Terror measures restrict civil liberties

perseus

perseus

Active member
A former head of MI5 has accused the government of exploiting the fear of terrorism to restrict civil liberties. Dame Stella Rimington, said people in Britain felt as if they were living "under a police state" because of the fear being spread by ministers.
In an interview with Spanish newspaper La Vanguardia and published in the Daily Telegraph, she also attacks the approach taken by the United States. "The US has gone too far with Guantanamo and the tortures," she said. "MI5 does not do that. Furthermore it has achieved the opposite effect - there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification." She said the British security services were "no angels," but they did not kill people
Click to expand...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7893890.stm

I certainly agree that some of the measures adopted may be counterproductive. I can't help feeling though that those with nothing to hide are less concerned about civil liberties.
 
Wow! This has obviously never happened before! [Sarcasm]

This isnt the only time this happened. Whenever security measures and laws are put up by the government, some people immediately think "Oh they just want to control the country more.."

Same with Putin with the Beslan hostage situation. Chechen terrorists shoot hostages, Spetsnaz forces attack them and try to save the hostages. Majority get saved [Barely], Putin puts stronger policing laws, and all they do is @#$%$. Dont they notice that, in order to avoid situations like Besland hostage situation, stronger laws have to be put in? What was Putin supposed to do? Just say "Oh sorry this happened. We will just try to do better next time this happens"? Ridicoulous. Although sometimes laws get ridicoulous and are exagerated and dont do jack squat against terrorism, its for the peoples safety.

[Just to make it clear, im not a fan of Putin. I just think he was a good president at his time.]
 
Balkan-MiG said:
Wow! This has obviously never happened before! [Sarcasm]

This isnt the only time this happened. Whenever security measures and laws are put up by the government, some people immediately think "Oh they just want to control the country more.."

Same with Putin with the Beslan hostage situation. Chechen terrorists shoot hostages, Spetsnaz forces attack them and try to save the hostages. Majority get saved [Barely], Putin puts stronger policing laws, and all they do is @#$%$. Dont they notice that, in order to avoid situations like Besland hostage situation, stronger laws have to be put in? What was Putin supposed to do? Just say "Oh sorry this happened. We will just try to do better next time this happens"? Ridicoulous. Although sometimes laws get ridicoulous and are exagerated and dont do jack squat against terrorism, its for the peoples safety.

[Just to make it clear, im not a fan of Putin. I just think he was a good president at his time.]
Click to expand...

Balkan-Mig, the problem is that it has happened before and each time the information or power has been misused, to suit someone in powers own ends. GB is going to issue National ID cards, the main thrust is that it will help to prevent terrorist acts - how? You get a graded card which says muslim - potential suicide bomber, Christian, potential fundamentalist?

The right of Habeus Corpus has been enshrined in most democracies as the central tenet - freedom of speech, expression, religion and thought. The fact that govts willingly set these aside (for a short time) to protect the masses does not hold water. Vast amounts of money are spent on security, policing and information gathering, whilst not 100% accurate, each threat or attack should not be an excuse for societies to throw off their rules just because of a few.

The next step is that we'll create enclave, ghettoes if you will, where certain types of people have to live, then a badge so that they can be recognised, sound familiar?

I despise terrorists, but I do not believe that we can fight "them" by creating police states, where an individuals rights can be set aside on the whim of the authorities. Let them make the case, provide evidence and allow a public, free and fair trial to decide guilt or innocence - not have a shadow system. That is the strength & weakness of a democracy, everyone should be treated equally and is innocent until proven guilty.
 
Balkan-MiG said:
Wow! This has obviously never happened before! [Sarcasm]
Click to expand...
Does this mean that because we have made mistakes before, we should be willing to go on making them forever.

No!... if we have any brains at all, we must learn from previous mistakes and not make them again.
 
Partisan, so we should just ignore terrorism?

