A, you do realize that some activities truly are disruptive? What would have happened in WW2 if someone decided that the fact that Britain was reading Enigma traffic "wanted to be free" - free directly to the Germans? Britain was in genuine danger of starvation as it was. That could have easily ensured that Britain did starve, and cost the Allies the war.
What you refer to as "US political sympathy" for the IRA was a limited section of the population, not a national policy.
There are few ideas so evil or bad that they can't find support. There are still Nazis and communists, aren't there? You do know that there are movements dedicated to the self-extermination of human life to "save the environment"?
National security and putting people in danger seems like a smoke screen at this point.
Really? I could have sworn we had a story touching on that --- yesterday. The paint isn't even dry yet and people are forgetting already?
If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry
I don't really recall seeing the government making that argument. I see many people claim it does. The closest I recall is when they say they are looking for terrorists, not ordinary people. That is rather different.
You didn't really answer the question, or maybe you did and the answer is that there is no evidence adequate to convince you that a terrorist plot is real. The eternal vigilance necessary to maintain a free society is a separate question from the existence and reality of terrorist groups that would attack that society and the people in it. If you are so willing to believe that members of the government can behave badly, why can't you accept that other people may behave badly as well and engage in terrorism? Do you think that acknowledging the existence of terrorists is dangerous in some manner?
Here is a question for you. Why is it you and the "conspiracy-minded friends" you describe all find it plausible that the government is engaging in conspiracies, but apparently dismiss the possibility that there are terrorists engaging in conspiracies to commit murder and mayhem? It isn't like there isn't a history of plots, attacks, arrests, and convictions of actual and would be terrorists. Why do you, and they, dismiss that evidence? Are we heading down the road of everything being a "false flag".... the plague of Slashdot discussions for so many years in which nothing is what it is? Or is there some other reason? Is there any level of proof that would sway either you or them?
Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.â
Really? I don't recall one or two major acts of terrorism a year since 2000. In fact I only recall one (7/7), and maybe you could count the bungled attempt to bomb an airport but those guys were laughably dumb. So what are the other 20 odd major acts of terrorism that I somehow slept through?
( Note to moderators: The question was asked, I'm answering it. )
Here is a starter for you. I'm quite sure there are more out there since this was just a hasty search. When I started this post I was assuming that plots would count as "acts," but it looks like the number goes well over anyway between the various Islamists and the Real IRA. (As this was done in haste I may have posted something redundant, but it really doesn't alter the outcome much. A more careful search would no doubt turn up more.)
Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.
Counter-terrorism officials said last night they believe British terrorists who are still at large were involved in the conspiracy to launch car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow. Details emerged as it became clear that five of the suspects under arrest are doctors working and training in the NHS, and one is a doctor working in Australia where he was arrested last night.
Shasta Khan and her husband also had beheading videos, bomb-making guides and bleach at their home Police found the terror-related material after being called to a domestic dispute at their house A satnav showed they had been on multiple trips to Jewish populated areas looking for targets
A British soldier was hacked to death by two men shouting Islamic slogans in a south London street on Wednesday, in what the government said appeared to be a terrorist attack.
A dramatic clip filmed by an onlooker just minutes after the killing showed a man with hands covered in blood, brandishing a bloodied meat cleaver and a knife. "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day," the black man in his 20s or 30s, wearing a wool jacket and jeans
Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money.
No, there were cases that showed the same problem handing the IRA then as handling al Qaida today. The administration wanted to hand them over, but a court blocked it in much the same way as the courts have intervened in various aspects of the fight against al Qaida.
In response to the massacre,[21] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $140 for a four year license; in addition applicants must pay $10 for fingerprinting as well as instructor costs which vary.
The point of conducting investigations and arrests is to prevent an attack. Experience shows that doing police work that way results in many fewer people having their civil rights violated by high velocity lead pellets or bomb fragments which render them dead. So, something did in fact happen: investigation showed a plot in the works and arrests were made.
