Conquer Club

The UK parliament is about to vote on whether terror suspects can be held WITHOUT CHARGE for up to 42 days, instead of the current 28-day limit.

What think you? A necessary evil or an erosion of basic civil liberties going back to the signing of Magna Carta (that was in 1215, transatlantic dudes)?

lobby against it?

Holding people without charging them with anything goes against the human rights on which western societies are based (or are trying to base themselves on, or should be trying to base themselves on).

Another point for the US!! We've been holding people for years without bringing them to trial!! And we torture them! f*ck habeus corpus I say! Proud to be an American! (I now have to shower, I spilled sarcasm all down my front)

It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

Oh, I see, so you just don't believe that 9/11 was the government, you believe that every single terrorist attack since the founding of our country was the government.

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

oh FFS. Please leave this thread.

heavycola wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

oh FFS. Please leave this thread.

Truth is sometimes hard to swallow. I will leave this thread as soon as you stay out of mine. (and get my quote out of your sig!)

I think it's a tricky issue, it is after all a human right not to get blown to pieces on the way to work. Providing there are enough safeguards in place not to make it the thin end of the wedge then I am reasonably happy with the principle of an extended period of custody for suspected terrorists. The obvious question is why would 42 days be enough time to secure evidence if 28 wasn't but I suspect it would be to do with the gathering of inteligence from international agencies . There are potentially sinister implications with this sort of legislation but I am prepared to give the security forces the benefit of the doubt on this one I think.

joecoolfrog wrote:I think it's a tricky issue, it is after all a human right not to get blown to pieces on the way to work. Providing there are enough safeguards in place not to make it the thin end of the wedge then I am reasonably happy with the principle of an extended period of custody for suspected terrorists. The obvious question is why would 42 days be enough time to secure evidence if 28 wasn't but I suspect it would be to do with the gathering of inteligence from international agencies . There are potentially sinister implications with this sort of legislation but I am prepared to give the security forces the benefit of the doubt on this one I think.

My guess would be that it is because they have no evidence at all.

joecoolfrog wrote:I think it's a tricky issue, it is after all a human right not to get blown to pieces on the way to work.

One specifically acknowledged by the Council of Europe no less.

Juan_Bottom wrote:My guess would be that it is because they have no evidence at all.

Sorry, although I appreciate your enthusiasm for debating the UK's legislation it would appear that you don't know the first thing about the proposed detention extension. For the period to be extended (were it implemented) the application would have to pass three different assessment bodies, all of whom would be looking for evidence that there was good reason to suspect a 'grave and serious' threat of a terrorist attack being planned/commited by the detained individual.

In other words, 42 days couldn't just be used when there was no evidence.

Dancing Mustard wrote:

joecoolfrog wrote:I think it's a tricky issue, it is after all a human right not to get blown to pieces on the way to work.

One specifically acknowledged by the Council of Europe no less.

Juan_Bottom wrote:My guess would be that it is because they have no evidence at all.

Sorry, although I appreciate your enthusiasm for debating the UK's legislation it would appear that you don't know the first thing about the proposed detention extension. For the period to be extended (were it implemented) the application would have to pass three different assessment bodies, all of whom would be looking for evidence that there was good reason to suspect a 'grave and serious' threat of a terrorist attack being planned/commited by the detained individual.

In other words, 42 days couldn't just be used when there was no evidence.

Fair enough? Who will be doing the assessment? and is the evidence and or hearings closed to the public?

heavycola wrote:But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

Here is the kind of man that Jay appears to aspire to be

He has only my pity...

Juan_Bottom wrote:Who will be doing the assessment? and is the evidence and or hearings closed to the public?

The DPP, The House of Commons, The High Court.
Closed for the first, Open for the last. The HOC debate is still something of an unknown quantity however, nobody seems quite sure what it means... however the Freedom of Information Act would almost certainly make its conclusions (and potentialy evidence considered) available to the public (should the hearing itself not be public, which is not yet certain as HOC debate is public at present).

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

Oh, I see, so you just don't believe that 9/11 was the government, you believe that every single terrorist attack since the founding of our country was the government.

No, silly, every single attack, ever was developed and funded by the United States Government. Forget 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, and anything else happening to US Americans. Hell, this academically sourced Youtube video clearly fingers the role of the CIA in the invasion of Egypt by the Hittites in the year 2200 BC.

rickroll is so passe.

