Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on July 22, 2005, 05:49:40 AM
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4706787.stm
-
Looks like they weren't taking any chances
-
From the article: "they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."
Those weren't police officers.
They were SAS or something similar.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/209_1081438631_swoop.gif)
-
Sending the SAS out to arrest people again?
People have forgotten how downright nasty the Brits are.
This is what a terror bombing campaign in London acheives, the public will turn a blind eye now when the Govt unleashes their more capable operators, a few weeks ago, they would'nt have.
You can bet your last dollar the CO of the SAS has a list of people he has been trying to get permission to 'go after' for years, due to public outcry about a rather public hit on some terrorists in Gibraltar ( Thanks Dowding, yep thats what I meant) and the frequent claims that SAS teams in Ireland were nothing more than government hit squads, that permission was probably hard to get.
I think recent events have drasticly changed that situation and that a free reign will be the more normal situation for a while.
The names list probably just got a lot bigger too.
-
Maybe not SAS, but intelligence services of some kind.
Bluedog - you mean Gibraltar and the execution of the IRA bombers.
-
Just saw a couple reports on TV. They were part of a new "armed response unit" similar to a SWAT team. He was probably trying to pull the trigger on the bomb and they killed him to save civilian lives on the train.It would have been nice to take him alive, but if he was going to blow up the bomb, it was a good call.
They also said the guy was Pakistani. Supposedly, Pakistanis are sometimes called Asians in the UK. Is this true brits?
-
They are called a lot of things, rpm. But yes Pakis are sometimes called Asians.
-
"Asians" usually refers to Indians/Pakistanis/Sri Lankans etc, rather than it's US usage which seems to refer to Japanese/Koreans/Vietnamese etc.
Sending the SAS out to arrest people again?
People have forgotten how downright nasty the Brits are.
Oh, how despicable, shooting terrorists who are trying to murder people.
-
they probably saved a bunch of people in the train. <
>
Karaya
-
This could all be outta line, not enuff public yet to be sure; BUT:
This appears to be some mighty good pro-active police work.
Gent's I imagine the Bobbies are on hair triggers. The guy was being pursued, he appears to have a bomb.
Time to do what's gotta be done.
Seems to me the guys dogpiling on the suspect are hero's.
-
I believe it is now law in the UK that allows security forces to shoot terrorist suspects in the commission of a terrorist act threatening life.
This differs from the normal circumstances under which life is taken due to immediate threat or act endangering life. The above law does not have the same constraints as previous statute and common law, nor does it require an immediate threat.
-
Good Start!
-
by the end of the week, some loser will be crying how the cops over reacted
I am all for it but do not think such actions would fly in the states without some hot-shot lawyer, aclu type crying foul in front of every tv camera he could find and the left screaming for the head of bush
wtg Brits! pop a couple more asap ... hope you can keep it up
-
shot huh?
lazs
-
Its bound to happen in the US sooner or later, and when it does, there is going to be cataclyzmic ***** storm.
-
Running away from cops..an automatic admission of guilt in my book.
This was handled exactly the way it should have been.
-
"The Muslim Council of Britain said Muslims were concerned about a possible "shoot to kill" policy."
Britons responded they were concerned about a proven "blow us to smithereens while we are dickering around indecisively, policy"
Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man had been wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
- SEAGOON
-
I wouldn't be surprized if there are M6 in the streets of London with a "license to kill."
I wonder if Americans will be able to adjust to the loss of some liberties that will naturally happen - actually are happening already - when attacks occur in the US?
I can envision it all being politicised, too.
-
An interesting post, Gunthr. Was that transported forward in time from four years ago? Because we did have an incident in 2001, and we have lost lots of liberties.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Running away from cops..an automatic admission of guilt in my book.
This was handled exactly the way it should have been.
From the article: "they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him."
if I was one of the cops on top of the guy I think I'd be needing to have a talk with the guy who was firing shots into him
-
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if I was one of the cops on top of the guy I think I'd be needing to have a talk with the guy who was firing shots into him
Not if you were bits and chunks spread around on the walls. They figured he had a bomb and was trying to trigger it... the shots were fired point blank from the first guy on the dogpile from what I understand..
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by capt. apathy
if I was one of the cops on top of the guy I think I'd be needing to have a talk with the guy who was firing shots into him
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a brief pause and a yell "MORE AMMO UP FRONT!!!" as he reloads!
:D
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Because we did have an incident in 2001, and we have lost lots of liberties.
I've heard this but I don't seem to have experienced it.
What liberties have I lost?
Anyway, to the cops that had to deal with this guy. Took a lot of courage. I hope it indeed turns out to be a "righteous" shooting; I'd hate to see the outrage if it turns out to be a mistake.
I wonder if this incident will give a bit more authority to the words "Stop! You're under arrest!". Probably not in the case of a guy bent on blowing himself up.
-
Hi Toad,
The federal government can now perform warrantless searches, or receive warrants without judicial oversight. Your home/business can now be searched without you ever knowing about it, your phone can be tapped without you being a suspect of anything, the only criteria needed is that someone who IS a suspect might have access to your phone, your library records are now open to investigation, and librarians are now under a gag order that prevents them from mentioning your records were accessed, and much much more.
Have you heard of the Patriot act?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I've heard this but I don't seem to have experienced it.
What liberties have I lost?
Anyway, to the cops that had to deal with this guy. Took a lot of courage. I hope it indeed turns out to be a "righteous" shooting; I'd hate to see the outrage if it turns out to be a mistake.
I wonder if this incident will give a bit more authority to the words "Stop! You're under arrest!". Probably not in the case of a guy bent on blowing himself up.
ever hear of the "patriot act" you would be surprised at how much we have collectively lost.
-
Yeah, I've heard of it.
I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.
My question to you is:
What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?
People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.
So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?
-
An interesting post, Gunthr. Was that transported forward in time from four years ago? Because we did have an incident in 2001, and we have lost lots of liberties. - Chairboy
I'll give it to you straight, Chairboy. You will be demanding for your country to protect you, along with the rest- of us, when attacks start here and we see body counts on Mainstreet. There's no telling what you might be willing to give up. You don't have to believe me. When it hits home for you personally, all will become crystal clear.
-
Seagoon already posted the part I was going to put up here. It would have been nice to have that info up higher in the article instead of way down towards the bottom where it would likely be missed.
Another passenger on the train, Anthony Larkin, told BBC News the man appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out".
Since this is directly related to the circumstances that would make this a justifiable shooting I am surprised it was not given more relevence by the author of the article.
-
What liberties have I lost?
You can be detained indefinately without trial. According to the SC, "enemy combatants" can be detained indefinately without charge. Even US citizens can be held under this rule.
(Padilla is still in custody more than 3 years after he was first arrested, still hasn't been charged with anything)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hi Toad,
The federal government can now perform warrantless searches, or receive warrants without judicial oversight. Your home/business can now be searched without you ever knowing about it, your phone can be tapped without you being a suspect of anything, the only criteria needed is that someone who IS a suspect might have access to your phone, your library records are now open to investigation, and librarians are now under a gag order that prevents them from mentioning your records were accessed, and much much more.
Have you heard of the Patriot act?
and this has affected you in ur daily hum drum how?
ANYONE you know ... how???
I think it makes the lawbreakers more paraniod and the libby lawyers more to wring their hands over ...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I've heard of it.
I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.
My question to you is:
What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?
People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.
So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?
You've lost nothing except the ability to keep your library records private. Now I ask you, just why would you want to keep your library records private? Oh yeah, you checked out the Anarchist Cookbook!
Warrantless searches? Well, if the FBI or the NYPD believes that a terrorist has a nuke in his house and they have intellegence that he plans on setting it off tonight then yeah, break the door down and check him out. If they are wrong oh well, sorry sir, here's a check for the door. The alternative is just to insane to concider.
The whiners have yet to produce one person who has had their "liberties" infinged by the patriot act. NOT ONE!
What really annoys me is that these same groups who are complaining about the Patriot Act are the same groups who were defending people like Alger Hiss and the Rosenburghs. Coincidence? I think not!
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Hi Toad,
The federal government can now perform warrantless searches, or receive warrants without judicial oversight. Your home/business can now be searched without you ever knowing about it, your phone can be tapped without you being a suspect of anything, the only criteria needed is that someone who IS a suspect might have access to your phone, your library records are now open to investigation, and librarians are now under a gag order that prevents them from mentioning your records were accessed, and much much more.
Have you heard of the Patriot act?
This is just not true, please do a bit of research of the facts concerning the Patriot Act and don't just regurgitate the drivel you have been feed.
Judicial oversight is still required not only before the search but after, with the results of the search needing to be shown to the issuing justice. The probable cause requirements have been lowered and less proof is required for the issuance of warrants.
