How effing stupid are we?
-
Some Clarification: By Animals I mean those that planted and detonated the bomb. Secondly... Your line "
Ian Shlasko wrote:
Anyone with darker skin who happened to be in the same city?
" I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest. I am not a racist, I have many friends of all colours, creeds, sexual bias, genders, political persuasions and races. I do not count against any individual on any basis except those of Attitude and Beligerence. If someone is an Arsehole or needlessly aggresive then I make my decision, but I do not make decisions on skin, or lifestyle etc. I hope you can understand why what you said was offensive, thanks. Moving on... Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest.
Apologies... Didn't mean to imply that you are, but I think you can understand how public opinion can very easily swing in that direction after an incident. Not being very familiar with UK history, I can't point out specific examples there... But over on this side of the pond... After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor during WWII, the US government started rounding up anyone of Japanese descent, the vast majority of which were, obviously, not involved. After the WTC towers were leveled, there was widespread hatred of anyone Arabic, and some of that still lingers today. The first instinct after something like that is to seek out some group of people to blame, and much of the general public is going to just categorize people by race, instead of realizing that in any racial group, there are good ones and bad ones.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
See, you realize that it CAN happen, and possibly DOES happen already... Any government is going to have some amount of corruption, but you need to keep an eye on it to prevent that corruption from growing. It's for that reason that I support the presence of the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and even the Teabaggers (Heh)... I don't want to see them take over, because I don't agree with many of their viewpoints, but I think it's good that they're around to stop the guys in power from going too far.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed.
The judiciary in the UK guard their independence and impartiality with some ferocity. Yes, they make mistakes but they're generally fair and even handed and will apply the law in as impartial a manner as they can. If the judge agreed with the security services it is because he read the evidence that was presented, not because he was acting for the government.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Dalek Dave wrote:
That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
So that makes it okay?
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
No, but it happens, deal with it.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Dalek Dave wrote:
I find it to be very offensive. If you are implying me to be a racist then you are wrong, as those who have read my posts in the past will attest.
Apologies... Didn't mean to imply that you are, but I think you can understand how public opinion can very easily swing in that direction after an incident. Not being very familiar with UK history, I can't point out specific examples there... But over on this side of the pond... After the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor during WWII, the US government started rounding up anyone of Japanese descent, the vast majority of which were, obviously, not involved. After the WTC towers were leveled, there was widespread hatred of anyone Arabic, and some of that still lingers today. The first instinct after something like that is to seek out some group of people to blame, and much of the general public is going to just categorize people by race, instead of realizing that in any racial group, there are good ones and bad ones.
Dalek Dave wrote:
Any decision made under the secrets act has to be signed off by the Home Secretary, and I understand that you may think deals were being done. That is paranoia, deals like that do happen, but not at the level that it is anybody you or I have ever or will ever hear about.
See, you realize that it CAN happen, and possibly DOES happen already... Any government is going to have some amount of corruption, but you need to keep an eye on it to prevent that corruption from growing. It's for that reason that I support the presence of the Libertarians, Constitutionalists, and even the Teabaggers (Heh)... I don't want to see them take over, because I don't agree with many of their viewpoints, but I think it's good that they're around to stop the guys in power from going too far.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)My proposed law would not make this happen, it is happening already under the EHRA, so whats new? I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)That is because of a long history of not getting it too wrong, too often. We generally accept the honesty of the authorities, and it is rare when they are corrupt. Even the recent scandals over expense claims was a bit of a joke, the average 'misclaimed' expense was less than £2000 per member per year, which, whilst still wrong is really trifling in comparison with other politicians around the world.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
My proposed law would not make this happen, it is happening already under the EHRA, so whats new? I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Dalek Dave wrote:
I just think that we should have the right to kick out undesirables.
Like I said, it's a matter of figuring out which ones are the "undesirables," not just pointing at some random person and saying "You're a bit creepy. Get out." :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Apparently you guys trust your leaders more than we trust ours :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels):laugh: Not really: but the judiciary is not elected so they don't tend to make political decisions.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
That is because of a long history of not getting it too wrong, too often. We generally accept the honesty of the authorities, and it is rare when they are corrupt. Even the recent scandals over expense claims was a bit of a joke, the average 'misclaimed' expense was less than £2000 per member per year, which, whilst still wrong is really trifling in comparison with other politicians around the world.
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
Fair enough :)
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
:laugh: Not really: but the judiciary is not elected so they don't tend to make political decisions.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
Same over here... the Supreme Court judges are appointed for life, to keep them out of politics.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
ragnaroknrol wrote:
How would you like to be told you are a duck, be given no chance to prove you are not a duck, and be thrown in jail without a key?
I wouldn't but I don't act like a duck and I'm not advocating that the UK should become a muslim state.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
Strawman. You are equating giving the person a place to stay with giving them a fair trial where the state proves its case and legal action should be taken after it has done so.
Nonsense: I was challenging him to accept the fact that there comes a point where any government has to make some decisions that appear to go against common sense and justice. If he is that convinced that they pose no threat, regardless of the legal status, let him shelter them rather than have them deported. It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
When a state can decide it doesn't need to allow you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges it brings up against you, that state is well on the way to tyranny. NO ONE, should condone this just to feel safe. Americans need to wake up about this and apparently so do the Brits.
