Terrorism Debate : Britain

There are two ways of looking at this.
I agree with you essentially that anyone accused of terrorism should be given legal representation and a trial. And I felt concerned that evidence obtained via torture in countries such as Syria was actually being taken seriously, with regard to incriminating terrorist suspects.
On the other hand, I do totally oppose these people being here. The Madrid bomber is an example of this. Guess where he was hiding out (probably drawing welfare) when the Spanish issued an extradition writ? Got it in one: London.
According to a very factual document I saw last week, we are actually importing terrorism. The idea that there are only 200 hardened terrorists at large in the U.K. is grossly underestimating the situation. The fact is there are thousands of fanatics at large over here, supported by the taxpayer and only extradited to places like Spain on request by European authorities.
Saw the same thing in New York where a female Islamic teacher held an official prayer ceremony for moderate moslems. Extremist protesters protested outside and one who was interviewed claimed it was blasphemy for a woman to represent Islam and threatened destruction, hell-fire and death.
What are these extremists doing wandering around our cities when they loathe democratic values and freedom of speech? Forget Iraq the danger is closer to home.

limerickman said:

I have been following the debate about legislation in the UK and the House of Lords decision to decree that the detention of people, without trial or charge,
at Belmarsh was illegal in December 2004.

The House of Lords told Bliar in not uncertain terms that his goverment cannot intern people under these rules (lack of rules) at Belmarsh.

Proceedings were brought for a judicial review of these cases.
The goverment opposed the release of Suspect C - one of the people interned at Belmarch in the High Court.
The goverment view was that these people represented such a threat that they had to be effectively interned and that Suspect C was a terrorist.
The goverment could not provide evidence to the court as to the nature of this supposed threat - but attempted to assure the court that the information and the decision to detain Suspect C, was based on "hard evidence".

Eight days later, in a turnaround which beggared belief, Suspect C was told by the Home Office that he was fit to be released from Belmarsh because he was not regarded as a threat.
180 degree volte face, eight days later.

With the time period for the legislation running out for the internment of other
terrorist suspect approaching, Bliar tried to get the legislation amended and renewed.
The House of Lords, rightly, told Bliar that his proposals were a threat to civil liberties in general and were an attack on constitutional rights.
The goverment re-drafted the legislation and tried again to persuade the HoL's to enact but the new proposals were thrown back to the Commons.
This redrafting and rejection issue carried on for the best part of a week, with the HoL's telling Bliar that his proposals were unjust and unfair.
Eventually, the goverment came to a compromise and the legislation was approved by the HoL's.

My question is - do British citizens trust their goverment on this issue ?
Do you believe that your goverment has told you the truth about the Belmarsh detainees ?

Carrera said:

There are two ways of looking at this.
I agree with you essentially that anyone accused of terrorism should be given legal representation and a trial. And I felt concerned that evidence obtained via torture in countries such as Syria was actually being taken seriously, with regard to incriminating terrorist suspects.
On the other hand, I do totally oppose these people being here. The Madrid bomber is an example of this. Guess where he was hiding out (probably drawing welfare) when the Spanish issued an extradition writ? Got it in one: London.
According to a very factual document I saw last week, we are actually importing terrorism. The idea that there are only 200 hardened terrorists at large in the U.K. is grossly underestimating the situation. The fact is there are thousands of fanatics at large over here, supported by the taxpayer and only extradited to places like Spain on request by European authorities.
Saw the same thing in New York where a female Islamic teacher held an official prayer ceremony for moderate moslems. Extremist protesters protested outside and one who was interviewed claimed it was blasphemy for a woman to represent Islam and threatened destruction, hell-fire and death.
What are these extremists doing wandering around our cities when they loathe democratic values and freedom of speech? Forget Iraq the danger is closer to home.

I appreciate your reply but I was asking the question more in respect of what the goverment is saying and whether or not you believe waht your goverment has told you in respect of detention of people, without trial or charge.

I highlighted the situation with Suspect C.
One week the Home Sec is in the High Court opposing his release, on the grounds that C is such a threat, that to release him might cause injury/loss of life.
8 days later, Suspect C is released by the Home Sec - with the Home Sec saying that he can go free.
Now either C is a threat or he isn't.