You are not interesting enough to warrant the worry that you are being investigated. If your background is such that the Feds. are looking at what books you have checked out of the library there must be smoke somewere.
-
^ You folks dont have very long memories of what our nations intlligence and federal services are capable of, or just selective ones.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
(Padilla is still in custody more than 3 years after he was first arrested, still hasn't been charged with anything)
Why do we need to charge Mr. Padilia with anything at all? He declared war on us and until that war ends he should stay put. This is not a criminal, this is a soldier in a war.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Running away from cops..an automatic admission of guilt in my book.
This was handled exactly the way it should have been.
Actually, we call it "fleeing felon", and deadly force is justified. And appropriate, in a situation such as that. But it does put an awful burden on the police officers involved, as they are required to make snap decisions that literally are life-or-death.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I've heard this but I don't seem to have experienced it.
What liberties have I lost?
Anyway, to the cops that had to deal with this guy. Took a lot of courage. I hope it indeed turns out to be a "righteous" shooting; I'd hate to see the outrage if it turns out to be a mistake.
I wonder if this incident will give a bit more authority to the words "Stop! You're under arrest!". Probably not in the case of a guy bent on blowing himself up.
Don't get me wrong--I am on your side on this one, toad. But yes, we have lost some civil liberties over the 9/11 incident and the Patriot Act.
That being said, I am willing to give up some of those civil liberties and privacy to help in the war. It's just like when I joined the Navy lo these many years ago...I gave up civil liberties in order to be subjected to military discipline as is necessary to be effective as a member of the military. This war is unlike any previous war, in that the "front lines" are in my backyard, at the local Kroger, or the ball game.
In my mind, that justifies placing a limit on civil liberty, due to the need to advance the struggle. The Patriot Act has an expiration date, and I would only worry about it if they try to extend it "indefinitely".
-
"The Patriot Act has an expiration date, and I would only worry about it if they try to extend it "indefinitely"."
Already in progress ....
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c109:./temp/~c109VjvaFx
First sentence: "Extend and modify authorities needed to combat terrorism, and for other purposes.
I'm. proud to say that every one of the Massachusetts representatives voted NO.
-
Why do we need to charge Mr. Padilia with anything at all? He declared war on us and until that war ends he should stay put.
Because the only evidence you have of that is th government's say so. Of course, no government would ever lie about such a thing...
This is not a criminal, this is a soldier in a war.
The requirement for a trial before determing guilt in criminal law isn't to protect the criminal, it's to protect the innocent. The same should apply to "enemy combatants". After all, is an "enemy combatant" worse than a paedophile who abducts and murders children? Both belong in prison. But people are entitled to some due process before being labelled and imprisoned, whatever they are accused of.
What if they decide that you are an enemy combatant?
(Padilla was arrested in Chicago, he wasn't picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan)
-
Originally posted by rshubert
But yes, we have lost some civil liberties over the 9/11 incident and the Patriot Act.
That's what everyone tells me but it hasn't affected me in the least and I haven't noticed.
That is what I'd like to discuss though.
So, what have I lost?
-
"As the man got on the train I looked at his face. He looked from left to right, but he basically looked like a cornered rabbit, like a cornered fox.
"He looked absolutely petrified.
"He half-tripped, was half-pushed to the floor.
"One of the police officers was holding a black automatic pistol in his left hand. They held it down to him and unloaded five shots into him. I saw it. He's dead, five shots, he's dead."
"I'm totally distraught," he added. "It was no more than five yards away from where I was sitting as I saw it with my own eyes."
Mr Whitby said the suspected bomber "looked like a Pakistani" and was wearing a baseball cap and a thick coat.
He added: "He was quite large, big built, quite a sort of chubby guy."
Teri Godly, who was also in the carriage when the suspected bomber boarded, said: "A tall Asian man with a beard and a rucksack got on after me.
"Then about eight or nine police with shotguns boarded after him and started shouting to us all 'get out, get out of the station'.
"People started screaming and we all started running quite calmly up the stairs. There were six or seven gun shots behind us. It was very surreal. No one was pushing or shoving. We were in a state of shock.
"It was only afterwards that I realised how lucky we had been."
Chris Wells, a 28-year-old company manager, said he was travelling on the Victoria Line towards Vauxhall when he left the train at Stockwell.
He saw about 20 police officers, some of them armed, rushing into the station before a man jumped over the barriers with police giving chase.
He said: "There were at least 20 officers and they were carrying big black guns.
"The next thing I saw was this guy jump over the barriers and the police officers were chasing after him and everyone was just shouting 'get out, get out'."
scratch one for the good guys!! yeee haaww!!
-
Nashwan:
...Viet Dinh, who until May headed the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, said in a series of recent speeches and in an interview with The Times that he thought the government's detention of Padilla was flawed and unlikely to survive court review.
The principal intellectual force behind the Patriot Act, the terror-fighting law enacted by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Dinh has steadfastly defended the Justice Department's anti-terrorism efforts against charges that they have led to civil-rights abuses of immigrants and others. While the Patriot Act does not speak to the issue of enemy combatants, his remarks still caught some observers by surprise.....
......Padilla was arrested at O'Hare International Airport on May 8, 2002, after arriving on a flight from Pakistan. Initially, he was taken to New York and held as a "material witness," presumably to testify against others.
The following month, he was transferred to a military prison in South Carolina after Ashcroft announced that the government had determined that he was part of an unfolding terrorist plot to explode a radioactive dispersion device, or so-called dirty bomb.
Padilla's lawyers subsequently filed a writ of habeas corpus saying that he was being illegally held. The Justice Department responded by saying that the detention was a proper exercise of the president's wartime powers. A decision is pending before a federal appeals court in New York.
Padilla is obviously the test case for the President's "wartime powers" in this non-standard "new" war.
It's wrong that it is taking 3 years to go through the system but I think the point is that it is going through the system.
Note that Dinh doesn't think the Justice departement's stance on Padilla will survive the court challenge. If it doesn't, the problem will be solved. If it does survive, it's probably bound for the SC, which is also correct. Nobody said the legal system was perfect or fast.
Secondly, note that Mr. Padilla is NOT a law-abiding US citizen. He's suffering under the Patriot Act because he admits to plotting with some of al-Qaeda's top leaders to kill hundreds of Americans. Padilla's Plan B was to set off a radioactive device known as a "dirty bomb" in Washington.
I have very little fear that I would suffer the same fate as Mr. Padilla simply because I don't plot with A-Q to kill other Americans.
In any event, Padilla is the test case and I have no doubt that eventually the correct solution will come through the courts.
-
Do the bobbies have sidearms now?
-
they will have eventually.
lazs
-
I think the tone in some of the responses to my message have been a bit puzzling. The rights we have as citizens are not just limited to stuff we can do when everything is going fine, the purpose of our civil liberties is to protect us when things go terribly wrong.
If you are arrested, the rights we have are designed to serve as a safety governor to protect you from lynching, mob rage, etc.
The Patriot act replaces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty with something more sinister. The police can, at their discretion, 'short-circuit' many of the checks and balances that the founding fathers and two centuries of judicial oversight have instituted into our justice system. "But chairboy, this means that criminals can be punished faster!" It also means that the innocent can be punished before they can show proof that will exonerate them. Trading justice for efficiency is a losing proposition.
I believe that 95% of the Patriot act uses have been/will be legitimate. I think the professionalism and belief in liberty that suffuse our law enforcement is above reproach, and I admire their selfless attention to duty. The problem is with the last 5%. There will be cases where any system is abused. The Patriot act specifically has been invoked against the homeless, for example. Were they terrorists? No. Were they accused of being terrorists? No. Did the Patriot act give some city officials the power to do what the constitution prohibited for their own gain? Yes, and that's what happened. This is just one of many apparent abuses that concern me.
Some References:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/patriot.act.homeless.ap/
http://www.eastoregonian.info/Main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=206&ArticleID=41543
-
ya..good sheite..pop those suckers good..wonder what kind of gun they used..I thought beelte said there is no need for guns in emgland?..lolo
And Patriot Act?...LMFAo
Chairboy..There has not been ONE SINGLE case brought to courts about some one suing about patriot act
Im am not scared at all about the Patriot Act
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Why do we need to charge Mr. Padilia with anything at all? He declared war on us and until that war ends he should stay put. This is not a criminal, this is a soldier in a war.
No he's a terrorist. He has no protection under the Geneva Convention or any international treaties. He should be thankfull he wasn't interogated and then taken out and shot! Which would be his fate in many places around this world.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The Patriot act replaces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty with something more sinister. The police can, at their discretion, 'short-circuit' many of the checks and balances that the founding fathers and two centuries of judicial oversight have instituted into our justice system.