Most of the time I would stand right behind you with this. But these are not normal times: there are many people we have welcomed to these shores who would see it destroyed. I doubt they'll succeed but I'm damned if I'm going to hog-tie those that we charge with protecting us just to make some liberals feel all warm and cosy.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
It's real easy for people to moan about these seemingly draconian measures but I'd rather they did that and made a few mistakes than risk innocent people being blown up or rolling over and giving into to extremist islam.
Are you volunteering to be mistake number 1? If he has to have them in his house, because he believes the government should let them free, you should get to be the first mistakee for your belief.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
What I want to know is why a trial can't be done. There are quite a few people with classified, secret, and top secret clearance in every country. Contractors, ex-military, etc... Get a bunch of the people with the clearance necessary to view the evidence and hold a trial. Coverage limited to knowing it is happening and the outcome. Yes, it isn't perfect, because these folks will often be very patriotic, but it at least has a good chance of being a fair trial. That's much better than having a closed court view the evidence and decide the fate of someone without the person being able to address the claims against them. And yes, if they are terrorists, by all means, deal with them.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
What I want to know is why a trial can't be done. There are quite a few people with classified, secret, and top secret clearance in every country. Contractors, ex-military, etc... Get a bunch of the people with the clearance necessary to view the evidence and hold a trial. Coverage limited to knowing it is happening and the outcome.
The defense is NOT going to want people associated with the gov/def being the ones who decide. They are more likely to find them guilty. On the other hand, if the government wanted to divulge the intelligence related practices and information, they would hold the trial in open court. If the person if convicted, they can spill their guts on everything they heard, since they won't be sent back to prison for breaching state's secret laws if they are already in for life.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Remember that whole mess where Dubya was holding people in Gitmo without trial... Suspended habeus corpus and all that? Looks like it's the Brits' turn to tackle that issue.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Their were never US citizens, or people picked up on US soil, held in Gitmo. Those were kept in other locations. The ones at Gitmo all fall under the Geneva Convention, either as protected, or unprotected, combatants. They are all being treated at or better than the GC requirements for protected combatants.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Their were never US citizens, or people picked up on US soil, held in Gitmo. Those were kept in other locations. The ones at Gitmo all fall under the Geneva Convention, either as protected, or unprotected, combatants. They are all being treated at or better than the GC requirements for protected combatants.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
Ah, ok... So different issue entirely.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Asked and answered: 'Al-Qaeda ringleader' wins appeal against deportation.[^] Leaves me speechless with anger and disbelief.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
-
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck.
As a large violent scary stoner duck I have to say this is only going to cause more problems. Mind you, I don't quack, I generally don't duck walk or goose step even, but most people expect me to crack someone's head open rather than crack open difficult problems. Oh, and since I have long hair I'm both a stoner and in a band. That last bit has become common enough that I'm considering just making up a band name and running with it.
digital man wrote:
If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
Sure, send him over here. I can show him far worse things than anything he'd attack you guys for, and I can show him that it's all of the assholes who do it, not just the ones he was targeting before. I'd be curious just what his reaction would be. Some people sober up, others loose their shit completely. Always interesting to watch.
-
Ian Shlasko wrote:
The judge (Presumably unbiased) agreed.
The judiciary in the UK guard their independence and impartiality with some ferocity. Yes, they make mistakes but they're generally fair and even handed and will apply the law in as impartial a manner as they can. If the judge agreed with the security services it is because he read the evidence that was presented, not because he was acting for the government.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
digital man wrote:
The judiciary in the UK guard their independence and impartiality with some ferocity. Yes, they make mistakes but they're generally fair and even handed and will apply the law in as impartial a manner as they can. If the judge agreed with the security services it is because he read the evidence that was presented, not because he was acting for the government.
This would probably be the biggest difference between the UK and the US on this issue, I can dig up piles of judges using similar clauses to make political maneuvers in the US. Hell, they've brought states to each other's throats over bridges of all things. If you think you can trust yours without knowing the evidence they decided with, I could see how you would be happy to kick them out. Mine I don't trust any farther than I can toss them unless I can see the evidence for myself. Too many have pulled to much bullshit to give them free reign in deciding people's fate.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Terrorism no doubt is a reason to apply such a derogation. However, in the UK Act, AFAIK, it refers to anti-terrorism measures but as this act was written in the times when Northern Ireland was an issue. Perhaps other Statutory Instruments exist which amend that clause of said act to encompass further examples of terrorism.
I guess that would depend upon how one defines terrorism in respect of the act. Was it tightly bound to a specific need (as in NI) or can it be more widely interpreted to encompass any anti-terror measures as deemed fit by the government of the day? Interesting.
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven
That which I referenced was this part of the UK Human Rights Act. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_5[^] Since then, other prevention of terrorism statutes have been made. Now how these amend, or not, said Human Rights Act is not known by me, however, I shall further my enquiries ...
-
I think you have to get to a point where if it talks like a duck and walks like a duck it probably is a duck. And I'd still rather err on the side of caution and a) deport or b) lock up and throw away the key (if he was bore here). However, even those that are born here would rather turn this into 14th century Englandistan so I don't think sending them to where they'd really rather be is that much of a hardship and I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. If you want to go all liberal and soft why not volunteer for him to stay at your place?
me, me, me "The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right!" Larry Niven