BRITAIN DID TO KENYA... terrify prisoners... ‘maul’ them... Abu Ghraib... various indignities.... sodomise one another...
What relevance does any of that have to either this incident? What relevance does it have to the terrorist attack at Westgate mall last month that these suspects apparently hoped to recreate?
That axe of yours must be getting might sharp with all the grinding.
The presence of SAS men and Israeli commandos in Westgate, at the time of the attack is remarkable.
You find the antiterrorist forces responding to a terrorist attack to be remarkable? Much like the Fire Brigade showing up at a fire?
The only question for those in possession of the facts is this: Was Westgate allowed to happen by those who could have prevented it, or was it actually sponsored by those same agencies?
The leadership of the terrorist group could have prevented it, but it fit with their plans and usual method of operation. My question is, why do you keep denying that?
Random accidents and disease are different than deliberate, planned human action. If not, then why prosecute bank robberies, murder, and assault? Why not just report them like an accidental drowning and be done with it? There is a flaw to your thinking. If unchecked, terrorist violence grows.
Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.
Since you're Canadian, perhaps you could comment on this plot. Was it "fake" too?
One of the key figures in a conspiracy to set off three truck bombs in Canada has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Zakaria Amara, 24, pleaded guilty in October to co-leading the Islamist militant group dubbed the Toronto 18. The group's targets included the city's stock exchange and a military base.
These sorts of attacks are consistent with the announced intention of terrorist groups around the world. I think you need to present some evidence rather than simply make proclamations.
Armed police shot at the tyres of a car to stop two suspected terrorists during a dramatic series of raids to foil an alleged plot to attack the UK.
Officers fired special Hatton rounds – large shotgun ammunition designed to burst tyres or breach doors – to force the vehicle over in east London on Sunday evening. Witnesses also reported seeing police ram the back of the car before it was finally brought to a halt while a helicopter hovered overhead. In simultaneous arrests, armed officers swooped on a man in the street in west London while a fourth man was arrested at a flat south east of the city. A large number of armed officers were used because it was feared the men had access to weapons and were planning a suspected Islamist terror attack, the Daily Telegraph understands.
The head of MI5 is concerned about the diminishing margin of advantage they have to detect such things in the face of a continuing threat.
Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Parker pointed out the statistics of the threat from terrorism faced by the UK. The “plain facts”, he said, were that “from 11 September 2001 to the end of March this year, 330 people were convicted of terrorism related- offences in Britain In the first few months of this year, there were four major trials related to terrorist plots. Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.”
When armed conflict passes certain thresholds it is no longer simply a matter of criminal law to be dealt with by the police. That is why Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy after the Muslim Barbary pirates instead of constables in row boats. That is why President Obama has sent the Navy and SEAL teams to deal with the Somali pirates. That is why Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all used the armed forces to deal with al Qaida. Yes, that's right, President Clinton was using the armed forces to deal with them before 9/11. Al Qaida has trained at least tens of thousands of terrorists around the world. They have been armed with everything from pistols to machineguns, to rocket propelled grenades to long range multiple rocket launchers. They have been experimenting with, and trying to develop, biological and chemical weapons, and hope to acquire nuclear or radiological weapons. They actually did use chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Al Qaida is not even close to being purely a police problem. Al Qaida actually formed an elite brigade as part of the fighting forces of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. When dealing with al Qaida inside the US, they can normally be dealt with by police and investigative agencies at the local, state, and federal level since the scope of the problem is generally limited. However, the military still has to be ready to intervene internally in the event of a large attack or incident. Outside the US the military has a key role in dealing with al Qaida.