[/b]
Could you give me specific examples of what has replaced the presumption of innocence? What checks and balances are short-circuited?
On the trains/homeless issue: What is your feeling about only ticketed passengers being allowed inside the airport security perimeter? (Inside the metal detectors, basically?) How would you feel about the same system when applied to train stations, in light of London's recent experience?
On the Mayfield arrest, apparently they had what they thought was ONE fingerprint of his on the Madrid bombing evidence. Rightfully, the FBI memo says this isn't enough to arrest him. I'm OK with that. Apparently, they want to keep him around as a "material witness" based on that one print until they either get more evidence to arrest him or fail to get any and remove him from consideration. They appear to have some fear that if it hits the papers that they're looking at him, he'll flee before further evidence either way is unearthed. So, when it hit the papers, they held him as a "material witness" and let him go in two weeks when nothing further indicated he was part of the plot.
What would you have preferred, that they ignore the one fingerprint and if he WAS in on the plot take the chance of him escaping? Or hold him until they could indict or clear him for sure?
-
Based on reports thus far I'd have to say this looks like a job well done by the British. In such circumstances and with such people you have no choice but to shoot to kill.
And if he wasn't guilty, then he was the biggest moron in London to run from the police/special unit/special forces/whatever in the tube after the events of the last few weeks.
One thing that you on the right should stop doing is saying what Libertarians will do if there is another attack. Libertarians, be they leftwing or rightwing Libertarians, have a lot more intestinal fortitude to accept casualties as the price of living in a free society than you give us credit for. Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society. It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing.
There is a stereotype of lilly livered Liberals that is very strong on this board, but you should recognize that this is a stereotype based on the most absurd elements of the left, and of apolitical Americans, that is pushed by the right in order to reduce the ability of their opponents to fight agaist them. Both sides do it, but the right wing has been far more effective than the left wing at doing so over the last couple of decades.
Our real problem in this country is not the thinking right or the thinking left, but rather people who just react to whatever the latest issue is and demand solutions without ever considering the eficacy, side effects or reasonableness of what they demand. These people are usually neither left nor right, but just easily influenced and often apolitical until something prods them.
-
If I have to tackle a guy wearing a bomb belt with wires attached I reserve the right to pop the entire clip into him in an effert to stop the guy from detonating the device... But you know im sure this is all just a big mistake, was probably a homemade GPS system used for subway navigation...
TJ
-
Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society. It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing. - karnak
Oh really?
You can't concieve of a circumstance where "random" searches of bags of those using public transportation would be appropriate?
Or using bomb sniffing dogs up and down the isles?
Or limiting "freedom of speech" for Imam's preaching Jihad?
Or using the lessor burden of Reasonalble Suspicion instead of "Probable Cause" to search a house for stores of small pox contagion?
I assure you, if you don't care about losing those close to you, you will be jumping up and down for the government to do something - if only to save your own skin. Of course, you won't realize it until, like the overdue stop sign installation at the 4 -way intersection, people die.
-
That isn't to say that we don't have to keep an eye on government. We do. But, c'mon...
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Because the only evidence you have of that is th government's say so. Of course, no government would ever lie about such a thing...
Now how would you know that the goverment has no evidence?
Better yet, what could possibly be gained by holding this person if there is nothing to hold him on?
-
The requirement for a trial before determing guilt in criminal law isn't to protect the criminal, it's to protect the innocent. The same should apply to "enemy combatants".
What if they decide that you are an enemy combatant?
(Padilla was arrested in Chicago, he wasn't picked up on a battlefield in Afghanistan)
I disagree. Padilla made admissions that he trained and plotted with AQ to commit terror and kill hundreds of Americans.
I'd be outraged if he were awarded bail, the right to due process, a jury of his peers and a "dream team" of showboat lawyers to occupy and entertain the country for months. Enemy combatants, especially in the war on terror, are far too dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I'll give it to you straight, Chairboy. You will be demanding for your country to protect you, along with the rest- of us, when attacks start here and we see body counts on Mainstreet. There's no telling what you might be willing to give up. You don't have to believe me. When it hits home for you personally, all will become crystal clear.
you are wrong.
-
Go on, Furious... you must have more to say about it.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
That isn't to say that we don't have to keep an eye on government. We do. But, c'mon...
If you insist on thinking people who disagree with you are cowards or do so for unprincipaled reasons you do yourself a disservice.
I did not mention any of the things that you mentioned in your initial response to me. The tactic you used is called "Strawman" which goes to the heart of what I was talking about. When you take your oponent and make his position an extreme version of what he said, then say how ridiculous it is and decare yourself the winner you are attacking an argument you made and not one that your opponent made, hence a strawman.
Bomb sniffing dogs are of course fine. Searches of people that are reasonably suspect is fine. Neither of those things require any changes in the law. Openly monitoring speach is fine, so long as it does not cross over into intimidation.
Giving the government the power to conduct investigations without prior search warrants is not ok. Wire tapping without search warrants is not ok. Indefinate incacerations is not ok. Blocking the ability to even mention events pertaining to these laws is not ok. Monitoring attorney/client conversations without evidence that the attorney is breaking the law is not ok. Stripping rights from people by playing defintion games is most definately not ok. These inalienable human rights are inalianable human rights, not inalienable American rights.
We, the People, must, must, be able to apply effective oversight to our government. If we allow the government to operate in secrecy taking only their word that these things will never be used accept against the terrorists we abrogate our duty that was bequeathed to us by those who came before and we lose what we should have pssed on intact to those who will come after us. Maybe the current government will not abuse the capabilities that these laws confer, but what of the next government? And the one after that and after that and so on? When has a government not availed itself of all of the powers it has?
Without transparency of government of the powers we grant that government over the citizenry it becomes impossible for the citizens of a Democratic Republic, or a Parlimentary Democracy, to make informed voting choices and to effectively monitor their government.
Without transparency it becomes impossible to reliably tell if a government is or is not abusing it's powers.
Governmental secrecy in a democratic country should not be applied lightly. There are, obviously, things that must be secret, but the government should not apply secrecy to things lightly.
-
I never called you a coward.
I agree, we have to watch the government.
Part of my point is that you will demand that your police, your military and your government maintain order and provide protection in the face of terrorist attacks in the streets, schools, institutions and infrastructure of America. Visualize something along the lines of another 911, what happened in England, or worse.
The rest of my point is only to enlighten you that, in order to fight terror from within, the government needs atypical methods.
Summary:
1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.
2. The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.
Of course, if we don't get any more terrorist attacks and loss of life here on US soil, we should be hopefully able to continue to be a free and open society.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I never called you a coward.
This:
Originally posted by Gunthr
I assure you, if you don't care about losing those close to you, you will be jumping up and down for the government to do something - if only to save your own skin. Of course, you won't realize it until, like the overdue stop sign installation at the 4 -way intersection, people die.
Is calling me both a coward and an idiot.
Originally posted by Gunthr
Part of my point is that you will demand that your police, your military and your government maintain order and provide protection in the face of terrorist attacks in the streets, schools, institutions and infrastructure of America. Visualize something along the lines of another 911, what happened in England, or worse.
You base this off of what knowledge?
That's right, none except your own stereotypes of what people who disagree with current policies will do.
Originally posted by Gunthr
1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.
Why? Give me a reason that any of these things are needed and why we can't fight without them?
Originally posted by Gunthr
2. The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.
True in all likelyhood, but the majority of the populations falls into the reactionary group than until they get prodded are mostly apolitical and don't think about this kind of stuff.
Originally posted by Gunthr
Of course, if we don't get any more terrorist attacks and loss of life here on US soil, we should be hopefully able to continue to be a free and open society.
But these laws which take away our ability to monitor the government make that more difficult to ensure. Further, there is no evidence that they are needed and that this is anything other than the government using a crisis to powergrab.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
1. Americans will need to set aside some of the liberties you have described, not all, but to some degree, to fight in-house terrorism.
2. The majority of citizens will demand it when we get significant civilian casualties.
I accept that I can't change your mind, and I can blame noone but myself for lacking the skills needed to communicate the nature of my concerns adequetely. Consequently, I'll fall back on the time honored crutch of the "no talk so good person", the quotation:
The most repeated, yet most relevant:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety - Benjamin Franklin
Some additional thoughts on the matter:
We love peace, but not peace at any price. There is a peace more destructive of the manhood of living man, that war is destructive to his body. Chains are worse than bayonets. - Douglas Jerrold
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. - John Stuart Mill
Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have. - Harry Emerson Fosdick
I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power that by violent and sudden usurpations. - James Madison
-
Padilla's "confession" came after he had been in detention for a long time without access to legal representation. It hasn't been tested in a court of law, parts of have been released in a press conference.