You cannot STOP terrorism, since it has so many different forms, but you can at least decrease the amount of it, or make it harder for them to cause acts [Such as Beslan hostage or the Bali bombings].

Brittain is a type of lower plutocracy in my opinion. The ID cards probably suit some rich capitalists sitting in chintz armchairs with the queen who support Gordon Brown.

Doing things like checking peoples bags at the airport, tracking people that could be potential terrorists [Old school for the CIA, they had plenty of practise with similar situations] and increasing security in important places [Convention centers, government buildings, large public facilities] can dramatically reduce the chance of a terrorist attack.

If people dont like it, then remove all security measures and see what happens [Didnt mean that seriously].

Senojekips, I was saying that complaints against anti-terrorist laws [Even the most obviously normal ones, like checking bags at airports] are so common its not funny.

Of course, things like bushfires and floodings are more of a concern to some people, if you get my drift, senojekips.
 
Balkan-MiG said:
Of course, things like bushfires and floodings are more of a concern to some people, if you get my drift, senojekips.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that I do get your drift, as the two subjects are as yet totally unrelated, until perhaps some terrorist decides to become a firebug.

They could cause a lot more damage that way than perhaps bombing the MCG at Grand final time.
 
Dang, was hoping you would..

Victoria does seem like a nice place to light a bushfire, though.

And Queensland looks like a good place for a swim nowadays.
 
Balkan-MiG said:
Partisan, so we should just ignore terrorism?

You cannot STOP terrorism, since it has so many different forms, but you can at least decrease the amount of it, or make it harder for them to cause acts [Such as Beslan hostage or the Bali bombings].

Brittain is a type of lower plutocracy in my opinion. The ID cards probably suit some rich capitalists sitting in chintz armchairs with the queen who support Gordon Brown.

Doing things like checking peoples bags at the airport, tracking people that could be potential terrorists [Old school for the CIA, they had plenty of practise with similar situations] and increasing security in important places [Convention centers, government buildings, large public facilities] can dramatically reduce the chance of a terrorist attack.

If people dont like it, then remove all security measures and see what happens [Didnt mean that seriously].

Senojekips, I was saying that complaints against anti-terrorist laws [Even the most obviously normal ones, like checking bags at airports] are so common its not funny.

Of course, things like bushfires and floodings are more of a concern to some people, if you get my drift, senojekips.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the need for sensible procedures and protection. I am against the way that every time there is an attack, the knee jerk reaction is to do away with someones rights. This is not how a democracy works.

You cannot ignore terrorism, nor should you become a terrorist just to fight terrorism; strong laws, which protect society, respect the rights of the individual and are enforced are the only way. Couple this with intelligence gathering (& sharing) and prompt action to prevent situations, will make things more secure. As for security checks - keep 'em going. At the end of the day, all the laws, security checks etc will not protect everyone, all the time, that will only come through public vigilance.
 
If you remove critical civil liberties for supposed safety, your country isn't worth defending anyways. Or at least its government.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion that all the politicians see is a bit more PR, the civil servants see a bit more power and job security, so they go for it, without considering the longer term implications, after all they won't be in power 10 years from now will they?

I feel that any kind of amendment to a country's constitution should be passed by plebiscite, with at least a 85% turnout and and a 66% yes vote., but that won't happen.
 
The ability to abuse their authority and abuse the rights of others increases proportionally with the level of immunity. In essence, the more, the worse.
 
I can't say that I agree with torture,but if it can stop another 9/11 then so be it. It is well and good claiming the morale high ground when these people have absolutely no respect for human life them selfs and are quite happy taking men and women hostages then cutting their heads of with a rusty penknife.
The only thing that does annoy me is that America will go around screaming other countries and their human rights record and then ignore it them them selfs.
 
I think it's happening here in America too. The wiretapping; the unlimited detainment without reason, etc. They're using terrorism as an excuse to sit on us.
 
Funny but it just struck me that if a 'police state' were what any of you lived in this conversation you would not be having.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top