You should also keep in mind that US police forces are generally small, and locally based. Unlike many European nations, and others around the world, the US doesn't have a paramilitary gendarme like the French Gendarmerie nationale, the Italian Carabinieri, or Spanish Guardia Civil. (No, the local SWAT team doesn't count.) Even if it did, the scope of the problem posed by al Qaida and associates is too big for even a paramilitary gendarme unless it was very large, expeditionary in nature, and unusually heavily armed. At that point you might as well issue badges to the US Marine Corp.
The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign nationals outside of the US. So, you don't really have a handle on that.
Legally, there are categories of searches that don't require a warrant. When a warrant is required, the probable cause standard is generally going to apply.
This is basically accepting someone else's word, their records about you, as evidence.
Pretty much correct, much as a sales receipt could be, or phone records of your calls.
It is now legally acceptable for the government to enter "hearsay" as evidence against you.
That isn't "hearsay" evidence. It is business records.
You aren't even allowed to challenge it, like you can any other evidence.
Their argument is that you can't challenge the fact that they collected the records. You could try challenging the accuracy of the record - good luck with that.
It basically boils down to, "You're guilty because we say you are. Now take it like a bitch!"
No, you still have to be convicted on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You may recall al Shabaab as the group behind the recent slaughter at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.
As terrible as that was, I wish I could say that qualified as a major slaughter in Africa. Are you aware of what's happened in, for example, the Congo in recent years? The Second Congo War was the bloodiest war since WWII, and most Americans have never even heard of it. I don't know if the US should have gotten involved to stop it, but it didn't. Now we're sanctimonious about a mall shooting? That's called a political agenda, not a concern for human life.
So because the US didn't take up arms in a war in the interior of Africa already involving 9 nations and 20 armed groups 15 years ago it shouldn't condemn the deliberate torture and slaughter by terrorists of 67 innocent civilians, and wounding of 175 more, at a shopping mall in a nation at peace last month? Does the fact that those terrorists are tied to terrorists that want to attack the US and Europe somehow excuse them?
I think the best way to describe your view is by quoting someone known to write both some smart things, and on occasion some very silly things.
"That's called a political agenda, not a concern for human life." -- ebno-10db
Slashdot Mirror
A, you do realize that some activities truly are disruptive? What would have happened in WW2 if someone decided that the fact that Britain was reading Enigma traffic "wanted to be free" - free directly to the Germans? Britain was in genuine danger of starvation as it was. That could have easily ensured that Britain did starve, and cost the Allies the war.
What you refer to as "US political sympathy" for the IRA was a limited section of the population, not a national policy.
There are few ideas so evil or bad that they can't find support. There are still Nazis and communists, aren't there? You do know that there are movements dedicated to the self-extermination of human life to "save the environment"?
National security and putting people in danger seems like a smoke screen at this point.
Really? I could have sworn we had a story touching on that --- yesterday. The paint isn't even dry yet and people are forgetting already?
If you've nothing to hide you've nothing to worry
I don't really recall seeing the government making that argument. I see many people claim it does. The closest I recall is when they say they are looking for terrorists, not ordinary people. That is rather different.
Unfortunately things can be a bit more complicated than what the phrase about journalists and your praise of Greenwald suggests.
We have taught our children to submit quietly to criminals for too long. It is time we start teaching them to defend themselves.
Well said. Britain is more likely to remain great when there is no shortage of great Britons.
Cheers
Do you have any thoughts on these incidents?
Times Square car bomb: Pakistani Taliban 'claims responsibility'
With Nidal Hasan bombshell, time to call Fort Hood shooting a terror attack?
I just thought I would ask since I had them handy. I'm pretty sure I could find more if I had to.
That transition has been going on for a long time. The net effect, so to speak, will be close to zero.
You didn't really answer the question, or maybe you did and the answer is that there is no evidence adequate to convince you that a terrorist plot is real. The eternal vigilance necessary to maintain a free society is a separate question from the existence and reality of terrorist groups that would attack that society and the people in it. If you are so willing to believe that members of the government can behave badly, why can't you accept that other people may behave badly as well and engage in terrorism? Do you think that acknowledging the existence of terrorists is dangerous in some manner?