My point is can you really trust your goverment given what it said about C, what it said about WMD, what it said about a whole range if issues concerning national security ?

limerickman said:

I have been following the debate about legislation in the UK and the House of Lords decision to decree that the detention of people, without trial or charge,
at Belmarsh was illegal in December 2004.

The House of Lords told Bliar in not uncertain terms that his goverment cannot intern people under these rules (lack of rules) at Belmarsh.

Proceedings were brought for a judicial review of these cases.
The goverment opposed the release of Suspect C - one of the people interned at Belmarch in the High Court.
The goverment view was that these people represented such a threat that they had to be effectively interned and that Suspect C was a terrorist.
The goverment could not provide evidence to the court as to the nature of this supposed threat - but attempted to assure the court that the information and the decision to detain Suspect C, was based on "hard evidence".

Eight days later, in a turnaround which beggared belief, Suspect C was told by the Home Office that he was fit to be released from Belmarsh because he was not regarded as a threat.
180 degree volte face, eight days later.

With the time period for the legislation running out for the internment of other
terrorist suspect approaching, Bliar tried to get the legislation amended and renewed.
The House of Lords, rightly, told Bliar that his proposals were a threat to civil liberties in general and were an attack on constitutional rights.
The goverment re-drafted the legislation and tried again to persuade the HoL's to enact but the new proposals were thrown back to the Commons.
This redrafting and rejection issue carried on for the best part of a week, with the HoL's telling Bliar that his proposals were unjust and unfair.
Eventually, the goverment came to a compromise and the legislation was approved by the HoL's.

My question is - do British citizens trust their goverment on this issue ?
Do you believe that your goverment has told you the truth about the Belmarsh detainees ?

Prime Minister Blair (I beleive in the PM's Question period on 3/09/05) indicated that the "Security Services" & Police gave him the recommendations. I saw the whole thing & beleive Tony to be right. He's only following up on the advice he was given by law enforcement professionals. Michael Howard, the Tory's & the House of Lords are just "grand-standing" my freind. What do they know about security & law enforcement 😕 , nothing I suspect.

Well, as one example, I don't personally believe Hamza is the threat he was made out to be. I don't think genuine Al Quaida fanatics operate so openly as Hamza did, standing and preaching in a public area. It's not people such as Hamza that worry me, to be honest, and I agree with you that some of the individuals that have been locked up may not be dangerous at all.
However, I am quite sure there is a significant number of dangerous fanatics at large throughout the country. The thing that annoys me most is the fact that people such as the train bomber I referred to are often over here drawing welfare or promoting an extremist agenda. The train bomber, for example, took part in a terrorist act against Spanish civilians, murdering countless women and children. Then they find he's hanging about in London, possibly plotting fresh outrages.
I don't think the lesson of 9/11 has been learned yet, to be honest. The truth is that the whole 9/11 outrage was plotted and planned from within the U.S. itself, not by Iraqi Bath Party members based hundreds of miles away in the Gulf. I think we need to get a grip of our border controls and simply deport those people when concrete evidence (not obtained via torture, of course) suggests they pose a threat.

limerickman said:

I appreciate your reply but I was asking the question more in respect of what the goverment is saying and whether or not you believe waht your goverment has told you in respect of detention of people, without trial or charge.

I highlighted the situation with Suspect C.
One week the Home Sec is in the High Court opposing his release, on the grounds that C is such a threat, that to release him might cause injury/loss of life.
8 days later, Suspect C is released by the Home Sec - with the Home Sec saying that he can go free.
Now either C is a threat or he isn't.

My point is can you really trust your goverment given what it said about C, what it said about WMD, what it said about a whole range if issues concerning national security ?

Did you see the Panorama program last night ?
Documenting the public utterances of Blair and comparing it to what he was actually told and said in the runup to the Iraq war.

What he said in the public and what he had been told in private and what he said in private, differed, in respect of Iraq.
It differed to such an extent that documents - previously regarded as being top secret - appear to show that what Tony Bliar said about Iraq, about WMD,
was not the full truth.

My instinct is to distrust what Bliar and his goverment about the entire terrorism, Middle East issue.
He has been shown to have not told the truth.