He was initially accused of being part of a dirty bomb plot, that has morphed into planning to blow up apartments with natural gas. The initial claims relating to the dirty bomb seem to have been dropped.
The biggest problem I have with his treatment is that if the government has evidence against him, why hasn't it ever presented it before a court and laid charges? They charged and convicted Richard Reid, they charged and convicted John Walker Lindh.
If they have evidence against Padilla, why not charge him?
I think the truth is they have nothing more than suspicions about Padilla.
What it boils down to is the goverment has locked up a citizen they claim they have evidence against, but they are refusing to put that evidence before a court.
Any way you spin it, it's detention without trial, it overrides rights that date back to the Magna Carta.
It's wrong that it is taking 3 years to go through the system but I think the point is that it is going through the system.
The system has allowed Padilla to be imprisoned for more than 3 years without trial. How well is the system working?
If he gets out 1 day before he dies of old age at 90 is the system working?
I think 3 years shows that the system isn't working, and whatever happens, Padilla has been denied due process. Of course he might get it at some time in the future, but that's not going to give him his time back, is it?
I'm not really concerned with Padilla as an individual, but what's happened to Padilla could happen to anyone in the US. Of course it's not likely any normal US citizen is going to get caught up like that, but you've moved from a position of having your rights guaranteed by law to having your liberty dependent on the government behaving properly and not wanting to imprison you.
-
Sorry if I offended anyone.
Karnak, I was referring to the will of every person to live. That is not cowardice.
Maybe the best way to express my view is this: (Chairboy alluded to it)
If you increase LIBERTY, you decrease SECURITY.
If you increase SECURITY, you decrease LIBERTY.
In-house terrorism is a fiendishly and insiduosly effective and clever weapon against a freedom loving country. It forces that country to change in response.
If a country wants its security, it will give up some liberty to the extent that it desires safety from these evil people.
I have predicted that if we suffer many attacks with loss of life from within, on our own soil, our country will change in response - the American people will demand it. We will not be as free as we were. I believe this is one of the intents of terrorism.
I lament it. Its an observation. I am not arguing for less freedom.
Thats the whole thing in a nutshell.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I'll give it to you straight, Chairboy. You will be demanding for your country to protect you, along with the rest- of us, when attacks start here and we see body counts on Mainstreet.
If it comes down to that here I suspect there will be many smoking holes where former Mosques used to be. I recall seeing signs shortly after 9-11 that said "If they are brown, gun them down", I'm sure that made the large Mexican population here nervous.
-
Oh absolutely, Edbert. I agree totally. There's a ****storm headed our way if it comes to pass, the same as will happen in England if attacks continue. There will be backlashes and then backlashes from the backlashes. We could end up looking like Israel if terror strikes become common here.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I've heard of it.
I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.
My question to you is:
What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?
People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.
So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?
Here's a specific, personal example.
I sold my house, and got a check for the equity balance, a fairly substantial check. I took the check to my bank in the city where I live, and deposited it into my checking account, with the intention of using that money for the down payment on the house I was closing on a week later.
Then the **** hit the fan. It turns out that a provision of the Patriot Act demands that the bank put a hold on the account (note:not on the check, or the amount of the check) when a large out-of-town check is deposited. This is to prevent terrorists from transferring money, apparently. The trigger amount is $5000.
I bounced about 6 checks, because my account was locked up for 10 business days. I had to delay the closing on my new house. I had to call six merchants and explain the situation. It cost me abot $150 in bounce charges by the merchants--I managed to talk the bank out of their charges.
-
Nashwan, I'm not very familure with Padilla's situation. However, I can't work up much empathy for somebody who has admitted to what he has. I recall that they do have some evidence on him...
I believe this issue is being worked through the system - when its resolved I'll accept the law of the land, although I may disagree. I predict, if we have another terror strike, he will not be released and the President will have his tribunal based on military code and treatment enemy combatants. And remember, although Padilla was technically arrested in the US, he had just gotten off the plane from the Middle East.
-
Gunthr,
The will of a person to live occurs in the presence of an immediate threat. What you are talking about is abstract panic over a tiny chance of something happening to me personally and my misjudging those odds so drastically as scream "Mr. President, SAVE ME!" In short, that is a description of cowardice. There are things that I believe it is only moral for me to lay my life on the table and risk losing it in order to hold onto those things. I do not put my life at the top of my priority list. I would be uncomfortable doing so and would not like it, but risk is something I can handle to preserve what we have here.
I think terrorism is only as effective as we let it be. Barring the spectacular 9/11, which we had laws on the books that would have stopped it had they been enforced, terrorism actually has relatively little effect on the ability of a nation to function normally.
Certainly to the people immediately effected it is not a small thing, but if a nation thumbs it's collective nose at those who wish to influence it via terrorism, then that is a tremendous example that it will not work against that country. Only when a nation cowers and strips itself of freedoms do the terrorist actually accomplish anything on a large scale.
I remain completely unconvinced that giving up some liberities for some saftey is in any way a good thing. It is all the worse that the amount of increased saftey appears to by null at this point.
Edbert,
Nor am I so stupid and reactionary as those morons you mention. I would hope that most of us here are stronger than that.
-
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest your problems were caused by your bank's out of town check policy and NOT the Patriot Act.
AFAIK, the PA does not require a bank to hold any checks or put a hold on an account when a check is deposited. There are reporting requirements on some transactions and on identification but no requirement to hold a check.
If anyone can show otherwise, I'd appreciate knowing about it.
I've had my bank try to hold out of town Cashier's Checks for 7 days!
They are floating the money and keeping the interest. They'll look you in the eye and tell you it's "bank policy" and there's nothing they can do about it. They seem to be able to "do something" when I offer to immediately close my account and move the assets to another bank down the street.
Just for fun, call your bank and ask them how long they hold an out of town check before crediting the amount to your account. Then ask them if it is just bank policy or if it is due to the Patriot Act. If they say PA, ask them what section of the PA they are using.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I've heard of it.
I even heard that the renewal just passed the House and will go on to the Senate. It seems our elected Representatives don't see what we've lost and/or feel it is necessary.
My question to you is:
What exactly have I lost, either alone or collectively?
People tell me I've lost a lot, but I see no change in my life whatsoever. OTOH, I'm not a criminal nor am I attempting to become a criminal.
So, help me out here.... as an essentially law-abiding US citizen, what specifically have I lost?
http://www.checksbalances.org the government can pretty well do what ever it please under the patriot acts. furthermore we are allowing the government to become what our founding fathers feared our society would become if we allowed a monarch to rule. IMO we have much more to fear from an unchecked federal government than we will ever need to fear from a bunch flea bitten dune surfin' terrorists.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Based on reports thus far I'd have to say this looks like a job well done by the British. In such circumstances and with such people you have no choice but to shoot to kill.
And if he wasn't guilty, then he was the biggest moron in London to run from the police/special unit/special forces/whatever in the tube after the events of the last few weeks.
One thing that you on the right should stop doing is saying what Libertarians will do if there is another attack. Libertarians, be they leftwing or rightwing Libertarians, have a lot more intestinal fortitude to accept casualties as the price of living in a free society than you give us credit for. Even if such an attack should claim somebody close to me I would not cry out for my security or laws as I do not believe that having that much governmental oversight is a good or healthy thing for a free society. It would be most unreasonable to demand such a thing.
There is a stereotype of lilly livered Liberals that is very strong on this board, but you should recognize that this is a stereotype based on the most absurd elements of the left, and of apolitical Americans, that is pushed by the right in order to reduce the ability of their opponents to fight agaist them. Both sides do it, but the right wing has been far more effective than the left wing at doing so over the last couple of decades.
Our real problem in this country is not the thinking right or the thinking left, but rather people who just react to whatever the latest issue is and demand solutions without ever considering the eficacy, side effects or reasonableness of what they demand. These people are usually neither left nor right, but just easily influenced and often apolitical until something prods them.
Whoa, hoss. I am a Libertarian, and I am willing to temporarily surrender my personal liberties for a cause greater than myself. And I do NOT accept that in a war, we must accept casualties because of a principle. This is a war, just on different terms than a war between nation-states. It's a war between cultures.
To restate something I already said, my belief is that you can't have an individualist military. When the body of the people is attacked, a form of collective defense is needed. In order for that defense to be effective, the combatants must be placed under a discipline not normal to the ideals of the society, unusual circumstances demanding unusual responses.
They (the terrorists/islamists/fundamentalists/freedom fighters, you choose the label) have defined the boundaries of the conflict. They--not us--have placed every train station, bus, airport, plane, and street on the front line of the war. That makes me (and you) a combatant.
