Terrorism/Crime/Murder - Semantics?

Problem? What problem? Some people like it; some don't. What's the problem?

Deane,

For once I explained this clearly. If you are not happy at the use of the word 'problem' then use 'issue'.

regards

andy c!

andy

Sanctioning bodies make mistakes. If you are actually a policeman then you will know this to be a truth. There is a reasonable chance that both you and every single one of your colleagues have got it wrong at least once - and that can be said of the courts and juries too. Justice is miscarried from time to time - it is inevitable.

But we have protections and failsafes in place to minimise this risk. Sure, there will be people who see an "imposition as just and proportionate" - but I'll warrant that they will hold to this position only as long as they are not touched personally by these impositions.

Justice and liberty - these are almost tangible assets of the society in which I live. My liberty is not unbridled - but the restraints on it should never be as tight as those around the sources and seats of power.

My freedom was bought and has been kept the hard way. Paid for in blood, as it were. No small thing. I'm not about to give it up easily or even see it eroded slightly just for the sake of a "new" brand of murderer unless a compelling need can be shown.

And this is where the irony ought to strike you right between the eyes - these terrorists seek to deny us the very liberties that quickly drafted, ill-considered and fashionable laws will extinguish if we don't moderate what we do so that we cope with a problem rather than attempt to stamp it out.

Deane (!)

Deane

You're such a cynic.

Nime

Thank you so much. I assume you mean I'm dog-like?

Deane

Here’s a thought.

[Irony mode]

Let’s repeal/abolish criminal law in its entirety and replace it with a single offence: that of “being up to no good”.

Then we can leave all of the decisions to the unfettered discretion of the police, judges and even the politicians.

[/Irony mode]

That seems to be what this prevention principle boils down to – ‘he’s up to no good and somebody should do something about it’.

Dan

quote:

Don

I want to get this straight in my mind. According to you, I am ..........

With all due respect, this is highly presumptuous on your part.....

I actually said "almost" nit-picking....

It wasn't presumtuous at all. It was based on the evidence of what you (and others) had written in this thread up to that time.

Having said that, your post above, (from which I have abstracted the quote), is one of the best-written posts I have seen on this forum in a long time. I also happen to agree with much of what you have written.

However, I do feel it's worthwhile trying to define terrorism. I also think the law needs to be reviewed (and changed if appropriate) to make it more probable that terrorists are caught or detered, even if that means a bit of inconvenience to the rest of us and especially (for the moment) young, middle eastern men, carrying rucksacs in the rush-hour and anybody who looks remotely like a member of the ALF......BTW, from PERSONAL experience I KNOW what it is like to be picked out from a crowd, in a foreign country, and questioned by the security forces. I fully understood the reasons and was more than happy to co-operate. I therefore simply CANNOT understand why others have such a problem with this sort of thing.

I don't believe it is sufficient to rely on murder laws to deal with terrorists although they might help deal with some of their activities.

Anyway, like you, I am rather busy at the moment, and can only pop in and out of the forum occasionally. I don't have enough time to start defining terrorism, or contemplating how to catch/deter them, or how to punish them without turning them into martyrs etc etc, I will contribute as and when possible.

And appologies for not having anything like sufficient time at present to do justice with a properly considered response to your excellent post above.

Cheers

Don

Don,

Thanks for your kind words

Whether or not we agree on questions of presumption or such like is neither here nor there – as long as we can preserve open, honest and sensible debate of the issues in good faith and without acrimony. I don’t require people to agree with what I say as a condition of them, and their opinions, having my respect. On the contrary, I enjoy the intellectual stimulation of being challenged and a cogent and compelling argument will often lead to me re-thinking and revising my own position.

As previously stated, I agree with many of the points you have made. I agree that it is worthwhile trying to define terrorism. I think it is very difficult to do, but I firmly believe that because something is difficult is no reason not to attempt it. I agree that the law should be reviewed and continuously so; the law is a living, dynamic thing that needs to develop with society and the challenges facing it. But … changes in the law need to be made with great care and full consideration of all potential consequences. I am extremely wary of ‘knee-jerk reaction’ legislation rushed through to appease a sudden upsurge of public sentiment.

I hold to my view that support for the principle of preventing terrorism seems to be airy fairy and unconsidered – and I think that a couple of the statements in your last post are cases in point.

I am disturbed by the concept that preventative action should be taken against “anybody who looks remotely like a member of …” an organisation. Who determines the distinguishing features of a particular suspect group and, more importantly, who can be trusted to properly implement it in the real world? If we allow preventative action to be taken purely on the basis of appearance, then what further action will be permissible if the on-the-spot determination is that not only does a person look like a terrorist but also looks like he might actually be engaged in a terrorist act (such as transporting a bomb)? Is that enough to justify or excuse the individual being “taken down”, perhaps in the most extreme manner, in the interests of public safety – and all based on more or less reliable interpretation of appearance, demeanour and behaviour? This is the sort of approach that leads to people being shot and killed on the London Underground …

The other statement that gives me pause is “even if that means a bit of inconvenience to the rest of us”. I suspect this is based on the assumption that the effect of preventative action will be nothing more than a minor irritant on an occasional basis. I submit, however, that such low-level action would prove to be about as much use as a band-aid on a broken spine.

What if it turns out to be a regular and frequent irritation? What if it goes beyond irritation and becomes outright interference, all for the general good naturally, perhaps to an extent that impacts the majority on a weekly or even daily basis?

I don’t want to diminish your solitary experience of being questioned in a foreign country, but I don’t see it as a valid analogue. For a start, we are talking about something that would be in your own country and which cannot be avoided by the simple expedient of getting on a plane and going home.

I submit that we need to look at the experience of living for an extended period of time in an environment where measures to prevent terrorism are routinely employed. I think you will find that such measures impact everyone. One’s normal daily activities become regularly affected, and inhibited, by delay, inconvenience, extra stress and even an element of fear. Before long, the awareness of the prevention measures pervades all sorts of ordinary decisions: even to the basic level of whether or not to go out and, if so, where, when and for how long. Also, if external events cause a security alert then it all goes into overdrive and rarely, if ever, recovers fully. Gradually, we find that the freedoms we take for granted are compromised as much by our own acquiescence as by any terrorist activity – and it’s much more than an occasional bit of inconvenience.

I am speaking from personal experience: 7 years living in East Jerusalem, 8½ years living and working in other parts of the Middle East and the tail-end of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

It’s incorrect to assume that the effect of preventative measures will be mild inconvenience for the innocent. The fact is that such measures will not stop all terrorism and may only catch or deter a handful of terrorists – but the burden will definitely fall upon the law-abiding ordinary citizen.

The question remains: how many of your rights and freedoms are you prepared to forego? Especially for an uncertain result?

Dan

Dan

You articulated my concerns perfectly. Thanks for the effort of writing it up and posting it.

Deane

quote:

I am extremely wary of ‘knee-jerk reaction’ legislation rushed through to appease a sudden upsurge of public sentiment.

I hold to my view that support for the principle of preventing terrorism seems to be airy fairy and unconsidered – and I think that a couple of the statements in your last post are cases in point.

I am disturbed by the concept that preventative action should be taken against “anybody who looks remotely like a member of …” an organisation. Who determines the distinguishing features of a particular suspect group and, more importantly, who can be trusted to properly implement it in the real world?

Dan,

I am also wary of the 'knee-jerk' reaction problem. The UN has at least started to think about defining terrorism. The Home Secretary keeps trying out new ideas....a bit more thinking wouldn't go amis in his case. 'airy-fairy unconsidered' ideas can be turned into clear, concise, effective law. But it takes careful consideration. Worthwhile.

The point of my earlier posts was to persuade yourself and others to look at a wholeistic view of terrorism, including (not exclusively) preventative action. We would also need to consider new laws to make terrorism and support of terrorism, unattractive; to make capture more probable; and to make prossecution more succesful. I don't consider the existing laws in the UK are adequate, if you have to wait for a murder to be committed (or attempted), in order to use murder-law. (This is where yourself and Deane seemed to be overly concentrating your efforts - but your earlier post retified that point.)

I made it clear that young(ish) people of middle-east appearance, carrying rucksacs, should expect to be slightly inconvenienced at present, and that they should co-operate as should anybody else whom the police might stop and search. No big deal, no great loss of civil liberty.

You 'manipulated' my reference to people looking remotely like a member of the ALF, out of context. I was, you will appreciate, making exactly your point, that you can't always rely only on appearances.

As for 'who can be trusted to properly implement it in the real world'......well, funily enough, I still trust the police, and the Judicary.....

Cheers

Don

Deane,

You’re welcome.


Don,

My apologies if I have manipulated any reference of yours out of context; it was not intentional.

I could write more about such things as the dangers of going by appearances and whether the impact of new preventative measures on civil liberty and the “rule of law” would be severe or merely a negligible inconvenience.

Nothing I write, however, could make the point as eloquently and forcefully as what has appeared in today’s press.

Take, for example, the Daily Telegraph:

Judges and the Government were on a collision course last night after the new Lord Chief Justice warned ministers not to try to "browbeat" them.

Tony Blair hit back by revealing his frustration with a slow and laborious courts system, saying he wanted more "summary justice" to be dispensed by police officers.

The Prime Minister said the country was facing new crises, including international terrorism, organised crime and anti-social behaviour, which could not be tackled "by the rules of the game we have at the moment".

Also in the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Blair ... suggested that he was ready to bypass the courts to tackle yobbish behaviour, as well as giving police new powers to fight terrorism and organised crime. He claimed that the courts were failing to protect the law-abiding citizen. The criminal justice system was "too complicated and laborious" and the police were constrained by restrictions and difficulties.

The Daily Telegraph again:

Mr Blair said he had introduced fixed penalty notices to try to get round the problem. Offenders who disputed such a notice issued by the police could fight the case in court.

“Summary justice is tough, it is hard, but in my judgment it is the only way to do it,” he said.


Then there’s the caring, cuddly Sun:

Tony Blair last night sensationally vowed to end the tradition of being presumed innocent until found guilty. The PM pledged to turn the nation’s criminal justice system on its head and hand police sweeping new powers.

He promised fixed penalty notices for ANY crime — forcing suspects to prove their innocence in court.

Mr Blair admitted it was a “watershed” moment in legal history. He said in Downing Street: “It’s summary justice. It’s tough but in my judgment the only way to deal with it.”

Offenders would range from street yobs yelling abuse to international organised crime.

He warned the criminal justice system has lost all hope of tackling crime — and insisted the way to restore justice for “law-abiding citizens” was to rip up centuries of legal tradition.

Mr Blair admitted cops have all but given up pursuing villains through the courts. And he vowed to bring in whatever laws they want.


Excuse me? More summary justice?! Guilty until proven innocent?!! Bring in whatever laws the police want?!!!

The right to silence has already been removed and now the plan seems to be to abolish the presumption of innocence and dilute both the burden and standard of proof down to one person’s opinion.

Is anybody else thinking “police state”?

Dan

Is anybody else thinking 'police state'?

Dan,

Your quotations confirm the views of a lot of people (myself included) that Tony is 'loosing his marbles'. He's on his way out, but won't go quietly. He's lost the respect of many groups (including judges) who are simply taking the piss whenever they can. He is frustrated...even his dear Cherie (God help us!) doesn't seem to share his views

But he does have a very valid point when he argues that "....the country is facing new crises, including international terrorism, organised crime and anti-social behaviour, which can not be tackled by the rules of the game we have at the moment".

Of course, trying to solve these problems with a Blair dictatorship and a police state, is not the answer. We do need new rules, but we need to derive them carefully, with a clear concensus. We will never get total population agreement to anything, but good government (and opposition) should be able to deliver aceptable and effetive new rules that the police (and others) can implement with good public support.

Cheers

Don

I can scarcely believe that the printing of Tony Blair's comments aren't an April 1st trick.

Rather than imposing the rule of law he is talking about removing it if he is prepared to bypass the Courts.

They are grave times when democratic governments talk of how much of an impediment civil liberties are to freedom.

quote:

if he is prepared to bypass the Courts

Keep it in perspective.

The police already issue speeding tickets and fixed penalty fines.

You can appeal.

I don't see anything wrong with extending this to ASBOs.



Dealing with terrorist is different to dealing with anti-social behaviour. Even Blair recognises this.

We all accept (especially with Habeus Corpus) the concept of holding people on suspiscion.

I don't want MY civil liberties buggered up by some terrorist whom the police have released on bail.

Cheers

Don

quote:

Originally posted by Don Atkinson:

quote:

if he is prepared to bypass the Courts

Keep it in perspective.

Indeed, and point taken. I hope that your good country emerges from this era in as fine and free a shape as it entered. The comments of your Prime Minister, as reported in the post above, certainly give me pause.

Deane,

Just back from sunny Morocco and playing catch up:

To draw a comment from a person, who is very famous to me, once said:

"Those who have never made a mistake - have never actually done anything at all"

Interesting to see the UK parliament have held back on changes to the legislation re terrorism until compromise conditions and alterations are put in place.