Anti-Terrorism, civil liberties and fearmongering.

[al-rawandi]

Cardiff, UK

Innocent couple targeted by armed police in anti-terrorist raid

AN INNOCENT JAZZ musician and his partner were subjected to a terrifying ordeal after being targeted by armed police in an anti-terrorist operation in Cardiff, it was claimed today.

Victor Frederick, 63, was wrongly accused of having a bomb factory in his music studio, he told a press conference at the Senedd in Cardiff Bay.

Plaid Cymru AM Leanne Wood said the incident, which happened last month, could easily have turned into Wales’s version of the tragic killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian man shot dead by police who wrongly thought he was a terrorist on a London tube train.

Armed officers using infra-red guns told Mr Frederick’s partner Andrea Heath she would be shot if she moved, the press conference was told.

Mr Frederick, who with his band the Cougars played at a police ball two years ago, was arrested as he returned home. He said he, Ms Heath and their 12-year-old daughter had been severely traumatised by the experience. They said they believe the police operation, which involved blocking off their street and the use of a police helicopter, was hugely disproportionate.

Ms Wood has made an official complaint to South Wales Chief Constable Barbara Wilding and has also copied in Tom Davies, the Independent Police Complaints Commissioner for Wales.

A South Wales Police spokeswoman said: “South Wales Police received information on suspicious items in a property in Grangetown, Cardiff.

“On February 17, armed police officers were deployed as a precaution to ensure the safety of the public and officers and a 63 year old man was arrested. He was later released without charge.

“South Wales Police accepts Mr Frederick has done nothing wrong and our officers acted in good faith in response to genuine concerns.

"South Wales Police has a duty to thoroughly investigate all potentially suspicious incidents in order to protect our communities.

“We received a letter from Ms Leanne Wood on Monday and are currently considering our response.”

As unfortunate as this is, anti-terror legislation is responsible, innocent people are routinely held at gun point by police due to a mix up or false identification of a suspect. It happens all the time, fraud cases, murders, traffic stops, etc...

And what does this have to do with terror legislation. If the police have evidence that someone is making bombs they have a duty to act. This time they fucked up. I can only imagine your cries for better policing had the police had a lead on a Jazz musician who was making bombs, but didn't investigate because his band had played the police ball the year before.

[Pappa]

[And what does this have to do with terror legislation. If the police have evidence that someone is making bombs they have a duty to act. This time they fucked up. I can only imagine your cries for better policing had the police had a lead on a Jazz musician who was making bombs, but didn't investigate because his band had played the police ball the year before.

It was actually posted in a different thread, but moved here because it was relevant to the discussion that was going on.

Yes I have some thoughts. The usual hand waving from the usual suspects is summed up as "Well the Commies didn't bomb us, so I guess I shouldn't be worried now." This is a terrible analogy for you to use, why? Because when we had a stand off between the western bloc and Societ bloc there was a serious deterrent, neither side wanted to die. There was a nation state on each side (or more than one) that was very serious about perpetuating its current power structure. In the present instance we are faced with a group of theocratic thugs, who actually want to die... this is their greatest wish (their penultimate wish actually, the ultimate being killing you or I). They have no nation state to preserve, they don't care if the Jahili states of Egypt or Pakistan are wiped from the map in a US counterattack, in fact they would likely be indifferent as they routinely target people in Muslims countries in terror attacks now.

The only thing preventing a stateless terror group like al-Qaeda from using an apocalyptic weapon is the fact that they don't posses one yet, or do and cannot quite deliver it. There is no deterrence to these threats, they are very real. Now, whether or not these sweeping government powers are warranted is a different matter. But the threat is very real, just ask those people who were splattered upon the walls of the London underground.

And as to your comment that governments don't give these powers back... bullshit. The US ended Japanese internment and gave up their "powers" to do so. The US government ended the draft. I can't speak about British government policy in great depth, but the US has a history of relinquishing powers. But it is nice to see that you are such a diehard libertarian when it comes to terrorism.

You ignored one of my points though about the actually risk level. Yes it's awful that those people in London died, but I've still got a much greater chance of dying in a huge variety of ways than by being bombed by a terrorist. Does the actual risk level warrant the restrictions and laws that have been introduced here? Personally, I think not.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Does the actual risk level warrant the restrictions and laws that have been introduced here? Personally, I think not.

