I don't want my human rights torn up - letting terrorism win

[Europa1]

spaximus said:

Sorry you are correct in my putting the two together. Abu Hanza took 8 years to send to the US due to legal challenges, according to Wikipedia, where he is jailed for life without parole, although he wants to return to the UK as he is not happy in a tough jail with his hook replaced by a spork.

Abu Qatada, was only able to be deported when Jordan agreed to become involved. Both cases used the EHRC to delay facing justice which it was never designed for.

Can I be so bold as to suggest that "according to Wikipedia" is not the most robust source to cite in an argument.

[spaximus]

Europa1 said:

Can I be so bold as to suggest that "according to Wikipedia" is not the most robust source to cite in an argument.

Yes you can, no problem but it was just enough on this occasion to confirm Toomany was correct in my error. the rest still stands that we were ham strung in both cases by the HRA

[TooMany2cvs]

spaximus said:

the rest still stands that we were ham strung in both cases by the HRA

I s'pose it really just depends on if you think that relying on evidence obtained by torture, or inhumane prison regimes, are a good thing or not.

[spaximus]

TooMany2cvs said:

spaximus said:

the rest still stands that we were ham strung in both cases by the HRA

I s'pose it really just depends on if you think that relying on evidence obtained by torture, or inhumane prison regimes, are a good thing or not.

That depends on what you think is torture or inhumane prison regimes. Abu Hanza is trying to come back to the UK as he claims the system there is inhumane as it is too harsh, making him have medical treatment from women for example, no nice things he would be allowed in a UK prison. His hook was removed as it was a potential weapon, we let him keep it.

His punishment there is the same as every US subject gets, but worse than ours should he come back here?

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

[anonymous-user]

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

[Einion Yrth]

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

[TooMany2cvs]

spaximus said:

That depends on what you think is torture or inhumane prison regimes.

There are various international conventions, providing perfectly adequate and long-agreed definitions.

[Crackie]

Einion Yrth said:

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

Then let Emily Thornberry, or some similarly competent human rights lawyer, seek appropriate compensation for the error. Fewer people are likely to be victims of terrorism if this was the route taken.

Edited by Crackie on Thursday 8th June 08:16

[Murph7355]

Einion Yrth said:

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

If (arguably a big one) it helps prevent incidents like those recently, then it's a risk worth taking. Someone being little upset versus someone being dead. Easy choice.

[TooMany2cvs]

Crackie said:

Einion Yrth said:

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

Then let Emily Thornberry, or some similarly competent human rights lawyer, seek appropriate compensation for the error. Fewer people are likely to be victims of terrorism if this was the route taken.

You reckon?

Torture-then-apologise is more likely to INCREASE the kind of disaffection that leads to radicalisation.

[Jon321]

Murph7355 said:

Einion Yrth said:

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

If (arguably a big one) it helps prevent incidents like those recently, then it's a risk worth taking. Someone being little upset versus someone being dead. Easy choice.

Exactly.

I've just checked my diary for today, it reads along the lines of
1) Vote
2) Go to work
3) Meetings, emails, phonecalls
4) Home to wife and kids
5) Gym (well maybe) and relax

It doesn't read like

1) Prepare acts of terrorism
2) Sympathise overtly with terrorists
3) Finance or support terrorist acts
4) Internet use to do any of the above
5) Kill innocent people with bombs, vehicles or knives

So, Im fairly confident I'm still firmly off TMs radar in terms of Human Rights removals, which hasn't required much effort if I'm honest.

[Boring_Chris]

Jon321 said:

Murph7355 said:

Einion Yrth said:

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

If (arguably a big one) it helps prevent incidents like those recently, then it's a risk worth taking. Someone being little upset versus someone being dead. Easy choice.

Exactly.