Do the math, soldier.
-
Karnak, I'm not referring to abstract panic over a miniscule numerical chance that you may be hurt or killed.
I'm talking about terrorism knocking on your personal door. Like a transit bomb knocking you into the middle of next week, and you regain conciousness with ringing ears to find that your wife is that red mush all over your shirt.
If this happens to neighbors or fellow Californians, or just plain old Americans, you are gonna feel it, my friend.
If that happens and I sincerely hope it doesn't, you may just decide that it might be a good thing for the state police to hit that house down the street that an undocumented informant identified as holding small pox contagion being prepared for deployment. (This is illegal without a warrant supported by probable cause. )
I'm suggesting that when you are terrorized, you may decide that exigent circumstances and the safety of a mass of people outweigh the negative impact it may have on the civil rights of the middle easterners who just moved in that suspect house.
and this:
I remain completely unconvinced that giving up some liberities for some saftey is in any way a good thing. It is all the worse that the amount of increased saftey appears to by null at this point.
Listen friend, I'm not trying to convince you that giving up some liberties for some safety is a good thing.
I'm merely telling you that I believe that it will happen because of human nature. I lament any loss of freedom, I distrust government every bit as much as you.
I am making a simple observation.
-
I'm still trying to figure out what a "left wing libertarian" is.
a socialist libertarian? seems.... contradictory
lazs
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
[B
Oh, how despicable, shooting terrorists who are trying to murder people. [/B]
Don't get me wrong Nashwan, I couldn't agree more.
I was merely meaning that the world tends to view the Brits as gentlemanly, quiet, well meaning folk who arent out to hurt anybody, sitting around drinking tea and eating scones at the Sunday cricket game.
What a lot of people forget is that when they are fighting a war, all semblance of nicety goes out the window, nothing is too 'below the belt' or 'un-PC', if it works, use it.
Brits don't play by gentlemanly rules in a war situation.
They take 'all's fair in love and war' litterally, if you are on the other side, you are a potential target and body bag filler, not a citizen with normal attached rights. If what needs to be done is outside the normal accepted 'rules', they make new ones.
As it should be. I think that yesterdays events demonstrates the British people's determination, I certainly don't harbour any sympathy whatsoever for the bloke they ventilated, nor do i think that excessive force was used.
Three weeks ago however, this would have caused an immediate outcry about police brutality, or how the rights of joe Citizen Paki-bomber were violated.
After a few bombs go off in trains and busses, the only public outcry now is 'Take that you bastards'.
thats what I meant by 'This is what a terror bombing campaign in London achieves'......I would think the result is somewhat differant than what was hoped for by the badguys.
Just as the WTC attacks 'awoke a sleeping giant' and jolted the American people into an aggressive wartime frame of mind, attacking the Brits has just made them angry, it certainly hasn't scared them into submission.
My apologies if my first post gave the wrong impression, don't be putting me on any terrorist symathiser lists just yet though.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
they will have eventually.
lazs
ahh no, they will not.
-
more police in england are armed every year.
lazs
-
How long have the brits had the tube technology?
-
more police in england are armed every year.
lazs
No, the number is going down.
In 1996 there were 6,738 police officers allowed to carry firearms in England and Wales, that had dropped to 6,096 by 2004. (these are the numbers with training that means they can be issued firearms under some circumstances, most of them do not carry firearms routinely)
The number of times firearms are issued has gone up, but in 2003/04 the police in England and Wales fired their guns 8 times in 4 incidents (excluding stun guns, cs gas etc).
-
Don't get me wrong Nashwan, I couldn't agree more.
Ok, no problem. I though you were one of those complaining about the "poor" IRA terrorists on Gibraltar. (For those who don't know, several IRA terrorists were shot by the SAS in Gibraltar after parking what the police believed to be a car full of explosives, but later turned out to be a placeholder to keep a parking space open, they were returning to Spain to pick up the car full of explosives)
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Here's a specific, personal example.
I sold my house, and got a check for the equity balance, a fairly substantial check. I took the check to my bank in the city where I live, and deposited it into my checking account, with the intention of using that money for the down payment on the house I was closing on a week later.
Then the **** hit the fan. It turns out that a provision of the Patriot Act demands that the bank put a hold on the account (note:not on the check, or the amount of the check) when a large out-of-town check is deposited. This is to prevent terrorists from transferring money, apparently. The trigger amount is $5000.
I bounced about 6 checks, because my account was locked up for 10 business days. I had to delay the closing on my new house. I had to call six merchants and explain the situation. It cost me abot $150 in bounce charges by the merchants--I managed to talk the bank out of their charges.
That sucks.
We have been instructing our clients to pre-warn their banks when they expect large deposits or withdrawls to affect their accounts.
Credit cards are another example.
If you are making a large purchase call your bank beforehand to let them know about it and ask them to call Amex, Visa etc.
If you are going overseas likewise let your bank know in advance.
Always carry more than one card to avoid embarassment or annoyance.
-
more people with police powers are being armed in england every day. does it matter if the guy with the power of the gun is a government cop or a city cop?
lazs
-
Nashwan,
First, I have no sympathy at all for the London bombers. Just want that understood.
However, compare and contrast your concern for Padilla's "due process" with the "due process" given the man shot on the subway yesterday.
The man was under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a Scotland Yard spokesman said.
He was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.
Police warned the man, who ran on to the station platform. Witnesses said the officers opened fire as he jumped on to a train.
'Pushed to the floor'
Sir Ian told a press conference: "I need to make clear that any death is deeply regrettable but as I understand the situation the man was challenged and refused to obey police instructions."
Basically, the officer's had no "proof" the man was going to do anything dangerous, merely suspicion because he came from a house under surveillance. Much like Padilla coming in from Pakistan.
Now it turns out they cannot connect the dead man to the subway bombings. (All quotes from BBC, btw)
A man shot dead by police hunting the bombers behind Thursday's London attacks was unconnected to the incidents, police have confirmed.
A Scotland Yard statement said the shooting was a "tragedy" which was regretted by the Metropolitan Police.
The man was shot dead after police followed him from a south London flat to Stockwell Tube station on Friday.
So if my liberty is being compromised by Padilla being slowly moved through our court system, what's the status of yours if one can be shot to death for leaving a house under surveillance and boarding a subway while wearing a heavy coat after ignoring a police warning?
Again, I have no sympathy for the subway bombers.
-
why did he run?
-
Going to be pretty hard to ask him now.
-
Im still waitng to see ONE Court Case about the Abuse of the Patriot Act
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
Im still waitng to see ONE Court Case about the Abuse of the Patriot Act
Maybe you missed this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/patriot.act.homeless.ap/
Also, Brandon Mayfield is suing the justice department over his Patriot act arrest, also mentioned in a previous article.
Glad to be of service.
-
Chairboy, I did I miss your answer to these questions earlier in the thread?
Could you give me specific examples of what has replaced the presumption of innocence? What checks and balances are short-circuited?
On the trains/homeless issue: What is your feeling about only ticketed passengers being allowed inside the airport security perimeter? (Inside the metal detectors, basically?) How would you feel about the same system when applied to train stations, in light of London's recent experience?
On the Mayfield arrest, apparently they had what they thought was ONE fingerprint of his on the Madrid bombing evidence. Rightfully, the FBI memo says this isn't enough to arrest him. I'm OK with that. Apparently, they want to keep him around as a "material witness" based on that one print until they either get more evidence to arrest him or fail to get any and remove him from consideration. They appear to have some fear that if it hits the papers that they're looking at him, he'll flee before further evidence either way is unearthed. So, when it hit the papers, they held him as a "material witness" and let him go in two weeks when nothing further indicated he was part of the plot.
What would you have preferred, that they ignore the one fingerprint and if he WAS in on the plot take the chance of him escaping? Or hold him until they could indict or clear him for sure?
-
If you arrest someone, either charge them formally or let them go. They held him without charging him, right? Why? Because when you're formally charged, you gain certain rights as a defendant. They held him for weeks as a 'material witness'. Translation: limbo.
Why are you so anxious to give up your rights?
-
Is that supposed to be your answer to my questions?
-
Apparently the "cops" were plained clothesed, wearing leather jackets, one answered to the name of Doyle:
da da duh....
(http://epguides.com/Professionals/cast.jpg)
-
Should this thread now be titled 'Brazilian man who had no connection to the bombings shot dead on the tube' ?
Silly person, why didn't he just stop when he was challenged?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Toad
Is that supposed to be your answer to my questions?
Toad, with respect, I'm not going to be your monkey. I've answered the points in the above and other posts in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
they probably saved a bunch of people in the train. <>
Karaya
Originally posted by Nashwan
Oh, how despicable, shooting terrorists who are trying to murder people.
