The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: 90 Day detention  (Read 3643 times)

jolly

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« on: 02/07/2007 17:45:30 »
Just read that they are yet again considering, new laws. It appears that every time a bomb or attack happens that politicians have to pass some new and crazy illiberal law.

I think we should have 90 day detention, for all politicians after each incident! To stop them stop passing new and even more stupid laws and giving away even more of the very things our society is supposed to stand for, namely freedom!

If every time something happens they have to pass a new law to restrict the population even more, we will all in the end, end up living in cold war Russia!

By all means we should increase the resources of the police and the security services, and help them to learn from the mistakes made, and learn how better to prevent them happening in the future; but It cannot benefit anyone to have even more of our citzens freedom restricted anymore than they allready are surely.

I also do not understand how any terrorist group could be given so much sway over a country, for they now must know that if they let a bomb off or attempt to let a bomb off, the government of the country in question will start adding in all kinds of new laws and then each time it happens again add even more.

Really I think it has nothing to do with terrorist provention and really its just an excuse to supress the population even further.

What do you think? 


 

another_someone

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #1 on: 02/07/2007 17:55:46 »
I also do not understand how any terrorist group could be given so much sway over a country, for they now must know that if they let a bomb off or attempt to let a bomb off, the government of the country in question will start adding in all kinds of new laws and then each time it happens again add even more.

That is how terrorism works.

Terrorists cannot themselves win - they are too feeble for that; but they can seek to drive a wedge between the government and the populace, and so undermine the ability of the government to govern, and they do this by causing the government to introduce ever more oppressive laws.

If you look at NI, the IRA were largely a spent force until poorly training UK soldiers started shooting civilians on Bloody Sunday, and then the UK government gave the IRA another victory with the introduction of internment in NI.  At no point can you say that the IRA really had any military capability of sufficient significance to achieve anything (although the big bombs in central London certainly made a difference, as they caused significant financial damage - but those bombs could not have been achievable by the IRA that existed before Bloody Sunday and internment without trial).
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8670
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
90 Day detention
« Reply #2 on: 02/07/2007 19:46:40 »
It's odd, firstly I seem to be agreeing with Jolly again :), and secondly that the politicians are debating this question again.
The most common argument I heard last time against increasing the time for detaining terrorist suspects without trial, representation or charge (yes, That's right)to 28 days rather than the current 14 days was "if the police can't beat a confession out of them in 2 weeks then they probably aren't guilty".
Whatever the arguments, nothing has changed, it was wrong then and it's still wrong now. They lost last time, why debate it again?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm

I think Jolly's point about the terrorists succeding refers to the fact that, at the moment, I can say what I want and do what I want knowing that any wrongdoing will be punished but only after due legal process. Under the Taliban I wouldn't enjoy that freedom.
The Taliban may not be directly able to institute that change in the law here, but they can do it by proxy.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2007 19:52:27 by Bored chemist »
 

jolly

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #3 on: 02/07/2007 20:53:21 »
Yeah, The laws they pass do nothing to stop the attacks. and if they had been there before, they would not of stopped them! As now, we have had more attacks even after all the new laws they passed!

Paris Hilton got 40 days after being proved guilty. With the proposed law, you get 90 days just for being a suspect. I think its police laziness that really is behind the 90 day request.

Two weeks is certainly enough time to ask all the questions you want to. If you don't have evidence then you have to let them go.
It is strange that some in the police believe that its o.k to keep someone locked up just because they think the person is guilty.
Sorry to say, I always believed that it was a courts job to asses guilt, and even the courts get it wrong; just look at all the people on death row that shouldn't have been there.

This really is a issue of resolving/removing the terrorists motivation (economic and theological) and Helping the security service to prevent them happening in the future! New laws don't do either!

Well it seems also that a terrorist today has more sway over government policy than a citizen. That cannot be right! Citizens don't have much say, but a terrorist should have even less surely.

