in his stand up set, that he hopes all airport security is just taken away because it doesn't help any. Just makes people feel scared, and mess with their schedules and that's it. The drug lords little packets find their way in and out of airports no problem, so who are we kidding, right? Then he says, that of course you can stab someone with nailclippers but you can also beat them to death with sunday morning paper if you just beat long and hard enough. And there is always some danger element in life, what ever it is that you do, so 'take a ****ing chance' he said . It was funny as hell, but I think he hit right on the button. Who are we kidding with these things. Only ourselves. Doesn't mean no measures should be taken to meet the requirements of modern threats. not at all, this just means we should stop ****ing around with things that only makes the lives of ordinary people difficult and does... very extremely little to hinder any terrorism.

And we do put a price on human life anyway. Say a person has a bad heart and no money and insurance, and they say well we can't help you, take some vitamins and have someone to call us when you DIE, so we pick you up and report. You know, there is a price, and that price is not a lot even in western parts of the world when it comes to the society and the actors of society. The truth is we really don't give a crap, except in some cases. SO, my point is, how much money goes into TOTALLY USELESS bs measurements that makes everyones life more difficult? I bet it's A LOT of money. How many lives are saved because of it? If it's a matter of individuals, ****ing save the money then, not worth it. This is of course not how I really think.. to save the money... I wouldn't put a price on a person. I would put the price on 'is this a good thing to do, do we feel this is the best way, and is this necessary?' and if the answer is yes then let's take care of the bill. Otherwise? Not really. I feel measurements like these are total waste of MONEY, TIME and not to mention the real dangers I mentioned earlier.

[Drogue]

I love the Bremner, Bird and Fortune take on this

Originally posted by Oerdin
The British legislation seems pretty balanced. It allows magistrates to act immediately but requires then to go to a judge as soon as possible for minor things while the major stuff the judge still must approve ahead of time. It even includes a sunset clause.

No, it allows the minister to act like that, not magistrates. Magistrates can already order detention.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, the worrying thing is that although I hate the concept of the House of Lords and what it stands for, sometimes they are the only ones with an ounce of common sense on the matter...

Which is why they're there. Whatever they represent, they provide a valuable function of stopping public scaremongering from inacting legislation that's stupid.

Lords

[Pekka]

But I have to say I find the British.. what do you call it where you have the two sides in that .. house of commons? house of something? Sorry I really don't have a lot of knowledge about your system . Anyway I find it interesting, one guy stands up in their side's podium and speaks, and they other ones are then angry or what ever, it at least looks pretty fascinating to me .

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Pekka
Terrorists don't hate our freedom. We hate our freedom.

[Provost Harrison]

Our most valuable weapon against terrorism has been our counterterrorism units, amongst the best in the world. By all means if they are infiltrating terrorist organisations and thwarting their plans, go ahead.

I doubt these blanket government measures will have any effect whatsoever at curbing terrorism...

[Pekka]

PH, exactly.. they do what they do, and that's what counts in fighting against them..

We have this dual way of thinking. On the other hand, we think terrorists are super smart, with unlimited resources and motivation we can never know. This means, that 'well you never know..'. Let's put it all on terrorism. Then on the other hand, we think that these measures actually stop terrorism, or even make it more difficult. You know 'well we catch them on border'.. yeah what ever. What happened to super smart? Ordinary criminals think they're a joke, why would super criminals think any differently. Why do we think the borders even are a key to fighting terrorism,I thought it was international, knows no borders.. The truth is, the trade off just isnt' worth it.

Imran, I should elaborate that. We don't hate our freedom per se, we just don't value it enough. This is why baby steps work. If it would be full blown nazi law, we would be against it STRONG. Baby steps and you get there. Why would anyone want to limit our freedom within. It is what has been already established in this thread, to seem competent and to be 'on it'. Say, if this is the thing we need to do, what does it say about our security?

The thing is we don't hate our freedom, we just don't value it enough. It is very ironic.. and sad. People are dying out there every day to preseve this freedom, liberty and all those things, fighting for those values. And what do we do in return, we diminish those rights and values. I'd hate to go fighting for freedom limiter. I would like to think I'm fighting for KEEPING those freedoms. We can be very secure too. WE just never leave our houses, watch news ALL the time to know if we should go into the bunker we built for the house in case of super alerts, and only eat canned food we bought 10 years ago. The thing is, even though terrorism is a real threat and serious thing, what is the chance you are going to die from it? How about 0? I know Madrid just had a ... sad day remembering the ones who perished a year ago, and all other victims as well. This is very serious and real and touches a lot of people directly. However, the chances of dying from terrorism are still closer to 0% than 1% for you and me. YET we are ready to give freedoms away, and "understand" why it "has" to be this way. When you really think about it, it doesn't make any sense.

Are we fighting these bastards to hold our freedom high and proud, or what the hell it is these days.. I'm definitely not against the real measrues, the special forces, intelligence, cops and all those people who make sure we can enjoy our day without any hassle. But mistakes happens. Everyone is a human. Some attacks can't be even blocked before it happens. For those, what good does it do to have a rule where we can put electronic bracelett on someone? I mean really.. seriously, it does nothing to fight this problem.

So I would end this with saying, that we have INCOMPETENCE. That is what we hate. We hate the fact that we can't control everything. We hate that bastards with few thousand dollars/euros can effectively kill and maim if they so wish and it can be anyone, you, me, anyone. We hate it that a very small percentage happens because some personel has neglected information, or was not able to get it in time. But limiting people's freedoms really doesn't pitch in to help. We hate that some bastards are able to kill us for reasons we can't understand, or reasons that are unjustified. But how big of a role does terrorism have killing us versus our own citizens killing us, and why didn't we need those measruements against ourselves, a far more bigger threat? Some do realize that we really can't stop anyone from doing these things, but we can try and we must try. Some think we can stop this. They think if we want to, if we really try, no one can hurt us. But we must trade some liberties in order to protect ourselves. I do believe, that we are not any safer, we are just poorer after these trades. And once these kinds of rules are set, believe me they are there for the keeps.

[DanS]

Since when did the Brits have any credible separation of powers?

[Colon™]

Shhhht!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Seperation of the judiciary has been credibile in the British system since Coke and the Glorious Revolution. This idea was kept after William and Mary took the throne (and required to acknowledge the independance of the judiciary and rejection of royal prerogative over them).

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Azazel

Confining people without due process is a violation of the Magna Carta.

why is this a violation of due process, in any other way than arresting people for 24 hours?

They have more than 24 hours to hold before appearing before a magistrate in the UK, IIRC.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DanS
Since when did the Brits have any credible separation of powers?

Our head of state is entirely separated from power.