Originally posted by ASTAC
his was handled exactly the way it should have been.
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Good Start!
Originally posted by Eagler
by the end of the week, some loser will be crying how the cops over reacted
wtg Brits! pop a couple more asap ... hope you can keep it up
An update:
British police admit shooting wrong man in bomb hunt
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-23T190522Z_01_SCH145033_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN.xml
LONDON (Reuters) - Police admitted on Saturday they had shot dead the wrong man in a tragic error as they combed London for four men after attempted bomb attacks on the capital's transport system.
-
Chairboy,
You have a new job in London!
"Decider of who to shoot or not to shoot after they challenge police and make a mad dash at a subway car while waering a heavy jacket in summer, in a city that was just attacked 8 times in two weeks by suicide bombers on subways and busses"
You will do a great job with this position! You will be a natural!
-
ya best do it on the side of caution..
betcha the next guy the cops tell to stop will if he ain't a nutbag bomber
-
In their position, I might have done the same thing. You misunderstand, my beef is not with the bobbies that made that difficult decision. I think they used the information they had, and they truly believed they were saving lives.
What got me was the tone 'yee-haw!' mentality of the responses to the news of the shooting. Without any information, everyone starts popping champagne corks.
I guess it's sad.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Toad, with respect, I'm not going to be your monkey. I've answered the points in the above and other posts in this thread.
Chairboy, with respect, I don't want you to be my anything.
With respect, I don't see where you've answered the points, either.
You complain that Mayfield was incorrectly held as a "material witness". The material witness law significantly pre-dates 9/11 and the PA, dating back to the eighteenth century.
The FBI had a computer match to Mayfield on one of the bags in the Madrid bombing. Mayfield was released as soon as Spanish authorities said the fingerprints found on the plastic bag belonged to an Algerian identified as Ouhnane Daoud.
Your point was:
The Patriot act replaces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty with something more sinister. The police can, at their discretion, 'short-circuit' many of the checks and balances that the founding fathers and two centuries of judicial oversight have instituted into our justice system.
Where in the arrest of Mayfield did the this stuff happen due to the PA? (Arrest as a "material witness" dates prior to the PA.)
What would you have preferred, that they ignore the one fingerprint and if he WAS in on the plot take the chance of him escaping? Or hold him until they could indict or clear him for sure?
You haven't addressed any of those questions as far as I can see.
Similarly, with respect, you have posted the "PA/homeless/train station" example but haven't explained how moving them out of the train station differs in the least from allowing only ticketed passengers inside the security perimeter at an airport.
Should we have similar security perimeters at our train stations? It's clear the terrorists consider trains/subways an excellent venue for their operations.
If we do have such security perimeters, doesn't it make sense to allow only ticketed passengers inside the perimeter?
I'm sorry, but I don't see where you've addressed either of these issues.
You have complained about these two situations as abuses of our freedom under the PA but don't seem to be able to explain why you think that might be so.
-
Toad,
Your questions really belong in another thread regarding the patriot Act. It shouldn't have been brought up here as the Brits don't HAVE the Patriot Act. I know you didn't bring it up but another thread titled to that would be more appropriate.
-
Mav,
You have a valid point but I think we all realize threads wander.
My questions arose in response to this post on Page 1 of this thread.
These references to the Patriot Act and the "references" given are what generated my questions.
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think the tone in some of the responses to my message have been a bit puzzling. The rights we have as citizens are not just limited to stuff we can do when everything is going fine, the purpose of our civil liberties is to protect us when things go terribly wrong.
If you are arrested, the rights we have are designed to serve as a safety governor to protect you from lynching, mob rage, etc.
The Patriot act replaces the presumption of innocence until proven guilty with something more sinister. The police can, at their discretion, 'short-circuit' many of the checks and balances that the founding fathers and two centuries of judicial oversight have instituted into our justice system. "But chairboy, this means that criminals can be punished faster!" It also means that the innocent can be punished before they can show proof that will exonerate them. Trading justice for efficiency is a losing proposition.
I believe that 95% of the Patriot act uses have been/will be legitimate. I think the professionalism and belief in liberty that suffuse our law enforcement is above reproach, and I admire their selfless attention to duty. The problem is with the last 5%. There will be cases where any system is abused. The Patriot act specifically has been invoked against the homeless, for example. Were they terrorists? No. Were they accused of being terrorists? No. Did the Patriot act give some city officials the power to do what the constitution prohibited for their own gain? Yes, and that's what happened. This is just one of many apparent abuses that concern me.
Some References:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/30/patriot.act.homeless.ap/
http://www.eastoregonian.info/Main.asp?SectionID=13&SubSectionID=206&ArticleID=41543
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
In their position, I might have done the same thing. You misunderstand, my beef is not with the bobbies that made that difficult decision. I think they used the information they had, and they truly believed they were saving lives.
What got me was the tone 'yee-haw!' mentality of the responses to the news of the shooting. Without any information, everyone starts popping champagne corks.
I guess it's sad.
Yes it is very sad than an innocent man lost his life.
Still, in that particular situation it was the right course of action and it gave some confidence to see that the London police were cleared to act quickly and decesively - even so far as to shoot a man 5 times while he was allready tackled.
-
Just imagine if the man they tracked down and shot WAS a terrorist. Imagine if in his jacket there was a bomb and he was planning to set it off.
Yes his death is tragic but he was warned to stop after emerging from a building under surveilance. If cops tell you stop, you're not going to run and rush into a train station after the attacks that went on.
If I was flying a plane towards a building and was warned to change paths and ignored the radio and there were jet fighters in the area, what do you think would happen?
-
The Cops did there Job. In this dangerous times errors happen.
I'm ok with it, as long its not me who got shot death because of an mistake. Looks like we have to live with this possible danger
too now.
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
The Cops did there Job. In this dangerous times errors happen.
I'm ok with it, as long its not me who got shot death because of an mistake. Looks like we have to live with this possible danger
too now.
LOL that's what the moron gets for running from thepolice..he did run right? Anyway even if he didn't i would shoot anyone that looks at me funny. better an innocent man die then me getting blown up. don't mess with the po po word!
-
Its good to see, the "screw him" it aint me, he must have been an idiot crowd are out in force. All you people who accept and condone the murder of a human by the security polize get what you deserve. maybe not you, but your brother, son or father could be the next ubb object lesson.
out of this place for good. God help the human race if you people are a representative sample
-
so... what heinous acts have been committed because of the patriot act? I still haven't seen any that get me very shook up.
and... why in the world did the guy who got shot run away from the police? In the U.S tho.... people run from armed police all the time.. mostly they don't get shot but... once in a great while they do.
As english become better and more familiar with firearms they will have fewer of these accidents.
lazs
-
He was on his way to work. A job he was not legally able to have since he had overstayed his visa. That may have been the reason he ran, but we will never know.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As english become better and more familiar with firearms they will have fewer of these accidents.
Never mind.
Keep us up to date on the Welsh though, OK?
-
don't know much about the welch... Aren't they just subjects that the brits conquered?
lazs
-
IIRC didn't the innitial reports say he was fleeing from undercover or plain clothes Officers?? This puts a bit of a different spin on things as there would be no way for the guy to instantly know they WERE police. Anyone can yell "stop Police!" and it doesn't mean they were Officers. Given that situation and not having Uniformed Officers standing by the area of the surveilance out of sight or in the subway station entrance it puts a different perspective on just why the guy ran from pursuing people who had guns.
Just another thought t ponder here.
-
I think people are getting cranked up prematurely. The fun hasn't even started in earnest yet...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I think people are getting cranked up prematurely. The fun hasn't even started in earnest yet...
elaborate please
-
If these terrorist attacks continue, there will be more examples of innocent people caught up in tragic scenarios like this Brazilian got caught up in. Naturally, these incidents will be politised for all they are worth. There are going to be backlashes against innocent Muslims. Burn outs, profiling ( it is being done now - with good reason.) Moderate Muslim sentiment may react to the backlashes or harrassment that they feel, only adding to the pressures. If terror continues in England, you will see it. Islamists will point to these.
Its really almost like magic. Terrorism sows endless problems in a free society.
Terrorism is the ultimate weapon of the militarily weak.
So, Nilsen, why wouldn't terrorists continue attacks?
It really is a war.
-
just the reference to "fun"
but carry on, im not gonna get involved in this debate. :)
-
The reference to "fun" was sarcasm, I think you know.
I really don't think there is too much of a debate. Whether terrorism happens in your country or mine, the results are much the same.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
IIRC didn't the innitial reports say he was fleeing from undercover or plain clothes Officers?? This puts a bit of a different spin on things as there would be no way for the guy to instantly know they WERE police. Anyone can yell "stop Police!" and it doesn't mean they were Officers. Given that situation and not having Uniformed Officers standing by the area of the surveilance out of sight or in the subway station entrance it puts a different perspective on just why the guy ran from pursuing people who had guns.