Surely it is more important rather than increasing our laws, to ask why exactly are they attacking us? I just don't buy the ´they hate our freedom line´; especially when delivered by the politicians that also seem to hate them to!

Obviously the politicians have said to themselves "well, terrorists hate our freedoms, I know lets get rid of all our freedoms and maybe they will leave us alone"....Lol

If you believe this to be a war, then you must except that as all wars are economic, economic motivation lays behind this group. IRA independence for Ireland, ETA again independence for pas basco they are ultimately economically motivated- in these cases, economic freedom from Britain and Spain.

So I would argue that really rather than this fight against terrorism to be a fight against a hatered of freedom, it is really the expression of the desire of certain elements who have influence in the middle east to be economically free of the west.
Those that put the bombs are really nothing more than the puppets of others, manipulated into killing themselves and others in the belief that they act for God, when the opposite is clearly the case.       
« Last Edit: 02/07/2007 21:15:23 by jolly »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #4 on: 02/07/2007 21:31:29 »
This really is a issue of resolving/removing the terrorists motivation (economic and theological) and Helping the security service to prevent them happening in the future! New laws don't do either!

Agreed!

The point about new laws is that it makes politicians look like they are doing something (even if that something is useless, but at least they think it looks better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing may be the best thing to do).

Well it seems also that a terrorist today has more sway over government policy than a citizen. That cannot be right! Citizens don't have much say, but a terrorist should have even less surely.

But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.

If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process.  If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.

Surely it is more important rather than increasing our laws, to ask why exactly are they attacking us?

That would be sensible, but not political - a politician never admits he is wrong, and to ask why these people are attacking us is dangerously close to saying we may have got things wrong.

I just don't buy the ´they hate our freedom line´; especially when delivered by the politicians that also seem to hate them to!

Maybe the first question to ask is: who are they?.

Any large political group is composed of many different subgroups, each with different reasons for doing as they do.

Clearly, both Afghanistan (here I am talking more about the 1980s than the 2001 war), and Iraq post 2003, have had a significant impact on the matter, as has the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (if only in its symbolism, even if maybe not so much in being a direct source of campaign).

One of the reasons clearly is, as was raised by Mr Andrews in the topic regarding sending men to Mars, it is that people need to feel they can make a difference, and so when people feel powerless to make a difference in any other way, they take desperate actions.

If believe this to be a war, then you must except that as all wars are economic, economic motivation lays behind this group. IRA independence for Ireland, ETA again independence for pas basco they are ultimately economically motivated- in these cases, economic freedom from Britain and Spain.

So I would argue that really rather than this fight against terrorism to be a fight against a hatered of freedom, it is really the expression of the desire of certain elements who have influence in the middle east to be economically free of the west.

I agree that it is a desire for freedom from interference from the West, but I think it is wider and deeper than merely economic freedom (bear in mind that Al Qaeda was born, as much as anywhere, in Saudi Arabia, which has significant economic freedom, but is still substantially a political puppet of the West).

Those that put the bombs are really nothing more than the puppets of others, manipulated into killing themselves and others in the belief that they act for God

With this I agree - but this goes back to saying there are many groups involved in this, and each see their role in a different light.
 

jolly

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #5 on: 02/07/2007 21:58:35 »
This really is a issue of resolving/removing the terrorists motivation (economic and theological) and Helping the security service to prevent them happening in the future! New laws don't do either!

Agreed!

The point about new laws is that it makes politicians look like they are doing something (even if that something is useless, but at least they think it looks better than doing nothing, even if doing nothing may be the best thing to do).

Well it seems also that a terrorist today has more sway over government policy than a citizen. That cannot be right! Citizens don't have much say, but a terrorist should have even less surely.

But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.

If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process.  If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.

Well it depends doesn't it, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by Britain, but today is excepted that really he was more of a freedom fighter, who fought against the injustice of apartheid.