Of course it doesn't.
The authorities are clearly using the fear generated by the perceived threat of terrorism as an excuse to bring the country closer towards being a police state.
The new laws pertaining to photography etc. are another example:-

Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK - A brief guide for street photographers.

Know your rights when you're out with your camera.

Despite the law being clear on a citizen's rights to freely take pictures in public places (with a few restrictions) there is growing evidence of the police, police community support officers (PCSOs), security guards and general jobsworths failing to respect the rights of photographers going about their lawful business.

For more info on photographers rights, please visit:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photogr...


Special thanks to:
http://youtube.com/FKNnewz
http://youtube.com/DarrenPollard1st
http://current.com/people/opencircuit
http://youtube.com/SparksVids
http://youtube.com/BrianHowes390

UPDATE:
In the UK, a new "Counter Terrorism Act" came into force on 16th February 2009. It contains an amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This amendment will make it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about any police constable "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the Bill applies this amendment to internet service providers and web hosting services. This means they will have a legal duty to remove all sites perceived to fall under this offence, and has provisions for use at home and abroad.

It is unclear what information will be classed as useful to terrorists, but due to this ambiguous wording, the Bill has implications for bloggers, journalists, photographers, activists and anyone who values freedom of speech.

We must show that we won't be intimidated, or called terrorists for resisting or monitoring repressive policing.

Fitwatch are one of the groups who could be targeted by this new legislation. Fitwatch, started two years ago by activists, resists and opposes the use of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) on demonstrations. FIT are police officers who photograph, follow, and generally intimidate protesters. They bring, in the words of Jacqui Smith, harassment style policing to protests.

As part of this opposition, Fitwatch run a blog http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/ where they share information about these officers. We feel this blog could be under threat from this new legislation.

Whilst Fitwatch may not like officers who act outside of the law, they are certainly not terrorists.

Neither are:

* people filming, and uploading to Youtube, footage of police officers acting illegally.

* bloggers writing about being randomly stopped and searched.

* journalists publishing details of corrupt or racist cops.

* photographers publishing photographs of police on protests.

The list goes on, but all are under threat.

This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.

Please join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.

I'm beginning to hate this country.

[charlou]

[And what does this have to do with terror legislation. If the police have evidence that someone is making bombs they have a duty to act. This time they fucked up. I can only imagine your cries for better policing had the police had a lead on a Jazz musician who was making bombs, but didn't investigate because his band had played the police ball the year before.

It was actually posted in a different thread, but moved here because it was relevant to the discussion that was going on.

I merged that post into this thread. My apologies.

[charlou]

When law abiding citizens are being viewed with suspicion and treated like criminals by default there's a big problem with how the issue of terrorism is being handled and the powers that be ought to take a long hard look at their methodology.

[Hermit]

I was told recently that the special powers given by the Prevention of Terrorism bill brought in in the UK a few years ago have now been used more than 10,000 times, for all sorts of mundane stuff.

Yes, never mind the occasional fuck-up. It's unimportant, except, of course, for the family and friends of the occasional and wrongful summary execution. What does make the current spate of terrorism successful is their catalytic effect on the erosion of democratic rights which emergency laws all over the western nations have brought about, the watering down of habeas corpus being the most important - though by no means the only factor. Our very measures to counteract islamic terrorism make us more akin to our enemy in outlook and behaviour than most of us realise, and therein lies the kernel of their victory. We become like them.

[al-rawandi]

Does the actual risk level warrant the restrictions and laws that have been introduced here? Personally, I think not.

Of course it doesn't.
The authorities are clearly using the fear generated by the perceived threat of terrorism as an excuse to bring the country closer towards being a police state.
The new laws pertaining to photography etc. are another example:-

Photographers Rights And The Law In The UK - A brief guide for street photographers.

Know your rights when you're out with your camera.

Despite the law being clear on a citizen's rights to freely take pictures in public places (with a few restrictions) there is growing evidence of the police, police community support officers (PCSOs), security guards and general jobsworths failing to respect the rights of photographers going about their lawful business.

For more info on photographers rights, please visit:
http://www.urban75.org/photos/photogr...


Special thanks to:
http://youtube.com/FKNnewz
http://youtube.com/DarrenPollard1st
http://current.com/people/opencircuit
http://youtube.com/SparksVids
http://youtube.com/BrianHowes390

UPDATE:
In the UK, a new "Counter Terrorism Act" came into force on 16th February 2009. It contains an amendment to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. This amendment will make it an offence, punishable by up to ten years imprisonment, to publish or elicit information about any police constable "of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism".