Just another thought t ponder here.
I must say though that if anyone with a gun(be it police or just a guy) tells me to stop, I'm gonna stop. Even if you don't understand the language, I don't think it would be hard to get the idea. Even if you think your getting robbed or afraid about your visa, when someone with a gun tells you to stop, unless you can outrun a bullet, your best bet is to stop. I don't think it's a good thing that he got shot, but if I were in his shoes I'd have stopped and answered yes sir, no sir and maybe thank you sir.
-
From Chairboy's link: "Plainclothes police chased the man onto an underground train on Friday after he ignored warnings to stop, shooting him five times in the head because they feared he was carrying a bomb and was going to detonate it."
Damn. You can strike this up as another point for the terrorists. The cops were in an impossible situation, and it looks like the dude who got shot was a victim of circumstance.
-
Hrmmm...it's still amazing what people will accept to help them feel safer...
Tronsky
-
Not many peeps get hurt by cops when saying "Yessir, nosir"...following directions, etc. ---Getting out of car, threatening said cop, running, eventually cop may resond in only method he is competent in---- .357
-
Originally posted by Eagler
ya best do it on the side of caution..
That's funny, you seem to think that executing an innocent man is erring on the side of caution.
-
He was innocent of terrorism. But there must've been a reason why he ran away from the Police. A very stupid thing to do given the current situation. As was said maybe he was an illegal. Maybe he'd outstayed his Visa. So not totaly innocent. Its sad and a disaster for his family and those officers involved but why the hell didn't he use his grey matter and stop when told.
-
You mean when the plain clothes officers told him to stop? Perhaps he didn't know they were cops.
-
Those Officers were faced with an impossible situation. They had what they thought was another bomber. The info they had was sketchy at best but they had to do something to reduce or remove the possiblility of another bombing. The fact that they continued on after a potential bomber speaks volumes. A sane person would think real hard to stop the chase instead of running after what they were afraid was a live bomb on a suicidal maniac. Who wants to be the first to arrive at an exploding bomb?
It was a tragic situation but the individual has some of the blame himself. He had the option to stop when told to do so.
Here's an exercise for all you armchair generals, especially you thrawn. What should they have done given the information they had?
-
well, the little old lady in the wheelchair shoulda stopped and submitted to the strip search and rectal exam.
then, after they found the autographed osama knitting needles, they shoulda plugged her.
-
It's always those little old ladies in the wheelchairs! That's why I tied up my grandma and locked her in the closet. The rest of the family got all teed off at me, but I know. She's up to somethin'!
-
I like plain clothes cops, because on the surface- they are so OBVIOUSLY police!
Wait a second.
-SW
-
yah. they got themselves an organized underground, lobbied for all the best parking places so they don't have to roll far to explode. That's reason enuff to shoot 'em.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
As english become better and more familiar with firearms they will have fewer of these accidents.
How would general firearm ownership have stopped the police from offing an innocent bystander by mistake?
-
The only thing this perp was innocent of was carrying a bomb. He was guilty of disobeying a police officer, evading arrest, and possibly his very existence in London was a crime....innocent indeed!
-
Officer Stedenko...you are authorized to kill all suspected illegals on sight.
shamus
-
I read now that he was a legal immigrant.
It's astounding how much the information and news about this has changed. First we had reports that he was "Asian" - likely a Pakistani, then he was not. He was carrying a bomb (wires hanging out from his waist), then there was no bomb. Then he was an illegal alien and now he was not.
I am of the opinion that I could not possibly have an opinion... yet.
-
Hrmmm...it's still amazing what people will accept to help them feel safer...
Tronsky
If you are referring to the death of the Brasilian in London, it may seem amazing to you that Londoners "accept" this tragic death because you are comfortably removed from the terror that Londoners know.
The death was tragic. The fact is, police believed he was about to detonate a bomb on a crowded transit.
I hope you are not suggesting that London cops *****foot around doing "PC" "random" checks of the bags of old ladies and pretty young white girls like NYPD is doing. It won't happen in London, because the fear of reality is greater than the fear of appearing politically incorrect.
When Muslim terrorists hit the New York subways, the "PC" stuff will be overtaken by reason there as well. But don't take my word for it, wait and see. The same goes for Australia, because human nature is the same all over. You can be smug about the effect fear has on people only if you are far away from the action.
-
I found it very interesting that liberal politicians joined the conservatives in America in extending the Patriot Act. I think we can attribute that directly to the London bombings.
The liberal politicians gnashing their teeth against the Patriot Act didn't want to risk making voters angry... fear of another sort.
-
The only thing this perp was innocent of was carrying a bomb. He was guilty of disobeying a police officer, evading arrest, and possibly his very existence in London was a crime....innocent indeed!
None of which are capital offences in the UK. He was a victim of circumstance compounded by his own actions... but did not deserve to die.
-
Originally posted by Dowding
None of which are capital offences in the UK. He was a victim of circumstance compounded by his own actions... but did not deserve to die.
Agreed, his offenses did not warrant the death penatly, but he was not innocent by any definition. Sad that some ignorant immigrant died unecessarily, but the responsibility for the event rests 100% on the shoulders of the deceased. The police were acting according to their instructions and based upon the perp's actions, I'd bet that had he stopped running and put his empty hands in the air he'd be alive today.
-
Yep he was innocent of all charges except one. Being an idiot. Sadly cost him his life but to honest I'd have the done the same as those police given the current situation. They were in a no win situation. Damned if they did damned if they didn't, and he had been a bomber nutjob.
Its sad but he could've just stuck his hands up as has been said and he'd be alive today!
-
It is a tragedy but i agree that he did the wrong thing, at the wrong time, at the wrong place.
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Habu,
This is not Israel, this is London.
People have the right to run away from many things without being shot dead. That is part of our definition of freedom.
I believe it's the same in your country too.
It's very easy for you to say that he ran away for the wrong reason, but it's the first time in this country that someone has had five bullets put into his head for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
You can cast it in your light of black and white, but whatever you may say, this situation was grey and we got it wrong...an innocent man was killed.
Your sense of justification is that because a few bombs were blown up in London that makes it justifiable for us to lose our right to have the life we had before. I don't buy it.
I for one would like to live in a country in which I could run away from what I see as a percieved threat without losing my life. You of course can choose a different path. Good luck in your world.
I do appreciate that we are living in times where life and death decisions have to made by people who are trying to keep death off our streets. Your problem is that you don't see this as a mistake (which it was) but a by product of preconception.
Ravs
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Deleted.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
Deleted.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
We don't really know that anyone did tell him to stop, Hang. We don't know if their guns were drawn at all until he entered the train.
Now it turns out that he was shot 8 times. It also has come out that the in the area he lived in before this, it was well known that you are going to get hurt if you disobeyd a policeman.
I still say we are all jumping to conclusions without the facts. People here saying that he was a 'perp' or was 'an ignorant immigrant' and deserved this fate is premature - and ignorant.
Terrorists created the hair trigger tension and they are to blame.
What if it turns out that he was late for work and running to the train while listening to music on headphones?
-
Deleted.
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
-
Deleted.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
[deleted] voluntarily!
but you're still a git (albeit a well meaning one( - will they see this?
-
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.
5- Flamebaiting, trolling, or posting to incite or annoy is not allowed.
-
OK....ok...sheeh.
Ravs
-
sooo... maybe I was wrong.... maybe brits shouldn't have guns.
lazs
-
First he was asian..
Then he ran.. (unconfirmed without cctv footage)(they said he hopped the turn isle but every subway ive ever been on has a camera there for just that to bust free loaders.. wheres the still shot..)(5 days later still nothing..)
now they are saying he had a expired visa to justify the running (not confirmed, odd isn't it.. what his immagration papers at home office are gone magically... or are they being doctored clickly click click style BOFH the register.co.uk style..)(unless he had multiple copies mailed around the world of it im shure they searched his flat already and confiscated any documents of interest..who's watching the watchers..were talking international incident dont think it wouldn't be warranted)
No CCTV footage is released yet.. (london tube im shure there is plenty..) (yet other tube suspects have their cctv footage with multiple angles profiles on every major news agency in the world..)
no body has been released yet.. (strange he's cleared of terrorism and we are on day 4-5 considering when they bagged his body..)(Im Pat ******* tillman tactics anyone..)
spoke fluent english.. had trade skill and his family was completely dependent on him.. been in england for 3 years im shure he knew the system.. so the dumb mistake factor is un credible..
note he is the only suspect they didn't have a complete dossier on him within 48 hours blaring on every news channel.. wonder why.. (status of visa, his description (asian) multiple angles/profiles of his picture. etc.. where is it..)
in my opinion given the current evidence** and reluctance to release the footage (the big one) , the body (this is bad also), and now the magic visa expiration yet completely unconfirmed being reported as news with no documentation supporting such..(straw says one thing unconfirmed reports say another such as "could have been expired"
You would think that considering the international row (not just brazil but the world) they have just created they would be more than forthcomming with the evidence, the exact opposite is happening..
make your own deductions..