Surely it is more important rather than increasing our laws, to ask why exactly are they attacking us?

That would be sensible, but not political - a politician never admits he is wrong, and to ask why these people are attacking us is dangerously close to saying we may have got things wrong.

Maybe not publically, but privately they must see it. and well surely if they have got things wrong to continue blindly down an alley thats directed by erroneous beliefs and decisions just worsens the situation.
 
I just don't buy the ´they hate our freedom line´; especially when delivered by the politicians that also seem to hate them to!

Maybe the first question to ask is: who are they?.

Any large political group is composed of many different subgroups, each with different reasons for doing as they do.

Clearly, both Afghanistan (here I am talking more about the 1980s than the 2001 war), and Iraq post 2003, have had a significant impact on the matter, as has the Israeli/Palestinian conflict (if only in its symbolism, even if maybe not so much in being a direct source of campaign).

One of the reasons clearly is, as was raised by Mr Andrews in the topic regarding sending men to Mars, it is that people need to feel they can make a difference, and so when people feel powerless to make a difference in any other way, they take desperate actions.

Absolutely, they impact heavily on this but mainly because young Muslims see all the suffering inflicted on these peoples and places, then feel a strong desire to act to change them or at least do something and they find they cannot. and so end up recruited into some radical group! Should many of these conflicts be resolved the terrorist would find it a lot harder to recruit. The idiocy of iraq abounds.

If believe this to be a war, then you must except that as all wars are economic, economic motivation lays behind this group. IRA independence for Ireland, ETA again independence for pas basco they are ultimately economically motivated- in these cases, economic freedom from Britain and Spain.

So I would argue that really rather than this fight against terrorism to be a fight against a hatered of freedom, it is really the expression of the desire of certain elements who have influence in the middle east to be economically free of the west.

I agree that it is a desire for freedom from interference from the West, but I think it is wider and deeper than merely economic freedom (bear in mind that Al Qaeda was born, as much as anywhere, in Saudi Arabia, which has significant economic freedom, but is still substantially a political puppet of the West).

There is also the cultural aspect as well but the economic takes president I think.

Those that put the bombs are really nothing more than the puppets of others, manipulated into killing themselves and others in the belief that they act for God

With this I agree - but this goes back to saying there are many groups involved in this, and each see their role in a different light.

I do not really see them helping their cause to be fair, but you are of course right, the many different groups have many different causes, some pro west and some anti west these are all struggles for power and influence within different areas.
« Last Edit: 02/07/2007 22:00:46 by jolly »
 

another_someone

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #6 on: 02/07/2007 23:20:55 »
But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.

If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process.  If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.

Well it depends doesn't it, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by Britain, but today is excepted that really he was more of a freedom fighter, who fought against the injustice of apartheid.

This goes back to one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This is shown most starkly when one looks and Bin Laden.  So long as Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was a freedom fighter; but when he turned his attentions to America, he became a terrorist.

To Bin Laden's eye's, it was all part of the same war - a war of independence from foreign interference in Muslim lands, and he had no reason to distinguish between Soviet or American interference.  It is only the American perspective which, understandably, regards American interference as positive, and Soviet interference as negative, and so regarding the same action taken against the Soviets as the act of a freedom fighter, while the act taken against America is an act of terrorism.
 

jolly

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #7 on: 02/07/2007 23:32:30 »
But it always has been so, and that is what terrifies the politicians.

If I randomly kill a couple of hundred people, then I am just a criminal, and don't seriously pose a threat to the political process.  If I am a terrorist, then I am very possibly going to be the next Prime Minister, President, or whatever, of somewhere (that is how Israel came into being, it is how the ANC took power in South Africa, it is how Robert Mugabe first came to power, it is how Gerry Adams became the political force he is today.

Well it depends doesn't it, Nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist by Britain, but today is excepted that really he was more of a freedom fighter, who fought against the injustice of apartheid.