Here is a question for you. Why is it you and the "conspiracy-minded friends" you describe all find it plausible that the government is engaging in conspiracies, but apparently dismiss the possibility that there are terrorists engaging in conspiracies to commit murder and mayhem? It isn't like there isn't a history of plots, attacks, arrests, and convictions of actual and would be terrorists. Why do you, and they, dismiss that evidence? Are we heading down the road of everything being a "false flag".... the plague of Slashdot discussions for so many years in which nothing is what it is? Or is there some other reason? Is there any level of proof that would sway either you or them?
Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.â
Really? I don't recall one or two major acts of terrorism a year since 2000. In fact I only recall one (7/7), and maybe you could count the bungled attempt to bomb an airport but those guys were laughably dumb. So what are the other 20 odd major acts of terrorism that I somehow slept through?
( Note to moderators: The question was asked, I'm answering it. )
Here is a starter for you. I'm quite sure there are more out there since this was just a hasty search. When I started this post I was assuming that plots would count as "acts," but it looks like the number goes well over anyway between the various Islamists and the Real IRA. (As this was done in haste I may have posted something redundant, but it really doesn't alter the outcome much. A more careful search would no doubt turn up more.)
Bomb plot: Life sentence for Irfan Naseer, ringleader of Birmingham men planning wave of UK suicide attacks
London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists
Four men pleaded guilty to plotting a Christmas bomb attack on the London Stock Exchange and causing a 'Mumbai-style' atrocity.
Fertiliser bomb plot: The story
Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.
British terrorists conspired in bombs plot - security officials
Counter-terrorism officials said last night they believe British terrorists who are still at large were involved in the conspiracy to launch car bomb attacks on London and Glasgow.
Details emerged as it became clear that five of the suspects under arrest are doctors working and training in the NHS, and one is a doctor working in Australia where he was arrested last night.
Airline terror trial: The bomb plot to kill 10,000 people
On honeymoon in the sunshine, Britons who forged a terror plot to plant peroxide and bleach bombs in Jewish areas
Shasta Khan and her husband also had beheading videos, bomb-making guides and bleach at their home
Police found the terror-related material after being called to a domestic dispute at their house
A satnav showed they had been on multiple trips to Jewish populated areas looking for targets
British soldier hacked to death in suspected Islamist attack
A British soldier was hacked to death by two men shouting Islamic slogans in a south London street on Wednesday, in what the government said appeared to be a terrorist attack.
A dramatic clip filmed by an onlooker just minutes after the killing showed a man with hands covered in blood, brandishing a bloodied meat cleaver and a knife. "We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day," the black man in his 20s or 30s, wearing a wool jacket and jeans
The worst that would have happened was someone getting away with their car and wallets.
You don't know that. It could have ended up like this: Crime History: Wendy's workers killed execution-style
Or this: Chuck E Cheese killer, Nathan J. Dunlap moves closer to execution, Supreme Court rejects appeal
Really for most of my lifetime the terrorist problem in the United Kingdom was expatiated by the U.S.A. harbouring convicted terrorists and refusing to extradite them back to the U.K. while all the time allowing said terrorist groups to raise money.
No, there were cases that showed the same problem handing the IRA then as handling al Qaida today. The administration wanted to hand them over, but a court blocked it in much the same way as the courts have intervened in various aspects of the fight against al Qaida.
Quite correct.
Luby's massacre
In response to the massacre,[21] the Texas Legislature in 1995 passed a shall-issue gun law, which requires that all qualifying applicants be issued a Concealed Handgun License (the state's required permit to carry concealed weapons), removing the personal discretion of the issuing authority to deny such licenses. To qualify for a license, one must be free-and-clear of crimes, attend a minimum 10-hour class taught by a state-certified instructor, pass a 50-question test, show proficiency in a 50-round shooting test, and pass two background tests, one shallow and one deep. The license costs $140 for a four year license; in addition applicants must pay $10 for fingerprinting as well as instructor costs which vary.