Furthermore, Schedule 7 of the Bill applies this amendment to internet service providers and web hosting services. This means they will have a legal duty to remove all sites perceived to fall under this offence, and has provisions for use at home and abroad.

It is unclear what information will be classed as useful to terrorists, but due to this ambiguous wording, the Bill has implications for bloggers, journalists, photographers, activists and anyone who values freedom of speech.

We must show that we won't be intimidated, or called terrorists for resisting or monitoring repressive policing.

Fitwatch are one of the groups who could be targeted by this new legislation. Fitwatch, started two years ago by activists, resists and opposes the use of Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) on demonstrations. FIT are police officers who photograph, follow, and generally intimidate protesters. They bring, in the words of Jacqui Smith, harassment style policing to protests.

As part of this opposition, Fitwatch run a blog http://www.fitwatch.blogspot.com/ where they share information about these officers. We feel this blog could be under threat from this new legislation.

Whilst Fitwatch may not like officers who act outside of the law, they are certainly not terrorists.

Neither are:

* people filming, and uploading to Youtube, footage of police officers acting illegally.

* bloggers writing about being randomly stopped and searched.

* journalists publishing details of corrupt or racist cops.

* photographers publishing photographs of police on protests.

The list goes on, but all are under threat.

This legislation not only attempts to stifle our ability to hold the police force to account for their actions, but also attacks the principles of open publishing on the internet. It must be resisted.

Please join the mass action and oppose this ludicrous law.

I'm beginning to hate this country.

Oh this is a tired act... police state is coming. Talk about fear mongering. What is the benefit of creating a police state for politicians that are elected by the people? Common citizens who govern other common citizens, where is the benefit of a police state. What makes you think the labour party wants to live in a police state, or the torries for that matter.

It is unfortunate to read posts like this which are simply lifted whole cloth from the fringe whacko handbook. Yeah we get it, you read Orwell, but give it a rest would ya? The unfortunate reality is that when one of these groups gets an apocalyptic weapon, then we shall see where people stand on the safety versus liberty issue. We can certainly police terror suspects responsibly without destroying the fabric of enlightened liberal society.

Turns out... Jamie Glovoz is a prophet.

[al-rawandi]

I was told recently that the special powers given by the Prevention of Terrorism bill brought in in the UK a few years ago have now been used more than 10,000 times, for all sorts of mundane stuff.

Yes, never mind the occasional fuck-up. It's unimportant, except, of course, for the family and friends of the occasional and wrongful summary execution. What does make the current spate of terrorism successful is their catalytic effect on the erosion of democratic rights which emergency laws all over the western nations have brought about, the watering down of habeas corpus being the most important - though by no means the only factor. Our very measures to counteract islamic terrorism make us more akin to our enemy in outlook and behaviour than most of us realise, and therein lies the kernel of their victory. We become like them.

One wrongful shooting and now you start the ministry of truth rant. How many times have the police wrongly shot people. It happened just a month or so ago in Oakland, a police officer accidentally discharged his sidearm when it was pointed at a handcuffed suspect. Does that mean our world is coming apart and there is a government conspiracy against blacks who use public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area? It is an unfortunate accident.

You assume that our open and liberal societies will inevitably triumph over the forces of fanatical tribalism. What makes you think that we won't have to become slightly different as a society to effectively defeat the fanatical tribalism of Islam (a religion that is growing rapidly)? Islam built the greatest empire in history, all through the fanatical tribalism of groups like the Qizlbash, Jannisaries, Ikhwan, etc...

The Condorcetian faith in reason and enlightened self interest has no bearing on the process of evolution. The point being that there is no guarantee that we will prevail in the clash (rather crash) of civilizations without making at least some substantive changes in how we govern.

[Pappa]

[And what does this have to do with terror legislation. If the police have evidence that someone is making bombs they have a duty to act. This time they fucked up. I can only imagine your cries for better policing had the police had a lead on a Jazz musician who was making bombs, but didn't investigate because his band had played the police ball the year before.

It was actually posted in a different thread, but moved here because it was relevant to the discussion that was going on.

I merged that post into this thread. My apologies.

No problem, it was relevant to the thread anyway.

[Hermit]

I was told recently that the special powers given by the Prevention of Terrorism bill brought in in the UK a few years ago have now been used more than 10,000 times, for all sorts of mundane stuff.