He's a con man plain and simple. He lies and spins his way out of every issue. Unlike Bush, though, he does seem to have a problem with his conscience which has played on his health somewhat.
Yes, I saw the program you refer to. It has upset many women voters who are deserting New Labour.

limerickman said:

Did you see the Panorama program last night ?
Documenting the public utterances of Blair and comparing it to what he was actually told and said in the runup to the Iraq war.

What he said in the public and what he had been told in private and what he said in private, differed, in respect of Iraq.
It differed to such an extent that documents - previously regarded as being top secret - appear to show that what Tony Bliar said about Iraq, about WMD,
was not the full truth.

My instinct is to distrust what Bliar and his goverment about the entire terrorism, Middle East issue.
He has been shown to have not told the truth.

limerickman said:

Did you see the Panorama program last night ?
Documenting the public utterances of Blair and comparing it to what he was actually told and said in the runup to the Iraq war.

What he said in the public and what he had been told in private and what he said in private, differed, in respect of Iraq.
It differed to such an extent that documents - previously regarded as being top secret - appear to show that what Tony Bliar said about Iraq, about WMD,
was not the full truth.

My instinct is to distrust what Bliar and his goverment about the entire terrorism, Middle East issue.
He has been shown to have not told the truth.

You have a point there, if he follows Bush's lead then he is a loose cannon. Conversely, if he didn't, he would've been the 1st British head of state to not side w/ the U.S. I think Bush is a special case & Blair would've been able to say "No, I will not condone you're "war of choice/conveinience" (Iraq). He may have not wanted to be the 1st PM to decline an offer to help the U.S., albeit in an illegal war. In hindsight its easy to say one would've dismissed Bush as the premeditated warmonger that he is.

Over here, the situation is that in order to be elected, Labour had to assume an element of conservatism in a previously conservative country. If Blair had declined to support Bush, Howard or IDW would have stepped in to close the gap and say, "Hey, we support the Americans!"
I suppose to be fair on Blair he did try to persuade Bush to go through the U.N. route and believed the U.N. would have finally given Bush the resolution that endorsed him to go to war. But, however the case may be, it seems like Blair was trapped as a result of the Conservatives who would have supported Bush no matter what.
I always get the impression that this whole scenario troubled Blair quite a lot and that he really wanted to quit politics. When he appeared on TV some months back trying to defend Bush in front of a group of mothers who had been invited to ask questions, Blair was literally mopping the sweat from his forehead - especially when it was pointed out to him that children would be killed by cruise missiles.
Bush, however, doesn't seem remotely concerned whether civilians are killed or not. This is why he's loathed throughout Europe and will never be accepted in France or Germany.

davidmc said:

You have a point there, if he follows Bush's lead then he is a loose cannon. Conversely, if he didn't, he would've been the 1st British head of state to not side w/ the U.S. I think Bush is a special case & Blair would've been able to say "No, I will not condone you're "war of choice/conveinience" (Iraq). He may have not wanted to be the 1st PM to decline an offer to help the U.S., albeit in an illegal war. In hindsight its easy to say one would've dismissed Bush as the premeditated warmonger that he is.

Here is a quotation from the link below:
http://idg.communication.utexas.edu/flow/?jot=view&id=503
"There was always greater scepticism in Britain than in the USA about the linking of Al Qaeda to the Ba'athist regime, disquiet at belligerent strategy in the Middle East and horror at the British government's craven support for US policy. Blair's own reputation will never recover from this historical error in his own country."
Incidentally, the program Bremner Bird and Fortune (referred to) is really quite hilarious. This is a kind of spoof of Blair and Bush and other political figures such as David Blunket. I quote from the same page that describes the way Bush is impersonated:
"As a Coca-Cola sign revolves beside his head, the President of the United States reassures the Iraqi people: ‘Be assured of one thing. We will not walk away from your country, as others have done before. We will not stay in your country, as others have done before. We will do both…'"

I know its not "exactly" on target but:

Beijing angered by reports Europe may reconsider decisionThe Associated Press

Updated: 8:31 a.m. ET March 22, 2005BEIJING - China appealed to the European Union on Tuesday to go ahead with plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo, reacting angrily to reports that action might be delayed because of Beijing’s passage of a law authorizing a military attack on Taiwan.