And so: Woman with Concealed Carry Permit Stops 6 Robbers in Houston
This is such a non-story the BBC aren't bothering to report it.
False.
Terror raid: Police continue to quiz London suspects
Terror raid: London suspects questioned
The point of conducting investigations and arrests is to prevent an attack. Experience shows that doing police work that way results in many fewer people having their civil rights violated by high velocity lead pellets or bomb fragments which render them dead. So, something did in fact happen: investigation showed a plot in the works and arrests were made.
So you see no difference between a planned massacre and that nonsense? No difference between mass murder and pamphleteering?
BRITAIN DID TO KENYA ... terrify prisoners ... ‘maul’ them... Abu Ghraib ... various indignities .... sodomise one another ...
What relevance does any of that have to either this incident? What relevance does it have to the terrorist attack at Westgate mall last month that these suspects apparently hoped to recreate?
That axe of yours must be getting might sharp with all the grinding.
The presence of SAS men and Israeli commandos in Westgate, at the time of the attack is remarkable.
You find the antiterrorist forces responding to a terrorist attack to be remarkable? Much like the Fire Brigade showing up at a fire?
The only question for those in possession of the facts is this: Was Westgate allowed to happen by those who could have prevented it, or was it actually sponsored by those same agencies?
The leadership of the terrorist group could have prevented it, but it fit with their plans and usual method of operation. My question is, why do you keep denying that?
Random accidents and disease are different than deliberate, planned human action. If not, then why prosecute bank robberies, murder, and assault? Why not just report them like an accidental drowning and be done with it? There is a flaw to your thinking. If unchecked, terrorist violence grows.
Since you keep making these claims, you must have some evidence. Can you present it? Or is this just a crank theory of yours?
Were the 7/7 London attacks "fake" too? Including the 52 dead bodies?
Are the convictions that the police are getting "fake" too?
London terror bomb plot: the four terrorists
Four men pleaded guilty to plotting a Christmas bomb attack on the London Stock Exchange and causing a 'Mumbai-style' atrocity.
Fertiliser bomb plot: The story
Five men have been convicted of plotting to build a bomb which police say could have killed hundreds of British people. The men were caught after police and MI5 launched a massive surveillance operation.
Since you're Canadian, perhaps you could comment on this plot. Was it "fake" too?
Canada jails Toronto truck bomb plotter Zakaria Amara
One of the key figures in a conspiracy to set off three truck bombs in Canada has been sentenced to life imprisonment. Zakaria Amara, 24, pleaded guilty in October to co-leading the Islamist militant group dubbed the Toronto 18. The group's targets included the city's stock exchange and a military base.
These sorts of attacks are consistent with the announced intention of terrorist groups around the world. I think you need to present some evidence rather than simply make proclamations.
This was a somewhat more exciting series of arrests than usual.
Police shoot at car in suspected terror raids
Armed police shot at the tyres of a car to stop two suspected terrorists during a dramatic series of raids to foil an alleged plot to attack the UK.
Officers fired special Hatton rounds – large shotgun ammunition designed to burst tyres or breach doors – to force the vehicle over in east London on Sunday evening. Witnesses also reported seeing police ram the back of the car before it was finally brought to a halt while a helicopter hovered overhead. In simultaneous arrests, armed officers swooped on a man in the street in west London while a fourth man was arrested at a flat south east of the city. A large number of armed officers were used because it was feared the men had access to weapons and were planning a suspected Islamist terror attack, the Daily Telegraph understands.
The head of MI5 is concerned about the diminishing margin of advantage they have to detect such things in the face of a continuing threat.