What I say is if this were in the US, I would be outraged, seeing as how it is unconstitutional here. I am still outraged because that is just wrong, and I am not in the UK nor am I old enough to vote! (by the way, I am still more outraged because stuff like this goes on every day in the US!!!)


but whatcha gonna do?

spurgistan wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:It's absolutely atrocious. Human rights are exactly that ... human rights. You can't suspend them just because they're a bit inconvenient.

How many people in the UK have died from terrorist attacks in the last 4 years? About 50. Hardly enough to justify the amount of erosion on our civil liberties IMO.

But what is enough? Tell them, they just might deliver the number dead needed to take your liberties.

That's what happened in the US. WTC 1993 bombing, not enough were killed to pass the anti-terrorism legislation they wanted so enter Oklahoma City bombing. After that, they got it passed.

Oh, I see, so you just don't believe that 9/11 was the government, you believe that every single terrorist attack since the founding of our country was the government.

No, silly, every single attack, ever was developed and funded by the United States Government. Forget 9/11, Pearl Harbor, the Maine, and anything else happening to US Americans. Hell, this academically sourced Youtube video clearly fingers the role of the CIA in the invasion of Egypt by the Hittites in the year 2200 BC.

rickroll is so passe.

I'm no conspiracy believer.BUT:

Actually, I'm not so sure about Pearl Harbor. I have a suspicion that it was in the nature of a chess gambit - deliberately losing a piece early in the game to entice the opponent into the position you want. A similar thing may well have happened in the Falklands in the early 80's.

My real concern in this thread:

Do Brits learn about the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution (1776 and 1787 for the Transatlantic Crowd)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc (Yes, yes, this one you must watch. You will weep with pure patriotism, or sympathy for the dignity of humanity, according to your political preference.)

(I was appalled and offended at the Magna Carta comment in the OP, you may suppose.)

Don't you fret. My thread on the Haitian Revolution is forthcoming.

btownmeggy wrote:My real concern in this thread:

Do Brits learn about the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution (1776 and 1787 for the Transatlantic Crowd)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_TXJRZ4CFc (Yes, yes, this one you must watch. You will weep with pure patriotism, or sympathy for the dignity of humanity, according to your political preference.)

(I was appalled and offended at the Magna Carta comment in the OP, you may suppose.)

Don't you fret. My thread on the Haitian Revolution is forthcoming.

You always stick to your port-au-principles, meggy. Bring it on!

You cannot terrorize the Brits, it's impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XZ7M4pWSzw

jonesthecurl wrote:I'm no conspiracy believer.BUT:

Actually, I'm not so sure about Pearl Harbor. I have a suspicion that it was in the nature of a chess gambit - deliberately losing a piece early in the game to entice the opponent into the position you want. A similar thing may well have happened in the Falklands in the early 80's.

I hear ya. There are a lot of conspiracy buffs that do believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. Though I don't believe this to be the case, I do understand the evidence behind believing it. And I couldn't fault anyone for believing it.

Hadn't heard about the Falkland Islands though.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:I'm no conspiracy believer.BUT:

Actually, I'm not so sure about Pearl Harbor. I have a suspicion that it was in the nature of a chess gambit - deliberately losing a piece early in the game to entice the opponent into the position you want. A similar thing may well have happened in the Falklands in the early 80's.

I hear ya. There are a lot of conspiracy buffs that do believe that Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen. Though I don't believe this to be the case, I do understand the evidence behind believing it. And I couldn't fault anyone for believing it.

Hadn't heard about the Falkland Islands though.

Well, basically the Uk withdrew most of their troops, leaving it open to invasion. Could have been just plain stupid, but some have suggested not.

The whole thing ended up costing about 2-3 million pounds per Falklander. I always said that if youda said to the locals "Here's half a million quid each. Go live somewhere warmer" at the beginning, we coulda saved a lot of lives and money.

Also, I'm not too sure at what point the Argentinian government became the evil people we were told they were during the conflict. They were good enough to sell arms to right up to the conflict - when the British forces over-ran Argentinian positions, it was convenient that the ammunition left behind was the same brand as they used.

I cannot see any benefit coming from holding people for 14 days longer that can't be achieved with basic parole-esque measures relating to surveillance etc.