Do GCHQ/MI5 etc need more powers to fight terrorism?
Discussion
The security agencies are currently making their case for additional powers to be handed over to them in order to prevent terrorist attacks. David Cameron agrees and says that the 'snoopers' charter' will reappear should his party win the election. This was blocked from going through the current parliament by the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems and the likes of David Davis say that current powers are more than sufficient and if we look at cases like the London Bombings, Lee Rigby's killing and even what happened in Paris last week - these attacks succeeded not because the various state agencies lacked powers but because, for whatever reason, terror suspects who were already known to the security agencies somehow disappeared off the map.
So what is the solution? We will never have absolute security however the spooks are adamant that increased surveillance powers = increased security. A price worth paying?
The Lib Dems and the likes of David Davis say that current powers are more than sufficient and if we look at cases like the London Bombings, Lee Rigby's killing and even what happened in Paris last week - these attacks succeeded not because the various state agencies lacked powers but because, for whatever reason, terror suspects who were already known to the security agencies somehow disappeared off the map.
So what is the solution? We will never have absolute security however the spooks are adamant that increased surveillance powers = increased security. A price worth paying?
Think most of us believe they do what they like anyway.
I think most of us were OK with the idea of GCHQ or MI5 looking at phone records, emails etc. But the Snoopers charter was basically allowing councils, police and quite low levels the ability to put a trace/contact log on indiviudals. That was a nonsense, went far to broad.
It is not like the Brits are even particularly hysterical about Terrorism, we are all fairly sanguine/stoic.
Politicians shouldn't build up the risk in the public's mind.
More people may be needed, not sure about more powers though.
The real debate is what you do with the likes of people returning from Syria and how we adapt to the fact this is now home grown people who hold UK citizenship, and then how far we go with legislation to try and act to preempt any attacks on those who haven't done anything illegal yet. Only to be further compounded when the Guardian reports discrimination against Muslims and tries to frame it like the stop and search debate.
The real debate is what you do with the likes of people returning from Syria and how we adapt to the fact this is now home grown people who hold UK citizenship, and then how far we go with legislation to try and act to preempt any attacks on those who haven't done anything illegal yet. Only to be further compounded when the Guardian reports discrimination against Muslims and tries to frame it like the stop and search debate.
I believe a re-think of the laws relating to terrorist offences and how we treat offenders is in order.
Take the three b
ds involved in last weeks attack; all known to security services, some had even been convicted in the past, all on the no-fly list, but all left free to plot plan and act on extremist causes.
Trouble is, if you incarcerate people, there will be a lot of family, friends and neighbours who simply have no idea why - without clear offences being committed - and believe the law to be unjust. One of the brother's (non Muslim) neighbours remarked how quiet, helpful and pleasant the guy was...
Take the three b
ds involved in last weeks attack; all known to security services, some had even been convicted in the past, all on the no-fly list, but all left free to plot plan and act on extremist causes.Trouble is, if you incarcerate people, there will be a lot of family, friends and neighbours who simply have no idea why - without clear offences being committed - and believe the law to be unjust. One of the brother's (non Muslim) neighbours remarked how quiet, helpful and pleasant the guy was...
So long as the usual controls are in place, I can't see a rational objection unless one already objects to post and phone intercepts. Get a Home Office Warrant, or whatever the equivalent is today, and you can open my post and listen in on my phone calls. That's been allowed for decades. Now that we also communicate across the internet it seems natural to allow similar access to electronic communication.
BlackLabel said:
The security agencies are currently making their case for additional powers to be handed over to them in order to prevent terrorist attacks. David Cameron agrees and says that the 'snoopers' charter' will reappear should his party win the election. This was blocked from going through the current parliament by the Lib Dems.
The Lib Dems and the likes of David Davis say that current powers are more than sufficient and if we look at cases like the London Bombings, Lee Rigby's killing and even what happened in Paris last week - these attacks succeeded not because the various state agencies lacked powers but because, for whatever reason, terror suspects who were already known to the security agencies somehow disappeared off the map.
So what is the solution? We will never have absolute security however the spooks are adamant that increased surveillance powers = increased security. A price worth paying?
It depends what you mean by additional powers and who they will be used against.The Lib Dems and the likes of David Davis say that current powers are more than sufficient and if we look at cases like the London Bombings, Lee Rigby's killing and even what happened in Paris last week - these attacks succeeded not because the various state agencies lacked powers but because, for whatever reason, terror suspects who were already known to the security agencies somehow disappeared off the map.
So what is the solution? We will never have absolute security however the spooks are adamant that increased surveillance powers = increased security. A price worth paying?