Speaking at the Royal United Services Institute in London, Mr Parker pointed out the statistics of the threat from terrorism faced by the UK. The “plain facts”, he said, were that “from 11 September 2001 to the end of March this year, 330 people were convicted of terrorism related- offences in Britain In the first few months of this year, there were four major trials related to terrorist plots. Since 2000, we have seen serious major acts of terrorism in this country typically once or twice a year.”
When armed conflict passes certain thresholds it is no longer simply a matter of criminal law to be dealt with by the police. That is why Thomas Jefferson sent the Navy after the Muslim Barbary pirates instead of constables in row boats. That is why President Obama has sent the Navy and SEAL teams to deal with the Somali pirates. That is why Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama have all used the armed forces to deal with al Qaida. Yes, that's right, President Clinton was using the armed forces to deal with them before 9/11. Al Qaida has trained at least tens of thousands of terrorists around the world. They have been armed with everything from pistols to machineguns, to rocket propelled grenades to long range multiple rocket launchers. They have been experimenting with, and trying to develop, biological and chemical weapons, and hope to acquire nuclear or radiological weapons. They actually did use chlorine gas in attacks in Iraq. Al Qaida is not even close to being purely a police problem. Al Qaida actually formed an elite brigade as part of the fighting forces of the Taliban government of Afghanistan. When dealing with al Qaida inside the US, they can normally be dealt with by police and investigative agencies at the local, state, and federal level since the scope of the problem is generally limited. However, the military still has to be ready to intervene internally in the event of a large attack or incident. Outside the US the military has a key role in dealing with al Qaida.
You should also keep in mind that US police forces are generally small, and locally based. Unlike many European nations, and others around the world, the US doesn't have a paramilitary gendarme like the French Gendarmerie nationale, the Italian Carabinieri, or Spanish Guardia Civil. (No, the local SWAT team doesn't count.) Even if it did, the scope of the problem posed by al Qaida and associates is too big for even a paramilitary gendarme unless it was very large, expeditionary in nature, and unusually heavily armed. At that point you might as well issue badges to the US Marine Corp.
The 4th Amendment doesn't apply to foreign nationals outside of the US. So, you don't really have a handle on that.
Presumably the email account and/or client could/would have the email, and email servers along the path would have a record of the message.
If he was under surveillance they would probably be capturing the email.
Legally, there are categories of searches that don't require a warrant. When a warrant is required, the probable cause standard is generally going to apply.
This is basically accepting someone else's word, their records about you, as evidence.
Pretty much correct, much as a sales receipt could be, or phone records of your calls.
It is now legally acceptable for the government to enter "hearsay" as evidence against you.
That isn't "hearsay" evidence. It is business records.
You aren't even allowed to challenge it, like you can any other evidence.
Their argument is that you can't challenge the fact that they collected the records. You could try challenging the accuracy of the record - good luck with that.
It basically boils down to, "You're guilty because we say you are. Now take it like a bitch!"
No, you still have to be convicted on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
You may recall al Shabaab as the group behind the recent slaughter at the Westgate Mall in Nairobi.
As terrible as that was, I wish I could say that qualified as a major slaughter in Africa. Are you aware of what's happened in, for example, the Congo in recent years? The Second Congo War was the bloodiest war since WWII, and most Americans have never even heard of it. I don't know if the US should have gotten involved to stop it, but it didn't. Now we're sanctimonious about a mall shooting? That's called a political agenda, not a concern for human life.
So because the US didn't take up arms in a war in the interior of Africa already involving 9 nations and 20 armed groups 15 years ago it shouldn't condemn the deliberate torture and slaughter by terrorists of 67 innocent civilians, and wounding of 175 more, at a shopping mall in a nation at peace last month? Does the fact that those terrorists are tied to terrorists that want to attack the US and Europe somehow excuse them?
I think the best way to describe your view is by quoting someone known to write both some smart things, and on occasion some very silly things.
"That's called a political agenda, not a concern for human life." -- ebno-10db
I hope we're past the "sanctimonious" part too.