DoctorYo
**(ill give it more time but currently there is something very wrong going on.. to many holes and govt is not being forthcomming with it; my question is why?)
-
Your use of brackets disturbs me more than any conspiracy theory.
-
has nothing to do with conspiracy has to do with blundering police murder of guests or citizens..
look at what brazil did when the US jerked its citizens with visas etc.. Look how quickly they retaliated toward the US citizens throwing them into jail / roughing them for giving the finger etc.. talk back etc.. I wouldn't surprise me if the ball isn't already rolling internally to harass/kill britons in brazil knowing Brazils loving police force, and the British Govt would be in its best interest with both brazil and the world market to justify this killing any way they can.. Becuase imo Brazil will retailiate one way or another do your history they dont take no crap when it comes to their citizens..
So conspiracy i'd say no.. international diplomacy yes.. this isn't rocket science..
I think your whole tune will change when its your family member / friend or any briton for that matter..
My question is with all those cameras wheres the footage..
wheres the Body...?
wheres the visa document..?
Why did they allow him to board a Public Bus... moments before..
lots of holes.. Im just saying there is alot more going on here than you think..
conspiracy has nothing to do with it..
rebuttal?
lets hear it Dowd..?
DoctorYo
-
It's been four days since they shot the guy and the police are in the middle of the greatest manhunt the UK has ever seen; I'd rather they concentrated on finding the current bombers and their friends, to be honest. And that includes the officers who killed the Brazillian.
Don't worry, there will be a day of reckoning for what happened last week, in a public enquiry. The full facts will come to light. It's what happens when you live in the greatest democracy in the world. The body will be released when all forensics have been finished, any wrong doers will be punished.
And frankly, Brazil can collectively go **** itself right now.
-
Update:
He wasn't wearing a bulky jacket, and he did not jump the turnstile (he used his card).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1537457,00.html#followup
-
Not dismissing this outright but I'll wait till someone other than the poor sods relatives describes what happened.
I still think the average life expectancy of a Brazilian electrician in London is way higher than a street kid in Rio de Janeiro.
-
DoctorYo, we have this quaint tradition in Britain whereby we conduct criminal proceedings in court, not in the media.
To that end, evidence such as camera recordings is presented in court, rather than being shown on the media. It's usually only released before a court case (or before criminal proceedings have been ruled out) to try to identify and locate suspects, not to try to convict or clear them in the press.
-
I wish the London police carrier STUN GUNS.
It would've been very different
-
Originally posted by 1K3
I wish the London police carrier STUN GUNS.
It would've been very different
oh sure.. pump amperage into a guy with a bomb circuit..
LOL!
-
yeah chortle... he woulda been dead allready if he was still in rio so...
no harm done.
lazs
-
Heh, well perhaps but the guys 48 cousins all living in London are in the press saying how this would never happen in Brazil as they are an enlightened and cultured society we want 38 squillion quid
Type in 'street kids brazil' in google and the first 10 pages are charities trying to stop brazilian cops beating to death 6 year olds.
-
I still think the average life expectancy of a Brazilian electrician in London is way higher than a street kid in Rio de Janeiro.
So he went from asian to terrorist now to Rio Orphan.. The Dis-info wars are kicking..
for your information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Charles_de_Menezes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzaga%2C_Minas_Gerais
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minas_Gerais
So now we can clarify that from his town of 5-6 thousand he is not a Rio streetkid anymore than some poor farm boy from Ogden KS is....
So even if you were correct and he was a poor Street Kid in Rio.. Its justified to kill him now becuase he would just die anyway back at his home.. The Nazi's had a similiar view of the Jews in their final solution in the ghetto, if I am off base by noting the similiarities of your comment and that of the SS.... please clarify it if im off base..
If that is your beliefs your entitled to them.. better your thinking that way than me..
DoctorYo
PS: from Wiki
At the time of the shooting, the temperature in London was about 17°C (62°F) [2].
Given the same conditions in florida 90% of the people over 40 years of age would wear some form of coat or sleeved cloths in that situation... with 99.9% of all people over 60 wearing one..
-
I believe, in the final analysis, he is a victim of terrror.
-
You can't be as obtuse as to not see it, Dr. Yo.
-
I'm not even gonna bother refuting the Nazi accusations as they're absurd.
I'll spell it out -
Brazilian electrician shot dead soon after 8 bombs in london and 60 ish dead. Sad all round.
Brazilian guys relatives in the UK press claiming the initial police and eye witness accounts totally wrong and that it would never happen in Brazil.
Fact is it happens in brazil every freaking day.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
If you are referring to the death of the Brasilian in London, it may seem amazing to you that Londoners "accept" this tragic death because you are comfortably removed from the terror that Londoners know.
The death was tragic. The fact is, police believed he was about to detonate a bomb on a crowded transit.
I hope you are not suggesting that London cops *****foot around doing "PC" "random" checks of the bags of old ladies and pretty young white girls like NYPD is doing. It won't happen in London, because the fear of reality is greater than the fear of appearing politically incorrect.
When Muslim terrorists hit the New York subways, the "PC" stuff will be overtaken by reason there as well. But don't take my word for it, wait and see. The same goes for Australia, because human nature is the same all over. You can be smug about the effect fear has on people only if you are far away from the action.
As someone smug and far away from this "terror"...accept of course the 88 australians killed in Bali..or the odd attacks on our embassy in Jarkarta...when I can only imagine what it must be like being the only major player left in the coalition of the willing so far left alone...I mean lets face its not like we're parked next to the worlds biggest muslim population - who have terrorist groups who hate our guts already exploding devices killing our citizens...
I guess I'm a little bewildered why I'd be happy to accept our liberal govts. idea of an identity card...after all - every terrorist is always a foreigner (or looks it) ...or random police searches on our trains...or allowing citizens of this country to languish in "prisons" denied the simple legal rights of any citizen by it's own government...or why reasonable people could reasonably accept shooting people on train platforms as simple collateral damage and cheer one on for the good guys.
I'm sure I remember the people of England not losing their minds when the IRA were frequently flexing their muscles in the last few decades...but I guess thats just my smug attitude a lifetime away from the real world - where our diggers are still keeping us completely safe - fighting the evil doers in Iraq...and redeploying back to afghanistan.
Terrorist nutbags have no interest in who's involved in those two places....right?
Tronsky
-
I guess I'm a little bewildered why I'd be happy to accept our liberal govts. idea of an identity card...after all - every terrorist is always a foreigner (or looks it) ...or random police searches on our trains...or allowing citizens of this country to languish in "prisons" denied the simple legal rights of any citizen by it's own government...or why reasonable people could reasonably accept shooting people on train platforms as simple collateral damage and cheer one on for the good guys. - tronski
If you feel bewildered, you need to give it a little more thought.
Would you mind restating your views a little more directly? Your sarcasm makes it hard to figure out what you are really saying here...
-
Heavy Padded Jacket... my arse.. Looks like jean top ... jean pants..
(http://images.thetimes.co.uk/TGD/picture/0,,221209,00.jpg)
you want to read up on the foul..
http://news.google.com/news?q=Jean%20Charles%20de%20Menezes&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&sa=N&tab=wn
Take your pick....
I prefer the times article..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1739222,00.html
Some of the questions I asked earlier are starting to be answered .. complete and total coverup has been initiated; as i expected.. just too many holes in the initial story.. from asian. to terrorist to baggy jacket to running away.. no cctv footage or its delay in release.. delay in returning the body to brazil.. the list goes on and on..
.
forget lawsuit I would demand murder charges with all those involved.. manslaughter or worse for those who ordered the hit... (it was a hit.. read up)
Killing your own citizens or guests of your country for political purposes is freakin foul.. (polictical in a sense to calm london from the T scare.. to act tough on terrorism.. here are your results, get another look at that picture above and put your loved ones face on it in that pool of blood...)
if they just admitted mistake then you could chalk it up as another casualty in the so called "war on terror.." (as Gunthr noted) But to cover up or confuse the public to try to blunt the political dammage shows the true character of those who claim to be protecting you..
Shoot to Kill... good policy or powder keg of incompetence you make the call..
DoctorYo