I've just checked my diary for today, it reads along the lines of
1) Vote
2) Go to work
3) Meetings, emails, phonecalls
4) Home to wife and kids
5) Gym (well maybe) and relax

It doesn't read like

1) Prepare acts of terrorism
2) Sympathise overtly with terrorists
3) Finance or support terrorist acts
4) Internet use to do any of the above
5) Kill innocent people with bombs, vehicles or knives

So, Im fairly confident I'm still firmly off TMs radar in terms of Human Rights removals, which hasn't required much effort if I'm honest.

There was an interesting bit on Reddit describing how the vast majority of say Wikipedia pages on Jihadi groups where frequented mostly by law abiding but curious citizens.

Once people become aware of these laws, they swerve that curiosity for fear of being labelled by the state.

That level of self censorship is then open for use by all and sundry.

[Derek Smith]

Jon321 said:

Exactly.

I've just checked my diary for today, it reads along the lines of
1) Vote
2) Go to work
3) Meetings, emails, phonecalls
4) Home to wife and kids
5) Gym (well maybe) and relax

It doesn't read like

1) Prepare acts of terrorism
2) Sympathise overtly with terrorists
3) Finance or support terrorist acts
4) Internet use to do any of the above
5) Kill innocent people with bombs, vehicles or knives

So, Im fairly confident I'm still firmly off TMs radar in terms of Human Rights removals, which hasn't required much effort if I'm honest.

How do you think the government agencies pick the particular email they will check? Whatever the method, even if it isn't the most obvious one, will have margins for error.

I've got an American friend who has an FBI/CIA record for daring to attend a meeting for native Americans when she was merely born in the country. She had limits based on her movements.

So, as long as you haven't any beliefs that are important to you and the state I assume your confidence is well founded.

How about someone who is concerned about the way animals are treated? How about someone who went on a demonstration as a youth against nuclear weapons? Don't like the way foxes are torn apart for sport? How about someone who did something equally innocuous at one time which since has been of concern to the government? I wonder how confident they are with someone in charge who, it seems, can't see that human rights are vital to a healthy society.

[Crackie]

TooMany2cvs said:

Crackie said:

Einion Yrth said:

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

And if those suspicions were not well founded?

Then let Emily Thornberry, or some similarly competent human rights lawyer, seek appropriate compensation for the error. Fewer people are likely to be victims of terrorism if this was the route taken.

You reckon?

Torture-then-apologise is more likely to INCREASE the kind of disaffection that leads to radicalisation.

If you want to interpret "more robust methods of interrogation" as meaning torture, so be it. I was not.

[durbster]

REALIST123 said:

spaximus said:

I wouldn't lose too much sleep if the security services were allowed to be more robust in their methods of interrogation for those suspected of terrorist activities. I suspect many others would feel the same

This.

You mean like put them in orange jump suits and send them to Cuba? Yeah, that solved terrorism didn't it.

These methods have been tried. They clearly didn't work.

[rscott]

Question. It's widely reported that we couldn't do anything about the terrorist on the Schengen watch list because we're in the EU and don't have the power to prevent free movement.

If that's the case, how have Hungary banned Nick Griffin and James Dowson (far right extremists) even though they haven't committed any crimes there?
How did we ban Geert Wilders from coming here?

It seems the authorities have existing powers which would have helped, but aren't using them.

[Stickyfinger]

Some open questions:

Would this be allowed in London/Uk ?

and should it be allowed

why does it offend

Edited by Stickyfinger on Thursday 8th June 09:28

[p1stonhead]

Stickyfinger said:

Some open questions:

Would this be allowed in London/Uk ?

and should it be allowed

why does it offend

Edited by Stickyfinger on Thursday 8th June 09:28

Doesnt the Christian god suggest genocide for basically anything in some parts of the Bible?

It says homosexuals should be killed. Would you put that on a sign?

Why try to wind people up on purpose?

[Stickyfinger]

Not the point ( I would not place it either)


however, calls to ban it would be restricting free speech ?

Would this be allowed in London ?

[CrutyRammers]

wst said:

ell, actually, as they're Human Rights, they apply to everybody..

They don't, actually. They don't apply to enemy combatants in a war, for example.