Yes, never mind the occasional fuck-up. It's unimportant, except, of course, for the family and friends of the occasional and wrongful summary execution. What does make the current spate of terrorism successful is their catalytic effect on the erosion of democratic rights which emergency laws all over the western nations have brought about, the watering down of habeas corpus being the most important - though by no means the only factor. Our very measures to counteract islamic terrorism make us more akin to our enemy in outlook and behaviour than most of us realise, and therein lies the kernel of their victory. We become like them.

One wrongful shooting and now you start the ministry of truth rant. How many times have the police wrongly shot people. It happened just a month or so ago in Oakland, a police officer accidentally discharged his sidearm when it was pointed at a handcuffed suspect. Does that mean our world is coming apart and there is a government conspiracy against blacks who use public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area? It is an unfortunate accident.

You assume that our open and liberal societies will inevitably triumph over the forces of fanatical tribalism. What makes you think that we won't have to become slightly different as a society to effectively defeat the fanatical tribalism of Islam (a religion that is growing rapidly)? Islam built the greatest empire in history, all through the fanatical tribalism of groups like the Qizlbash, Jannisaries, Ikhwan, etc...

The Condorcetian faith in reason and enlightened self interest has no bearing on the process of evolution. The point being that there is no guarantee that we will prevail in the clash (rather crash) of civilizations without making at least some substantive changes in how we govern.

And you are the one telling others that they can't or won't read!

[al-rawandi]

I was told recently that the special powers given by the Prevention of Terrorism bill brought in in the UK a few years ago have now been used more than 10,000 times, for all sorts of mundane stuff.

Yes, never mind the occasional fuck-up. It's unimportant, except, of course, for the family and friends of the occasional and wrongful summary execution. What does make the current spate of terrorism successful is their catalytic effect on the erosion of democratic rights which emergency laws all over the western nations have brought about, the watering down of habeas corpus being the most important - though by no means the only factor. Our very measures to counteract islamic terrorism make us more akin to our enemy in outlook and behaviour than most of us realise, and therein lies the kernel of their victory. We become like them.

One wrongful shooting and now you start the ministry of truth rant. How many times have the police wrongly shot people. It happened just a month or so ago in Oakland, a police officer accidentally discharged his sidearm when it was pointed at a handcuffed suspect. Does that mean our world is coming apart and there is a government conspiracy against blacks who use public transit in the San Francisco Bay Area? It is an unfortunate accident.

You assume that our open and liberal societies will inevitably triumph over the forces of fanatical tribalism. What makes you think that we won't have to become slightly different as a society to effectively defeat the fanatical tribalism of Islam (a religion that is growing rapidly)? Islam built the greatest empire in history, all through the fanatical tribalism of groups like the Qizlbash, Jannisaries, Ikhwan, etc...

The Condorcetian faith in reason and enlightened self interest has no bearing on the process of evolution. The point being that there is no guarantee that we will prevail in the clash (rather crash) of civilizations without making at least some substantive changes in how we govern.

And you are the one telling others that they can't or won't read!

Indeed, I used your post as a jumping off point for a general post. Sometimes that happens, you get started on one response and it rolls into something else. Forgive me.

And habeas corpus has not been eroded for citizens, at least in the US. It was eroded for people who never had it in the first place. The Constitution makes no guarantee for those not subject to its laws, namely (in this case) terrorists on foreign battle fields who refuse to abide by the Geneva Conventions then expect the full protection of those conventions as well as the US constitution.

Maybe things are different in the UK. But as of yet I do not know of one US citizen who has been deprived of any of their constitutional rights in regards to a terror probe or policing operation.

[Coito ergo sum]

The State Department issued a highly unusual "Travel Alert" Sunday for "potential terrorist attacks in Europe," saying U.S. citizens are "reminded of the potential for terrorists to attack public transportation systems and other tourist infrastructure."

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/airport-l ... d=11790782

More fearmongering.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I used to help freedom fighters. Never knew any terrorists.

[Feck]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People on foreign battle fields are soldiers aren't they ? people who take an army to another country are invaders .The geneva convention states that spies may be held for a short peroid of time incomunicado It specfically states that this should NEVER be used to deny someones human rights under the convention !

To qualify as a "soldier" you have meet certain specifications, like wearing a uniform. Being a solider in a declared war is also part of that.