Worth bearing in mind as well that powers used in the fairly recent past, such as the internment of suspect civilians during WW2, would now be considered gross violations of human rights.
If you listen to Wikileaks and their cheerleaders in the guardian. The security services shouldn't even have the power to make confidential assessments of other countries and their leaders.
Mojocvh said:
What the country needs are MORE (REAL) POLICE.
I would have agreed with you prior to the Sergeant Osman Iqbal laugh last week. If that is the level of intelligence needed to make Sergeant I'm not convinced more of them would actually help.Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th January 15:32
ATG said:
So long as the usual controls are in place,
Allowing for the number of abuses of the system I would want greater controls over who can look at pretty every aspect of my life. I would certainly wish to restrict the number of people having this access and their reasons for doing so. The 'usual controls' are insufficient.fblm said:
Mojocvh said:
What the country needs are MORE (REAL) POLICE.
I would have agreed with you prior to the Sergeant Osman Iqbal laugh last week. If that is the level of intelligence needed to make Sergeant I'm not convinced more of them would actually help. Look at that school in Dorset using RIPA to spy on a family to see whether they lived in the school catchment area.
http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/338
'We needed to spy on the family of Stephen Lawrence and Ricky Reel just in case any political groups that may stoke up violence may align themselves to their cause.....
No Tories have signed EDM338 yet, not even David Davis.
Right. So they knew about the 7 July Bombers but Spooks dismissed them as a non threat. Couldn't the Spooks at least flagged the information up to the police in Northern England to keep an eye on them?
The French Spooks knew of these two Charlie Hebdo killers, but they were thought to be too old to be a threat.
They needed to spy on the family of Ricky Reel and Stephen Lawrence to keep an eye on any protest groups? How does that compare to High Court injunctions to keep the Rotherham Child abuse out of the Press?
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/video/2009/dec/15/po...
I used to be involved with an Art Student. Do you think we may have traveled into London to see a specific building that was relevant to their course? Do you think the field trip to Barcelona in their first year may have included looking at buildings? Do we think that student may have had a Cannon AE-1?I've been to Italy twice. Do we think they have any 'iconic buildings' there?
Not having ID is an offence is it?
She failed the attitude test. That's an offence.
The witnesses said the police were out of order. And then they wonder why they loose respect and buy in from the public?
With Google Earth would you need to take photos or videos of potential targets?
Gordon Brown's 42 days detention for suspected terrorists. He pork barreled the vote with the MPs in Northern Ireland by doing a deal on their water rates. And the House of Lords kicked it out.
Gordon Brown wanted to look the hardest on terrorism for political benefit. It's cynical and opportunistic to use what happened in Paris to push this agenda now.
Edited by carinaman on Monday 12th January 16:50
An oft raised complaint is that the security services are aware of the individuals but could not prevent the attack.
In the French case a claim was made that 90% of French Muslims are peaceful and would not take part in violent attacks, which is great until you realise that the 10% that are left would be about 500,000 people.
I think it is the scale of this that would defeat them, they cannot follow every single individual extremist, to do so they would need the resources of a police state.
In the French case a claim was made that 90% of French Muslims are peaceful and would not take part in violent attacks, which is great until you realise that the 10% that are left would be about 500,000 people.
I think it is the scale of this that would defeat them, they cannot follow every single individual extremist, to do so they would need the resources of a police state.
I suppose we could try a Soviet-bloc stasi approach to policing by forcing everyone to spy on and inform on everyone's activities. But I think that required all the communities to report on wrong-doing, so it wouldn't work here. I bet Stalin would have wet-dreams about our current level of surveillance with millions of CCTV cameras, email / phone / text interception, mobile phone location tracking, visibility of all spending, DNA databases etc.
Perhaps it would be nicer for everyone if the government stopped issuing citizenship to people who didn't have UK parents.
Perhaps it would be nicer for everyone if the government stopped issuing citizenship to people who didn't have UK parents.
But when Johnny Foreigner does police state and oppressive regimes we invade them and interfere in it?
So rather than saving Johnny Foreigner from police states, we're just stealing it and bringing it home? Perhaps Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair is bringing it in in Diplomatic baggage? Or Epstein's private jet?
So we want the Ukranians to be able to have democracy and freedom while the ConDem pact is picking up and running with New Labour's Stasi Lite here?
So rather than saving Johnny Foreigner from police states, we're just stealing it and bringing it home? Perhaps Middle East Peace Envoy Tony Blair is bringing it in in Diplomatic baggage? Or Epstein's private jet?
So we want the Ukranians to be able to have democracy and freedom while the ConDem pact is picking up and running with New Labour's Stasi Lite here?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff