Slashdot Mirror
Britain Tapped Communications
The BBC news is reporting (thanks to aspodf for the link) that Channel 4 News alleges that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been
intercepting all phone calls between Britain and Ireland
for the last 10 years. A similar article in The Independent
presents similar information as fact. Apparently, the tower was
used to scan every single message between Britain and Ireland for certain key words
(sort of like Echelon), and the tower is now up for sale by the MoD.
Strictly, the American Bill of Rights was derived from the British one (passed in 1689 - see http://wwlia.org/uk-billr.htm for more details).
g main.html) from 1215, and ensures that "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land. " and is recognised and the main influence to the American Constitution.
This removed the divine right of kings and ensured that any powers enshined in the the crown and controlled and enforced by Parliment, and in the populous.
It also inforced the oath that politican's swear when they are elected to parliment, that they will serve the monarch and that they "do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm, So help me God."
In terms of personal freedom, one must refer to the Magna Carta (see http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/magnacarta/ma
Nothing is new in this world, my friends.
Mark
(erk, bad formatting on that last post - whoops).
Perhaps not at all interesting is the fact that NTL (big phone company in the UK) launched a big fat pipe to Ireland in early 98.
May or may not be related to the decommissioning of the tower mentioned in the original article.
Whatever...
...j
It's about Menwith Hill, the US spy-base in the UK that supposedly taps communications all over Europe.
From BBC article: Channel 4 said sources told the programme that "although the primary justification for building the tower was anti-terrorism, the information it gathered was also of economic and commercial significance".
Now what do you think that meant? (Hint: implies that industrial espionage was carried out by the *government*.)
Wasn't Braveheart about Scotland? :)
:|
Anyway, the Irish situation is a lot more complicated than most people understand. I don't think the British government would keep Ireland if there wasn't the problem that >50% of the population of Northern Ireland don't want to be part of a united Ireland. This causes problems for all concerned
Of course it is difficult to measure illegal gun ownership, but I rather doubt that urban per-capita gun ownership is anywhere near as high as rural per-capita gun ownership in the Great Plains or Intermountain West, even if you throw in illegally possessed guns. In some areas of the West, you've pretty much got guns in every home.
All I'm really trying to point out is that a high level of violent crime most definitely does *not* correlate to a high level of gun ownership, as the Irish fellow had suggested.
With your last statement i do fully agree.
Good. That's really the important thing. People get so hung up on the gun issue, that we tend to forget about the other issues, which I think contribute much more heavily to violent crime, like:
- Poverty
- Cultural disintegration/lack of community
- Lack of/poor education
- Familial disintegration/dysfunction
- Poor parenting
One interesting statistic that a lot of people seem to miss is that violent crime in the U.S. is concentrated in urban areas; rural areas have *much* lower violent crime rates, nearly identical, in fact, to corresponding rural areas of Canada, and not much higher than in Europe. What is interesting about this is that it differs noticeably from the rest of the world. In most European countries, and even in Canada, urban violent crime rates tend to be somewhat lower than rural violent crime rates.Why do you suppose that is? (I don't have the answer, but note that my points above are much bigger problems in U.S. urban areas than in rural areas of the U.S.)
--
Of course, that didn't stop anti-gun columnist Carl Rowan from taking some pot-shots at an intruder at his Washington, D.C. home...
--
Incorrect. The areas of the U.S. with the highest levels of gun ownership have the lowest incidence of violent crime.
Mexico, as I understand it, has fairly restrictive gun laws, but is a rather dangerous place nonetheless (at least certain parts of it, anyhow; a friend of mine was murdered there).
And, as you know, even in Europe, Switzerland has widespread gun ownership, with no apparent ill effects.
Violent crime is not a gun-related problem; it is much more complex than that.
--
Not the case. I live near DC, and there was an article in the Washington Post a few months back that talked about this situation. There is a list of types of guns that aren't legal in DC. If the gun isn't on that list, it's perfectly legal to have. The manufacturers of the Tec-9 - a handgun often used by criminals - were able to get around DC gun laws by changing the name to Tec-DC9. The gun wasn't on the banned list anymore, therefore it was legal.
The analogy was purely hypothetical, but Quebec did come to mind due to the similarity of that situation. Except they want to join France (IIRC).
Although the BBC article was unclear on the point, the Independant article spelled it out:
The communications that were intercepted were those of the Republic of Ireland, not Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the UK, and thus domestic, the Republic of Ireland is a sovern nation.
I sincerely doubt that the citizens of the Republic of Ireland felt that the UK's interception of their communications (supposedly to help with a domestic issue) was a 'necessary evil' to 'protect them from harm'. Especially since the UK has no authority or desire to protect the citizens of the Republic of Ireland from anything.
For those in the US, consider how you would feel if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police intercepted your phone calls (business, government, and private) 'to solve a Canadian problem with terrorism'. In particular, imagine this terrorism is by a group of people who want their territory to secede from Canada and become a state of the United States despite the lack of an offer from the United States.
The kilt isn't unknown in ireland, just far less common. Come to think of it, there's a couple of british military units that still use them in dress uniforms.
:) ] than Washington.)
>As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once
>said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those
>who would give up liberty for security deserve
>niether."
Benjamin Franklin. (Who might also make a more literal claim to being "Father of our country" [hmm, and parts of france, too
>Actually, Texas was independent for about 10
>years befor it joined the US.
So was California by the time Mexico "sold" it. THe "Bear Flaggers" had formed the California Republic, and planneed to use the Texas model.
>But, while we're talking about returning land,
>what about all the land that the spanish took
>from the aztecs and incas? What about all the
>land taken from the other indians by the british
>and french?
Mmm, and the land taken from the native north americans, let's give that back. Oops, can't do that, the "American Indians" killed them all off a great many centuries ago . . .
What about "politically incorrect" information?
What about politically sensitive information? (I'm sure those political parties not in power talk about more than the weather.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I personally am surprised at the number of people who "aren't surprised" by this sort of thing. Sure we may be somewhat jaded, but if our 'democratic' governments can spy on our private lives without us even getting upset then we are already lost. Americans might as well give up the rights to bear arms and the French should re-open the Bastille. Privacy is a part of freedom. Sure they can already listen to anything they want to, but if we don't even get upset, then we're essentially helping them do it. Get pissed. Tell people.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
"I, sir, am not a Yankee. I'm a Southern Gentlemen."
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
Who says they don't tap all the phone calls in the Mid-West? The NSA certainly has enough resources for such a task. Having freedom of information laws, these agencies have to try much harder to keep these "illegal" activities secret.
Besides, I've heard many claims over the years that the NSA routinely intercepts all phone calls in and out of the US. Why do you think there is so much money in research for voice recognition software? The British were probably using software first developed for a US agency.
Statistics please? The highest rates of murder are in Louisana and Texas.
See? I can make up figures as well.
(well, actually, I read that at infidels.org)
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Damm! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Why don't we tap the phones of everyone in Manhattan cause one of those people committed a crime once! I think it was the pooper scooper law someone broke.
...listen to any conversation of mine you want. If you don't like what you hear you shouldn't have been listening. If you catch me doing something illegal or dangerous, I have no one to blame but myself for committing the act.
If they don't like what your saying they might just take you away. I love this idea of "I'm not doing anything wrong so I'm safe!" There are evesdropping laws in the US for *GOOD* reason!
I don't know if you noticed that they want to throw people in jail for burning flags nowadays! Please go to www.eff.org a do some reading.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Why not? Its not imaginary technology, so you can safely assume its there. Britain isn't a technologicaly backwards country - we did invent the computer remember? Also, it doesnt have to be a perfect system - if something sounds *close* what the hell, just record it and figure it out later.
Has it occurred to you that you dont really need to monitor ALL calls? Part of the purpose would be to be able intercept any calls in particular you want to, without having any red tape to deal with, or anyone aware that you're at it.
~Pev
C.
I sometimes write stuff
Switzerland has a completely different culture than the rest of the civilized world.
The suiss people have stayed in their self-chosen cultural and political isolation for longer than the USA exists. It is true that suisse has less strict gun-ownership laws than most other european laws, but the percentage of actual gun-owners is less than in the USA.
I am not exactly sure how true that is. There are certainly quite a few gun owners in the US, but, assuming that what I hear is true about Switzerland, that every male over 18 is trained and has several types of guns, that would be somewhere about 50% gun ownership of the entire population. Then there may be a percentage of women who own guns...with that in mind, I can't see US gun ownership as a percentage of population being higher that Swiss ownership as a percentage of population.
The point about your criminal having a gun is interesting - but the ability to draw and shoot someone who already has a gun pointing at you is rare
Good point, however, as many people point out, the idea is more associated with deterrence. In that infamous study from the University of Chicago (hell, can't remember who wrote it) the thesis presented was that those states which allowed concealed carrying (about 33) had lower crime rates as a result of criminals not knowing who could be carrying a gun. Take it as you like, the study was terribly controversial.
With respect to Britain changing its gun laws as a result of Dunblane, reports here in US claim that homicides involving guns has, paradoxically, risen after those laws took effect.
Well the best solution to that would be to have them move from Manhattan to someplace that the US would be happy to give to Canada. New Jersey is convenient. Let's have a show of hands: who would want to keep NJ if we could foist it off on Canada?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Anyone recall a certain war with Mexico that
led to a whole bunch of land being taken by the US from Mexico - you guys must have missed that
course while you were studying British History 101 right ?
As someone who would not be here had they been standing a few yards closer to an IRA bomb, I'd rather not hear this claptrap about British invasions of Ireland, Scotland, Wales. Get a fricken' clue. Try reading a book before spouting an opinion.
Does the UK have such advanced voice-recognition that they can identify words spoken at the speeds that people normally use, in a variety of different accents, over a *phone* *line* of all things? Or do they just hire a few thousand people in order to listen to each call?
Personally, I'm skeptical. This would work if it was involving telegraphs (are they still used over there?) but not phone calls.
Unless, of course, They, the benign aliens from Alpha Centauri, gave the UK and US advanced voice surveillance technology along with the anti-gravity Black Helicopters and the cloning tanks to breed their species on Earth. Sheesh...
Hasn't this rumor been around in a variety of forms since the 60's?
If there is anything worse than listening to Americans talking about Ireland, it is listening to Brits do so. You're part of the problem pal -- get out of our country. That's the solution, period. And any American who points that out here is damn' right.
Bombs in Dublin/Monaghan 1974? Concentration camps? Systematic use of torture? Wake up, for fuck's sake.
''Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted
it that way.''
And got the British Army in to enforce that wish.
''England did let Ireland go'', gosh, you're ignorant.
Your 'mothercountry' never 'let go' anything, it had been taken off their hands by war, in case you forgot, but oops, you will never have known anything about history in the first place.
Did it ever occur to you that the island you obviously know only little about is Ireland as a whole and you lot should acctually pack and leave?
British OR Irish -- you choose. You can't be both.
Thank you for illustrating exactly is wrong with the continuing British occupation of Ireland. Your dismissive attitude towards the natives' national aspirations is exactly what one would expect of a British colonial. 100% British settler, 0% Irish: that's you. You can call yourself Irish; I can't stop you. You can call yourself a Koala Bear too: there are institutions where such people can get the help they need. It is amazing how you have the gall to blame the Irish for the war in Ireland. You know damn well that it's the only language you people understand.
We all know that privacy vanished a long while ago. It sucks, but thats life.
Erm, wasn't Braveheart about bonnie Scotland? ;)
America will always have a gun problem, because it's legal to own the damn things. Here it isn't. It doesn't stop criminals using guns just the same as making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drug taking. You're looking at it from the wrong angle.
There is absolutely nothing more irritating than listening to (or reading) Americans talking about Britain, especially when they go on about politics, and most especially when it comes to Ireland.
1. Braveheart is about William Wallace, who is a Scottish national hero, and not Irish.
2. The Scots, after considerable losses, and the death of Wallace, won that round, for all it matters today, and retained their independance until three or four centuries later when they voluntarily merged first the crown then the parliament with England's. Modern Scottish nationalism has nothing to do with historical conquest, and only a little to do with repression, except perhaps on the part of some extremely ignorant people.
3. England did let Ireland go. EIRE, the Irish republic, the Catholic majority part of the country (for historical and political reasons) is independant. Modern Northern Ireland is still part of the UK because the majority protestant population wanted it that way.
4. Irish republicans in the north are in a tiny minority, especially in their use of violence, and the British governments behaviour in the north has been essentially blameless since 1990, and can probably only be blamed with being stupid even before that. Anti-terrorist measures are accepted even by most Irish nationalists as a necessary evil.
5. The traditional Scottish dress is a long piece of plaid cloth wrapped around the torso and waist. The kilt (not skirt, or dress) is a modern invention, which is smaller and more practical, and only goes around the waist.
"No selfish strategic or economic interest"
Would'ya stop with this stuff please ? I've seen this so many times, reading it again makes me want to scream.
Our rights and liberties are protected by just the same things yours are - by convention. You wrote yours down, we didn't. Big deal. In any country, if the populace stop believing in its liberties, the state will take them away. Bits of paper make no difference to that at all.
I think I remember hearing that the current (Labour) Government were planning to bring in a Bill of Rights or a Citizen's Charter or something along those lines. Anyone else more knowledgable about politics than me?
The government plans to integrate the European Convention on Human Rights into British law, and empower the House of Lords (in its capacity as the highest court) to enforce it.
Regrettably the House of Lords powers are not well separated from those of the government, and therefore what happens if it comes to a fight remains to be seen.
This is correct. All of Northern Ireland (often referred to as "the six counties" by people in the Republic) is in Ulster. But not all of Ulster is in Northern Ireland.
It is, however, very common practice in Northern Ireland (mostly on the part of unionists, I would guess) to refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster. For instance, they have "Ulster Television", "Ulster says no", "Ulster Unionist Party", "Ulster Defense Regiment", and so on. Its my understanding that many nationalists find this usage intimidating, and that many unionists find the name "the six counties" to be demeaning. Therein lies an example of the complexities of Irish politics ... I remember the girls at my primary school were alowed to wear any color of gingham in summer as long as it wasn't green.
Damm! That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard! Why don't we tap the phones of everyone in Manhattan cause one of those people committed a crime once! I think it was the pooper scooper law someone broke.
I think you might find that if half the population of Manhattan had historical greivances to the effect that they should actually be part of Canada and not the USA, and a small group of them were prepared to go around blowing things up to prove the point, you might change your mind. Especially when the other half of the population of Manhattan started arming themselves and shooting at the Canadian faction.
But how would you call it if the army is involved in a violent long time fight between two groups (divised by the church)
The British army was sent to Northern Ireland to protect the nationalist population against unionists who were burning their houses. Would you not do the same thing ?
Officially Britain believes terrorists on both sides are just simple criminals (although of an especially dangerous kind). While some elements of the British state (especially the RUC, and N Irelands last effort at local governance) have sometimes sided with unionism to the extent of overlooking its nasty side, the official policy has never been to do so. The Downing Street Declaration recognised the principle of self-determination for N Ireland, and disowned any "selfish strategic or economic interest" in the province on the part of the British government.
You can call it a war only if you believe a war does not have to involve a state on either side, or the conquest and occupation of territory.
Oh, and N Irish terrorists kill in the name of politics, not religion. You will find a scattering of protestant republics and catholic loyalists if you look hard enough.
Right, several things. See my previous post for starters, but I'll repeat myself if necessary.
Firstly, the IRA may consider itself to be fighting the British government (although thankfully they're on a long term cease-fire at the moment), but the British state considers itself to be fighting terrorism (the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments) by both loyalist (pro-British, usually protestant, but not aligned with today's British government) and republican (pro-Irish, usually catholic, but not aligned with today's Irish government) groups.
I don't understand what you mean by the British army on the streets of Dublin. Dublin is the capital of the republic, and hasn't been part of Britain since the 1920s. Britain makes no claim to the modern Irish state, nor do most unionist groups in the north. The British army carries out some policing duties in the North because they are better trusted than the local police (especially by nationalists).
Nor do I understand what you mean by "terrorism by the British government". Unless you're an out-and-out anarchist nothing the British government has done in N Ireland since the 1970s looks even remotely like terrorism.
What you need to understand is that this is much a more complicated (but lower intensity) conflict than any war, in which their are four identifiable groups prepared to use force (N Irish Loyalists, N Irish Republicans, the Irish Government and the British Government). Since the 1970s the governments have done everything they can to get the two terrorist groups to stop fighting, because while they may sympathise with their aims they are opposed to their methods. Whilst the governments may disagree about methods, they are in essential agreement about priorities.
Prior to that the situation had been basically peaceful (though somewhat unjust to people on the wrong side of the border) since the 1920s when the republic was formed.
Your natural human desire to reduce this to a simple conflict with 2 sides is preventing you from understanding the complexity of the situation.
As for the police - they CAN carry firearms, but this is only done on special occasions. There is no need for the police on the beat to be armed. I can't remember the last time a member of the Gardaí was shot in the line of duty.
The RUC (Northern Ireland's police force) are more or less routinely armed though, or at least they were before the cease-fire.
OK, the English moved in here about 800 years ago, and for most of that time, there had been resistance. For Gods sake, there was the 1916 rising, the War of Independance in the 20's and a civil war after that. Beleive me, there was a LOT more going on than calling the English Bastards. Why don't you get a book on the subject....
Well yes, but I think the poster was referring to the period of relative peace and stability (although not of any kind of social justice) between partition and the civil rights campaign in the North.
As an Irishman and a protestant it really gets under my skin when Americans who probably haven't even been to Ireland think an understanding of Irish politics can be genetically transmitted.
Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that I believe in self-determination for Ireland (both bits), and the principle of majority consent. Can you say as much ?
I quite agree the Brits should not ever have invaded Ireland. The world would be a much happier place. However, they did. Unless you know a way of reversing history, we have to live with the consequences. Since the majority of the population of Northern Ireland chooses to remain in the UK, the UK government has to keep them there. Do you really think anything else can be done ?
As for the idea the British security service plants bombs, well, yes, maybe they do. It would seem pretty odd for them to go after police and army targets, or unionist bars, but yes, maybe they do. OTOH even what the IRA accepts it has done (and neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein makes any bones about supporting the use of force, even occasionally against protestant civilians) should repel any civilised person. Is the transfer of a tiny scrap of land, whose population doesn't even want it, from one western democracy to another really worth all that blood ? I'll leave you to answer that question yourself.
Oh and I suppose British military standing outside the polling places when the vote was taken had nothing to do with the outcome. The statistics are crap and everyone who is involved at all with the situation knows it. Tell you what I can post some quotes from Gerry Adams if you want me to. They would be just as accurate as your figures.
To my knowledge such a poll has never been taken. Shows how much you know. However, it is a simple matter of demographics - slightly more than 50% of NI residents are protestant, and slightly less are catholic (by origin, not faith). Protestants tend to be unionist and catholics tend to be nationalist. There are (empirically - you just need to go to Ireland and ask around a bit) there are more catholic unionists than protestant nationalists.
And if you think that fighting for freedom is terrorism then you sir are a very sad person. This is the only bloody war the whole world is not up in arms about the nationals having a right to their homeland, and it pisses me off to no end.
Northern Irish unionists have a right to theirs too. These people's ancestors moved to Ireland, or changed their faith, hundreds of years ago. Does their distant ancestors collusion and/or profiteering deprive them of any right to the land of their birth ?
How about it being illeagle for years and years to speak your native language in your own country, or drafting young men and sending them off to a war their homeland wasn't involved in.
This happened around a hundred years ago. Noone alive today was even borne then.
IF thats what he meant he's correct. That was pretty bad. However, none of that is happening any more.
If there was "peace and stability" why was there a civil rights campaign???
Because the catholic population of N Ireland was being treated unfairly (to say the least). You can have peace and stability without civil rights - it just tends not to last very long.
People in Manhatten do indeed blow things up, but nothing like on the N Irish scale. The IRA may be as small as Osama Bin Laden's (sp?) gang of intolerant fruitcakes, but they're better organised and probably have more money and more arms. They're definitely more active, and they actually (mostly) live in the country they are fighting against. It makes them hugely more dangerous.
As for the historical grievances, and the bit about 'half the population', they're both true, and if you think Manhatten has anything like them, you should see the amount of hostility people give out when someone British points out that peace is preferable to violence (hint: see the rest of this thread).
There is plenty of evidence that the British Government planned and and patrially succeeded in an attempt to exterminate the Irish people.
Well I don't know about exterminate. Oppress most definitely, but if there was any extermination it was throught incompetence, not intention (the potato famine, for instance).
The IRA has no plan to discriminate against Protestants in Ireland, they will enjoy the same privledges of freedom of speach, religion and assocations as all Irish citizens in a unified country under a democratic constitution.
No doubt, although they won't be able to have abortions. Nor would they, until recently, have been allowed to get divorced. The Republic has (from my point of view) done its fair share of oppressing in its short history - though to be fair nothing like as much as Britain.
Ummmm. I was just trying to present an analogy, not to suggest such a situation might really occur. The previous poster was suggesting British anti-terrorist laws were unnecessary because N Ireland is no worse off than New York. That clearly not being the case, I was trying to present an analogous situation in terms of New York, hence Canada (the closest other country to New York, right ?). No slur on the national character of anyone was intended.
I don't give a flying **** about Canadian gun deaths, that was another thread, and I'm Irish (and British) not American as should be rather clear from the rest of the thread. Do you not think you might be a bit oversensitive ?
That's true, but AFAIK, libel law only applies to comments made about individuals
Erm, not true I think. Remember the McLibel case ? A well known fast food company sued a couple of environmental protesters over comments made in a leaflet they were handing out outside one of the companies outlets... I think it was one of the longest running and most expensive libel cases in the UK. The substantive point is however correct - I certainly would treat most stories in the UK press with a fair degree of scepticism and wouldn't trust the libel laws to ensure the truth.
This sort of thing demonstrates clearly why governments want to control individuals access to encryption. It has been said by various people that you have nothing to worry about because it would no be practical for governments to monitor all communications in this sort of trolling operation. Apparently people were wrong.
development.lombardi.com
"IRA bombings and assasinations have killed thousands of people over the years"
More like hundreds.
"semtex is apparently as easyly available as peanut butter"
Incorrect.
"female crime reporters are assasinated while stopped in traffic"
This happened once. So using the plural is a bit
misleading.
"But ooohhh, mustn't give working mothers a chance (or choice) to defend themselves, got to keep those guns reserved for the criminal elements."
The simple fact is that you're about 70 times
more likely to be shot and killed in the US then
you are in Britain or Ireland. True, it's
unlikely to be for political reasons. Chances
are it'll be for the change in your pocket, or
because you're wearing the "wrong" colour, or
are the "wrong" colour. But that's nothing to
be proud of.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
Yep, that's war. It ain't funny, but it is the thru!
Idiot. We're not at war with the UK.
K.
-
How come there's an "open source" entry in the
-- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
So if I buy it, do I then get to spy on all the communications between Britain and Ireland?
Any time two groups claim the same land there is only one solution: ethnic cleansing. Otherwise you have an ongoing war that will never end. Or I suppose both sides could just grow up and get on with their lives, but how likely is that?
Using Microsoft software is like having unprotect sex.
Bite the hand.
OK Let me clear up some misconceptions. There have been over 2000 terrorist related murders in connection with the troubles over the past 30 years. A lot of Semtex had been used in the years leading up to the ceasefire. While the Republic has been relatively free of terrorism, there HAVE been incidents. E.g. the Parnell St. & Capel St (i think) bombings in the 70's which is believed to have been the work of the British Secret Service.
The female crime reporter who was killed was drug related
Very true. Veronica Guerin's murder was done by the Dublin crime underworld. But this shows that there are guns in the Republic being used by others - not just the IRA.
As for the police - they CAN carry firearms, but this is only done on special occasions. There is no need for the police on the beat to be armed. I can't remember the last time a member of the Gardaí was shot in the line of duty.
even though Ireland was occupied for a long time, the troubles and bombings only really took off about 30 years ago. Activity before rarely got above calling the English bastards.
OK, the English moved in here about 800 years ago, and for most of that time, there had been resistance. For Gods sake, there was the 1916 rising, the War of Independance in the 20's and a civil war after that. Beleive me, there was a LOT more going on than calling the English Bastards. Why don't you get a book on the subject....
If there was "peace and stability" why was there a civil rights campaign??? To be honest, I'm not sure the poster knew what he was talking about.
Just in case anyone else is scratching their heads:
:)
US - getting pissed = getting angry
UK - getting pissed = getting drunk
To get angry in the UK is to get pissed off.
This little tip may come in handy for anyone coming to the UK and being told that 'tonight we're going to get pissed'
The sooner you get used to it, the better. Actually, you just *wish* you had a declaration of independance. And we're pissing ours away ...
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
The british terrorists will suppress the Irish as long as the Irish let them. As soon as the Irish finish the job, they will be free. Not before. Power will not be given away, it must be taken back
"Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin,
This sounds like a bit of an urban legend unless the people who did the bugging were extreme amateurs.
:-)
With the appropriate authorization (!) BT can pretty much monitor any calls to or from a particular number completely remotely, they just need an SX exchange somewhere in the way.
More than 10 years ago they offered a service to government folks where you could dial in and checked your intercepted messages from anywhere, much like voice mail. Pretty handy
From what I understand, abuses within the telecommunications industry became so widespread that they pulled the plug on many of the remote monitoring features such that only places like GCHQ (that could be physically secured) had access.
NB.
Many of the posts on this topic have empathized with the Britich government and its security agencies for undertaking this surveillance. This is not the point. I think most of us understand why they would want to attempt to counteract terrorist threats. The issue is whether "by any means necessary" is acceptable in a functioning democracy. I feel that this has been one unrecognized aspect of the damage that the IRA has caused to citizens of both of the involved states: there have been a large number of draconian laws enacted which erode the liberties of citizens. The effect of this in the past has been that we have had censorship in both the UK and Rep. of Ireland, the adoption of the principle that silence under questioning can be taken as evidence of guilt, the corruption of police and security agencies desperate to solve a war by super-legal methods and the gradual and persistent erosion of public insistence on the sovereign rights of the citizen. I do not believe that we should place these tools in the hand of government. A previous poster relied on Congressional oversight to act as a check or balance on the use of these tools. That is asking the guardians to guard themselves and there is ample recent historical evidence that this does not work. So, we should reject this on two counts: firstly it is too dangerous to our democracies, secondly it does not work to prevent terrorist threats anyway.
It has to. British libel law applies regardless of whether you knew it was false, and regardless of whether you had any malice. If it's a lie, you swing for libel in Her Majesty's Realm.
I don't care if the smarmyest tabloid on Fleet Street said it, if it's British press, I believe it until proven otherwise. They're very careful about such things....
Try reading BBC or Rueters sometime. It's an entirely different take on the news.... there may be some spin there, but they're not going to outright lie to you. Unlike some American organizations I can think of... abc, cbs, nbc, cnn....
warp eight bot
clan crawford (by marriage)
neither the green, for rome, nor the orange,
for london, but the blue, for Ireland's own sake.
Um, Try going back to school. You have apparently mixed up Ireland with SCOTLAND!!!!
Braveheart aka William Wallace was from and fought for SCOTLAND. Men in SCOTLAND wear "dresses" or as we prefer to call them kilts. SCOTLAND is attached to England in the North part of the island, Ireland is a whole separate island to the west. SCOTLAND has a separatist political party, but, unlike some fine members of the UDF or IRA, they haven't pipe bombed any school buses full of children lately (as you can see I don't particularly like either side in the Irish Troubles). By God, leave SCOTLAND out of this!
Now that that is off my chest...
Why is anyone surprised about this. Most of the world has known for over 10 years now, since the release of Peter Wright's book Spycatcher, about the exploits of MI5 and MI6 (except my cousin in SCOTLAND, where the book was and still is banned due to "national security"). Why should we be shocked that the British Intelligence community has listened to every phone call between Ireland and England for 10 years when they have had a duplicate key to every lock in the city of London for over 30 years (again see Spycatcher).
Personally I find no comfort or protection in doing or saying nothing "wrong". If the state has and uses this kind of power, your innocence won't matter since they could create evidence, plant evidence or infer anything from your private communications. Planting a bomb and blowing someon e up is a crime...talking about it isn't. Don't take away my freedom for something I say I'm going to do, take it away for actually doing it.
As I beleive one of your "founding fathers" once said (and I think I'm paraphrasing)"Those who would give up liberty for security deserve niether."
A Canadian member of MacDonald of Clanranald.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
well - the crime rate is one thing you can look at. It might even be significant. On the other hand, look at the numbers of deaths due to weapons in the US each year and compare to Britain.
I absolutely agree that it is the people, not the guns - but, as R Heinlein said, "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.".
The number of accidental shootings alone is terrifying.
The point about your criminal having a gun is interesting - but the ability to draw and shoot someone who already has a gun pointing at you is rare - and in Britain, hardly any of the criminals have guns. If you get mugged, chances are they're gonna beat you up or knife you - either of which is less likely to kill than a gun.
Britain has tightened up it's gun laws recently and the day they relax them is the day I leave the country.
OTOH, maybe if I was less well endowed I'd want a membership to the NRA.
Wasn't there like a cool, crazy Irish guy with lots of knives or something in Braveheart? Or was that some Robin Hood movie?
Don't hate the media, become the media.
Actually, I think the number of people shot is a rather linear function of the number of guns out there - legal or not. Here in Sweden we hardly have any gun related deaths at all. And I think that is because we don't have many weapons, besides hunting rifles. Not that many people bring a hunting rifle to the disco, do they?
If someone is caught packing a revolver or something they can probably be sent to jail for it. It's not like it's impossible to get a license for a hand gun, we just don't have that gun culture. So hardly anyone is armed.
Now if only we could get our army to securely lock up their automatic weapons, and actually get some sort of control for the hunting weapons we'd have even less of a problem.
I find it very tragic when the best way to stop your kids from blasting each other's brains out you americans seem to come up with is more religion in school. Not taking the guns off the street, no, some prayers and ethics pushed upon them in school will fix it all.
I can't think of any other country more secularised (sp?) than Sweden, and still we manage to not blow each other to bits. No matter how much religion we'd be teaching in school, if every other fellow started carrying guns like in the states, I'm sure we'd have alot more people shot to death.
I feel safe not carrying a gun, as I know hardly anybody else does it.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
Personally, i prefer getting pissed the british way.
Don't hate the media, become the media.
This doesn't really surprise me at all. When it comes down to it, there are no rules when it comes to 'national security'. Check out this link for more details of British surveillance operations. It's scary how much info they were collecting. http://jya.com/irish-war.htm
Hee, hee -- nothing backs up an argument better than suggesting that people who disagree with you have small genitalia. :)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
1/ The reduction in civil liberty related to the intelligence campaign against republican and/or unionist terrorism extends far beyond this. And in general the public have accepted it as a necessary evil.
:(
2/ Braveheart was about William Wallace, who was a Scot, fighting for Scottish autonomy. Nothing to do with Ireland.
3/ The vast (like 80 or 90%) majority of the population of Nothern Ireland (aka Ulster) don't want to leave the Union (of Great Britain and Nothern Ireland, not of England and Northern Ireland). It's nothing to do with 'England letting Ireland go'.
Feel free to comment on paranoia, civil liberty, etc. Stay way from commenting on other stuff which you clearly know nothing about.
Apologies in general for the tone of this comment, but this sort of wildly inaccurate rubbish really gets my back up...
Paul
after all the IRA has set off a bomb or two
You have no clue who the IRA are, or who Sinn Fein are, or what the politics involved have been coming to for years. As an Irish-American (Third Generation) it really gets under my skin when people make comments like this. The Brits souldn't be in Ireland in the first place, and there are plently of bombs that no-one ever took the credit for, maybe the Brits planted them theirselves to make the world believe it was the IRA and support the Brits even more. Any way Braveheart was about Scotland, you have probably offended every Irishman that read your post.
As an Irishman and a protestant it really gets under my skin when Americans who probably haven't even been to Ireland think an understanding of Irish politics can be genetically transmitted.
How did I know this would come up, I have my grandfather to speak to about politics and converse on a regular basis with my relatives in Ireland. I do not think that any understanding of the politics comes to me genetically, far from it. I have a cousin in prison, accused of being a mamber of the IRA. I have been to Ireland and your assumptions are crap.
Firstly let me make it absolutely clear that I believe in self-determination for Ireland (both bits), and the principle of majority consent. Can you say as much ?
It is not a question of what I believe now is it ? It is a question of forcing a so called majority opinion down the throats of people who love their country and want to see it free.
I quite agree the Brits should not ever have invaded Ireland. The world would be a much happier place. However, they did. Unless you know a way of reversing history, we have to live with the consequences. Since the majority of the population of Northern Ireland chooses to remain in the UK, the UK government has to keep them there. Do you really think anything else can be done ?
A majority, well there are many opinions on how that majority was reached, it is only a majority if you believe that is was fair. Since Britain has always been fair to Ireland (yeah right) I guess you got me there.
As for the idea the British security service plants bombs, well, yes, maybe they do. It would seem pretty odd for them to go after police and army targets, or unionist bars, but yes, maybe they do. OTOH even what the IRA accepts it has done (and neither the IRA nor Sinn Fein makes any bones about supporting the use of force, even occasionally against protestant civilians) should repel any civilised person. Is the transfer of a tiny scrap of land, whose population doesn't even want it, from one western democracy to another really worth all that blood ? I'll leave you to answer that question yourself.
You mention that the population doesn't want this, well some of them do. What better targets for British Intelligence to choose ? As for the issue of spilling blood, yes it is worth it, I would be willing to give mine, are you willing to give yours to get it stop ? My guess would be, no. Lets get one thing straight before we continue any further in this discussion, the only reason I live in the USA is because I don't have the money to move to Ireland as of yet. I will be there by August of next year. I do not think that my heritage gives me any knowledge beyond what I have studied on my own. However the point is not for me to die for the cause, now is it ?
But to the average American, Ireland, Wales and Scotland are all the same.
Yea, especially to those millions of average Americans who trace their ancestry to one of those countries. And yes, I mean countries. Invasion and conquest does not automatically revoke your national identity; just ask certain Native Americans.
This is a good issue for divided loyalties. I am basically an internationalist and would like to see a truely democratic version of the UN. But culture is a powerful force and we ignore it at great peril. I cannot think of one revolution that was staged by a multinational group with the express purpose of creating a blended state. Both the US and Russian revolutions were in essence cooperative revolts by states that saw themselves as independent players. It took a Civil War in the US and brutal repression in the USSR to create the nation-states of the '70s. And, of course, the USSR disintegrated at the first opportunity - along cultural divides. So, do we keep pretending that we can all cooperate and create a single, happy entity or do we admit reality and allow the peaceful disintegration of countries into smaller, but still democratic, states?
I think it's understandable that they would want to do it, after all the IRA has set off a bomb or two. As for using it for financial gain, and everything else not related to terrorism, they should string up those who abused the system, not the agency that implemented it.
Don't get me wrong, I loved Braveheart and think England should let Ireland go if they want to go, more power to ya (dresses and all) but I know everyone's going to be screeming bloody murder about privacy and free speech, etc. to which I say, listen to any conversation of mine you want. If you don't like what you hear you shouldn't have been listening. If you catch me doing something illeagal or dangerous, I have no one to blame but myself for committing the act. And like this is something we haven't been doing in America for the last 100 years...;)
My cube. My friend. My solace. My prison.
omigod
Masters of Downloading has the tower!?
They are so l33t!
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Uh oh, there goes my vacation plans. I have an Irish name (Though they've been here close to 200 years), and like most Americans, at least half my ancestors are British. Does that mean I'll still be in trouble?:)
You make it sound like Americans are rather hated over in Britain. I really think I'm going to cancel my vacation plans and stay State Side.
Losing may not have been such a bad thing. Think about how expensive we would be to keep around.:)
I know that part of the reason Americans rebelled was because we didn't wan't to pay for the enormous expense of the British Army protecting the colonists(called taxes). England just about went broke protecting English subjects during the French-Indian wars and just wanted us to help shoulder the costs.One of the less pleasent things about the Revolutionary War. Most people in England were extremely pissed off (and rightfully so I would imagine) Though I think England got even with us. Your government hasn't even paid off the interest on the equipment we sent over during WWI and WWII.:)
BTW, this has gotten way off topic, my email is
jcarney42@hotmail.com if your interested. I am planning to visit England sometime in the near future.I've never been there, and they speak a similar language.
Like most Americans, most of my ancestors came from there, and I seem to have this unnatural affinity for Brits. Can't explain it. Maybe it will get cured after visiting the place?
I have to admit though, I'm a little leary of the English in general. Had some bad experiences with some over here. Trying very hard not to judge an entire country on the actions of a few.
Joe Carney
P.S. I suddenly realized you thought I was Canadian. I'm not. Anyway, you are right, I was unjustly thinking negative statements by your leaders were representative of all Canadians.
One again, I apologize.
In the 70s I lived in Leeds (Yorkshire, UK for those who don't know). When we drove over the West Yorkshire Moors we used to see what looked like several giant golf balls on the moors. The rumour was this was a US National Security Agency site which monitored US communications.
=DIVIDE BY CUCUMBER ERROR: REINSTALL UNIVERSE AND REBOOT=
"We the People" is from the US Constitution, not the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is not a legal or binding document and it does not spell out US citizens' rights; it just affirms general principles that were not really that controversial at the time. And it is generally ignored in the US because it advocates a right to revolution. This may have been noncontroversial in 1776 but in the 1990s it is considered a pretty "radical" opinion. Anyway it is the Constitution, not the Declaration, that says "We the people," and it is the Constitution that is supposed to be the law of the land.
Make a hell of a slashdot hangout and vacation spot. I'll chip in 20# worth.
You WORK for the govt., don't you.
Sheesh, our dope-smoking 'give me liberty or give me death' forefathers had no thoughts of Orwellian baby-sitting the likes of this!
So what if I don't have anything to hide? That doesn't mean I want my conversations pawed over by some chain-smoking CIA pantywipe!
Fact is, when you fight the law, the law wins..everytime.
Boy, if everybody gave up that easy the Constitution would have no amendments.
Don't breed.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
...how do you propose they sniff out the 'evil people' without frisking everyone?? You are advocating a police state, and that is scary and unacceptable.
There is no easy way to deal with terrorists. I for one would rather live with the thought that the unibomber is in my backyard than give up my privacy. At least I also have the right to own a gun to protect myself if he tries to sneak in to raid my fridge at 3am.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
What makes it worse is that the Declaration of Independence doesn't have a jurisdiction. It's not a law, just a document written by a guy who would later become President of a country that didn't exist at the time.
-awc
Read the words: "leagal or not" - what you state is "leagal only" - which is wrong.
The amount of people shot is not linear to the number of guns out there, but no one can get shot if there are no guns.
Mexico is a different thing. You can have all the laws against weapon-owning you want, if the executive (that is: police) does not control these laws enough.
Switzerland has a completely different culture than the rest of the civilized world.
The suiss people have stayed in their self-chosen cultural and political isolation for longer than the USA exists. It is true that suisse has less strict gun-ownership laws than most other european laws, but the percentage of actual gun-owners is less than in the USA.
With your last statement i do fully agree.
--
Jor
Didn't the Eastern-Germans also do this before the wall felt down?? Yes, they did.
Since WOII this technology exists and has been used. And in war all the technology that there is can and will be used against the enemy, even when the rights of innocent humans will be violated.
Yep, that's war. It ain't funny, but it is the thru!
And your point is?
-- PC architecture - what a mess.
Why be paranoid about something that's a fact of life. The Brits do it, we do it, and undoubtably others as well. Fact is, when you fight the law, the law wins..everytime. I personally support this, as an ends to the means of combatting crime and terrorism. If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. Its not like they're capturing your dirty little deeds to make them public; just the dirty deeds of a select criminal element.
Obviously you have no sense of the true nature of people! Power corrupts those who have it. Once they have the power to monitor the "criminals" (in quotes due to the wide range of definitions by differeing people), what is to stop them from monitoring you and me? What is to stop them from returning to McCarthyism where anyone even suspected of anything is prosecuted. My God, man, you must have not ever paid attention in history class, and never heard the quote "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."
Who is to decide who gets monitored and who does not? The politicians? What a horrible idea, they would surely use it to spy on their enemies without any qualms. The military? They would like nothing better than for every person in America to be monitored. The CIA? The worst of all. The people? dream on. They would never give that power to the people, it would be too unwieldy. If you believe that this is a good idea, then you have no right to any privacy what so ever, and you join the masses of our country every day who are deluded and increase the power of the government.
America will always have a gun problem, because it's legal to own the damn things. Here it isn't. It doesn't stop criminals using guns just the same as making drugs illegal hasn't stopped drug taking. You're looking at it from the wrong angle.
Are you insane? Making Guns illegal just means that that criminal with the snub nosed 45 can terrorize 50 people with no thought of retribution. There are several places (Kennesaw Georgia for one) where it is required by law that every household own a firearm, they have a crimerate of less that 1%. Firearm ownership has no bearing on crimerate. I don't see why I, as a tax paying law abiding citizen should not own a Remington 350 magnum and sleep with it loaded on my bedstand in case someone decides he wants to rob my house. Can you honestly say that making gun ownership illegal would stop criminals from obtaining guns? Can you honestly say that you think law abiding citizens should not own firearms?
Kintanon can be reached at Sleffer@hotmail.com
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
darn so ur telling me all those phone calls to relatives, all those emails to friends in england everything i said and heard was logged noted and analysed?
;)
geeee hope they had fun, and i also hope my files went on to corrupt wherever they kept them, whether through static, coffee stains or by someone actually reading the content.
This kinda thing is scary, but i cant really see how it helped them at all. Perhaps they did gather information once in a while on something small but in the end i figure it was pretty pointless for them. What is wrong however is letting it get out.... how will this affect the process now that they learn the english government has been rutting in the underwear drawer.
and as for all those people who seemed to take pleasure in explaining the whole "irish problem" i have one thing to say... i hope michael collins who started all this gets strung up
Thats a nasty attidute there, nasty because its wrong. If you think the british government want to exterminate the irish your an idiot. Britian never really had any interest, they did not force a partition of ireland it was the unionist eliments in northern ireland who were afraid of being exterminated by the catholic irish.
You really don't have a clue, do you?
j.
Tally-ho, yippety-dip, and zing zang spillip. Looking forward to bullying off for the final chukka?
So what? T
The NSA (US National Security Agency) and British intelligence have a big listening post in Yorkshire where they capture virtually all the electonic communication in Europe using computers to scan for key words.
Not only do they look for security and intelligence information but they also use it for commercial espionage. This has mentioned in the Uk press and on Channel 4 News.
Yeah well at least Britain gets some benefit for being a US puppet like shared intelligence and nukes (Trident). But I think the Germans and French are not very happy about this. Anglo-Saxons ganging up as per usual...Hence UK viewed as not 'European'.
Yeah, well we are just bitter that we lost the American War of Independence.
No we like Americans here but it just sucks that Blair doesn't sneeze without Clinton's permission.
Ahh, there's nothing like a well reasoned argument backed by a comprehensive understanding of the issues.
Don't fight it son. Confess quickly! If you hold out too long you could jeopardise your credit rating.
I doubt that Microsoft has ever permitted transmission of Windows Source Code over public (i.e. governmentally interceptable) channels. Certainly not in any comprehensive form, if snippets of it travel off campus from time to time.
The theft of trade secrets usually happens from inside, not from an outside agency.
Personally, I wonder if Hussein's and Milosevic's hold on power has more to do with a US policy of "better the devil you know" coupled with a dash of lingering American isolationism rather than being cases of possession being 9/10ths of the law :)
Course, I could be wrong - it's happened before.