UK Concentration camps for Mussies?

[cronus]

But it will be different this time.

Australia is ahead of the curve....

[laklak]

Yeah, I think Trump is watching the Oz concentration camps with great interest.

[cronus]

Yeah, I think Trump is watching the Oz concentration camps with great interest.

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/manus-isl ... tmwfa.html

[Brian Peacock]

Frameworks are fallible charters, as fallible as real life and mass murder can potentially be recall? charters for lawyers leaching monies the government has not got. In a time of austerity in which a sovereign state is not directly bound by dubious frameworks, the frameworks of sometimes misguided and sometimes malicious souls...etc, etc, etc. The matter requires and would work fine with robust hearsay evidence from state appointed Imams....if they have a suspicious bad one in their midst, a small bursary to the state appointed Imam for saving lives...

Of course frameworks are fallible - that's why they should be reviewed and tweaked. But who is it that claims that they can salve all ills, whether that's forced internment or extra-judicial killings, or whatever. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to act rationally and reasonably all the time and, as I said, you can't stop nuttery, religiously inspired or otherwise, with a single stroke from a legislators quill. Fatalism only gets you so far Crumpy - and it's not far enough.

[cronus]

Frameworks are fallible charters, as fallible as real life and mass murder can potentially be recall? charters for lawyers leaching monies the government has not got. In a time of austerity in which a sovereign state is not directly bound by dubious frameworks, the frameworks of sometimes misguided and sometimes malicious souls...etc, etc, etc. The matter requires and would work fine with robust hearsay evidence from state appointed Imams....if they have a suspicious bad one in their midst, a small bursary to the state appointed Imam for saving lives...

Of course frameworks are fallible - that's why they should be reviewed and tweaked. But who is it that claims that they can salve all ills, whether that's forced internment or extra-judicial killings, or whatever. It's unreasonable to expect everyone to act rationally and reasonably all the time and, as I said, you can't stop nuttery, religiously inspired or otherwise, with a single stroke from a legislators quill. Fatalism only gets you so far Crumpy - and it's not far enough.

Still a good idea to round up the ones that look like trouble...though.

[NineBerry]

What's wrong with looking like Trouble?

[JimC]

Yeah, but it's still internment without trial. If there's evidence arrest the buggers, or failing that we have a mechanism for house arrest and electronic tagging.

Is the house arrest still without trial?

And a real problem would be if authorities had compelling evidence that X is part of a real terrorist threat, but for whatever reason (often technical), it would not stand up in court. Lose innocent lives, or remain paralysed by legal niceties?

The problem with this is that once such powers are used for one case, they will be used for other cases.

The reason we, in Common Law jurisdictions, don't generally have this, is because before we invented habeus corpus and the right to presumed innocence, and the rights to be charged and tried before our peers, governments were brutal, cruel, and abused this kind of power.

This is not something any country should do lightly.


And I wonder what one has to do to become a "person of interest"?


Regarding "slippery slope" fallacy accusations - this is not a question of MIGHT happen. It is a fact of experience. The reason we prohibit such powers is because of the entire history of law up to the innovations I mention above.

I do take the point, and I agree on principle. Hopefully, good intelligence/police work should let most situations be handled by a legitimate arrest and trial before a terrorist act is committed.

However, there will be grey areas where scrupulously clinging to these principles will lead to the loss of innocent lives, because terrorist X could not be locked up before he committed his crime. Is this form of paralysis in the face of a ruthless enemy, in effect a foreign enemy soldier, and the lives potentially lost worth the rigid adherence to rules designed to prevent oppression of one's own domestic citizens?

[NineBerry]

Most of the terrorists are domestic citizens.

[Brian Peacock]

Yeah, but it's still internment without trial. If there's evidence arrest the buggers, or failing that we have a mechanism for house arrest and electronic tagging.

Is the house arrest still without trial?

And a real problem would be if authorities had compelling evidence that X is part of a real terrorist threat, but for whatever reason (often technical), it would not stand up in court. Lose innocent lives, or remain paralysed by legal niceties?

The problem with this is that once such powers are used for one case, they will be used for other cases.

The reason we, in Common Law jurisdictions, don't generally have this, is because before we invented habeus corpus and the right to presumed innocence, and the rights to be charged and tried before our peers, governments were brutal, cruel, and abused this kind of power.

This is not something any country should do lightly.


And I wonder what one has to do to become a "person of interest"?


Regarding "slippery slope" fallacy accusations - this is not a question of MIGHT happen. It is a fact of experience. The reason we prohibit such powers is because of the entire history of law up to the innovations I mention above.

I do take the point, and I agree on principle. Hopefully, good intelligence/police work should let most situations be handled by a legitimate arrest and trial before a terrorist act is committed.

However, there will be grey areas where scrupulously clinging to these principles will lead to the loss of innocent lives, because terrorist X could not be locked up before he committed his crime. Is this form of paralysis in the face of a ruthless enemy, in effect a foreign enemy soldier, and the lives potentially lost worth the rigid adherence to rules designed to prevent oppression of one's own domestic citizens?

Jettisoning our basic and fundamental principles of law and justice in order that politicians can appear tough and uncompromising come election time is, in short, to put all claim to scruples and probity aside. We have a principle of imprisoning people for what they do not for what we think they might do at some point in the future. If there's evidence of preparation then yes, arrest, charge, trial by jury, and sentence accordingly. Rounding people up on the basis of their associations, or their social media connections, there location, their ethnicity, or their religious affiliation is going to be counter productive.

I'm aware that this stance opens me to a charge of putting the legal and human rights of terrorists before the well being of their innocent victims, but maintaining a robust justice system which respects individual human rights--such as a right to trial by jury etc--is not a fripperous luxury we can simply do without, but something which applies to all of us. If we allow our governments to disregard due process by whatever means of broad categorisation they determine for themselves then we've undermined an important principle which underpins the values, ideals, and way of life we are trying to protect. Let's not do the terrorist handiwork for them.

[JimC]

The point I was trying to make was that jihadist terrorists are not in the same category as domestic criminals, even if they are technically citizens. They have declared war on western countries and societies. How did Britain treat spies and saboteurs with Nazi loyalties in WW2? I don't think legal kid gloves were employed...

[Brian Peacock]

I'd accept that. But speculatively populating internment camps is an entirely different proposition.

[NineBerry]

The problem is how to decide who is a Jihadist or other form of terrorist. If a secret service can just declare that someone is a terrorist for them to lose all rights, we are fucked, and not in the orgasm inducing way.

[JimC]

The problem is how to decide who is a Jihadist or other form of terrorist. If a secret service can just declare that someone is a terrorist for them to lose all rights, we are fucked, and not in the orgasm inducing way.

Again, I take the point, but if society wants to adhere to the legal niceties (for generally good reasons, I concede) then it may have to accept that there will be circumstances where innocent deaths would occur that were preventable by certain actions by security forces...

[NineBerry]

Just as we will have to accept that some people will die from alcohol liver when we don't ban selling gin.

[JimC]