European diplomats say the EU is reconsidering a plan to lift the embargo following China’s passage of the law on March 14 authorizing an attack if Taiwan pursues independence.

At a minimum, a European diplomat said Monday such weapons as night-vision goggles and submarine technology would not be sold. Europeans have discussed a “code of conduct” designed to keep dangerous weapons out of China’s hands.

The Bush administration, in a long-public spat with its allies, has argued that the weapons could be turned against Taiwan as China attempts to assert its sovereignty over the island.

“Linking these two issues is unreasonable,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. “The passage of the anti-secession law is an effort to ease tensions across the Taiwan Straits.( Riiight 🙄 ) ... The key to ease tensions is to check Taiwan’s secessionary forces and to stop all secessionist activities.”

The EU had appeared close to lifting the ban. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday that the potential use of force has created “quite a difficult political environment.”

U.S. argues to keep embargo in place
France and Germany are lobbying to end the ban, while Washington has argued aggressively to keep it in place. The United States also bars arms sales to China. Both embargoes were imposed following Beijing’s bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.
It angers me that China wants to have it both ways. It also angers me that my country still maintains its draconian stand against Cuba BUT we won't invade/annex it as China's "Old Guard" wishes to do w/ Taiwan. Since i'm an American, I think I'll rename it "Formosa" 😄

China's threat to invade Taiwan may be more bluff than anything else - designed to dissuade Taiwan from cutting ties with China. Seeing as nobody can tell for sure whether China would invade Taiwan it seems to me unlikely that Taiwan would not now go ahead and claim independence. I may be quite wrong but this is just a feeling.
The truth is China is still significantly behind the West militarily and I imagine the Chinese are smart enough to figure they need more time to modernise. Bejing is probably aware it will catch up and surpass the U.S. military within a few decades and I guess that if things continue as they are China will be the main Asian superpower. Seeing as China's economy is growing faster than America and Europe it will probably continue to build up its military strength more and more. Even so, I don't think China would actually invade Taiwan if such action would cause a major war (not in China's interests). In the same way, the U.S. decided not to invade Cuba when it realised such an invasion would have brought about all out war with Krushchev who was defending the island. And remember, so far as I'm aware, the treaty not to invade Cuba after the Soviets withdrew its rockets in the sixties still stands.
Just my opinion.

davidmc said:

I know its not "exactly" on target but:

Beijing angered by reports Europe may reconsider decisionThe Associated Press

Updated: 8:31 a.m. ET March 22, 2005BEIJING - China appealed to the European Union on Tuesday to go ahead with plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo, reacting angrily to reports that action might be delayed because of Beijing’s passage of a law authorizing a military attack on Taiwan.

European diplomats say the EU is reconsidering a plan to lift the embargo following China’s passage of the law on March 14 authorizing an attack if Taiwan pursues independence.

At a minimum, a European diplomat said Monday such weapons as night-vision goggles and submarine technology would not be sold. Europeans have discussed a “code of conduct” designed to keep dangerous weapons out of China’s hands.

The Bush administration, in a long-public spat with its allies, has argued that the weapons could be turned against Taiwan as China attempts to assert its sovereignty over the island.

“Linking these two issues is unreasonable,” said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao. “The passage of the anti-secession law is an effort to ease tensions across the Taiwan Straits.( Riiight 🙄 ) ... The key to ease tensions is to check Taiwan’s secessionary forces and to stop all secessionist activities.”

The EU had appeared close to lifting the ban. But British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Sunday that the potential use of force has created “quite a difficult political environment.”

U.S. argues to keep embargo in place
France and Germany are lobbying to end the ban, while Washington has argued aggressively to keep it in place. The United States also bars arms sales to China. Both embargoes were imposed following Beijing’s bloody 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.
It angers me that China wants to have it both ways. It also angers me that my country still maintains its draconian stand against Cuba BUT we won't invade/annex it as China's "Old Guard" wishes to do w/ Taiwan. Since i'm an American, I think I'll rename it "Formosa" 😄