This goes back to one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This is shown most starkly when one looks and Bin Laden.  So long as Bin Laden was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, he was a freedom fighter; but when he turned his attentions to America, he became a terrorist.

To Bin Laden's eye's, it was all part of the same war - a war of independence from foreign interference in Muslim lands, and he had no reason to distinguish between Soviet or American interference.  It is only the American perspective which, understandably, regards American interference as positive, and Soviet interference as negative, and so regarding the same action taken against the Soviets as the act of a freedom fighter, while the act taken against America is an act of terrorism.

Yeah, so in terms of Afganistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?

I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither america or russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter.
The guy who ran the north allience seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.

So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benifit of the population?
 

another_someone

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #8 on: 03/07/2007 00:59:06 »
Yeah, so in terms of Afganistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?

I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither america or russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter.
The guy who ran the north allience seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.

So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benifit of the population?

Who is working for the benefit of the population, or who believes themselves to be working for the benefit of the population?

The commander I think you are referring is Ahmad Shāh Mas'ūd, who was a very skilful commander, but there is no reason to believe he was any more or less altruistic than many other of the war lords (and formed part of the post communist administration that was riven with infighting and corruption, and that finally was brought down by the Taliban), or even other guerilla/terrorist leaders - such as Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso, who formed the Shining Path movement in Peru, who, like Bin Laden, could easily have lived a comfortable life life without having to expose himself to the risks of leading a movement that indulges in violent politics.  This is not to judge whether these people actually did act in their nations best interest, only that they acted not out of self interest, but in the belief (even if delusional) that they were acting for some wider good.
 
 

jolly

  • Guest
90 Day detention
« Reply #9 on: 03/07/2007 20:47:25 »
Yeah, so in terms of Afghanistan how would you assess who really is a terrorist of freedom fighter?

I suppose really you look to the group or persons who work for the benefit of the afganistani people before themselves. So really I think neither America or Russia work in those term nor bin-landen for that matter.
The guy who ran the north alliance seems to be the only one who really worked in a good vain there, the lion of the desert? Can remember his name. He was killed just before 9/11 by al Qaeda.

So as a question how do you step out of a conflict and asses who really is working for the benefit of the population?

Who is working for the benefit of the population, or who believes themselves to be working for the benefit of the population?

Yeah, there is always the problem of those who think they are working for one thing, when infact they are working for something completely different.

The commander I think you are referring is Ahmad Shāh Mas'ūd, who was a very skilful commander, but there is no reason to believe he was any more or less altruistic than many other of the war lords (and formed part of the post communist administration that was riven with infighting and corruption, and that finally was brought down by the Taliban),

That may be who I'm referring to, I cannot, sadly, remember his name. The person I discuss fought against the Russians and the taliban. He visited Europe just before 9/11 and was very critical of the west as he put it: ´you got what you wanted, then walked away from us(Afghanistan)´.

Interesting to because if he were alive after the invasion he would have been a very strong contender to be president, and he would have been far more independent than the current one.

or even other guerilla/terrorist leaders - such as Manuel Rubén Abimael Guzmán Reynoso, who formed the Shining Path movement in Peru, who, like Bin Laden, could easily have lived a comfortable life life without having to expose himself to the risks of leading a movement that indulges in violent politics.  This is not to judge whether these people actually did act in their nations best interest, only that they acted not out of self interest, but in the belief (even if delusional) that they were acting for some wider good.

Strange really all sides claim to work for the good, or at least they claim that what they fight against is bad!

Trouble also, is to argue one way is better than another, often, it's nothing more than opinion(normally a biased opinion).
 
I suppose looking historically it is always easer to identify the nobler party as you can see what all were up to.

But there must also be lessons to learn and applied for today surely? I certainly feel the west needs a complete change in tact, because right now, the government acts I my opinion, as if they want as many terrorists as possible.
 
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

90 Day detention
« Reply #9 on: 03/07/2007 20:47:25 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length