FYI - Just in case you have one particular meaning in mind. (It is sometimes hard to tell in written communication.)
For constitutional purposes, the joint resolution passed with but a single dissenting vote by Congress on Sept. 14, 2001, was the equivalent of a formal declaration of war. The Supreme Court held in 1800 (Bas v. Tingy), and again in 1801 (Talbot v. Seamen), that Congress could formally authorize war by joint resolution without passing a formal declaration of war; and in the post-U.N. Charter era no state has issued a formal declaration of war. Such declarations, in fact, have become as much an anachronism as the power of Congress to issue letters of marque and reprisal (outlawed by treaty in 1856). Formal declarations were historically only required when a state was initiating an aggressive war, which today is unlawful.-- FISA vs. the Constitution
It would be easy to separate target acquisition sensors from target engagement sensors.
They could keep the weapons and target engagement sensors protected in underground bunkers until the firing cycle. That would keep them both protected and hidden.
The use of camouflage and dummy positions would make it more difficult to engage the real weapons stations while exposing the attackers
They could add armor.
They could employ longer range weapons and engage further out.
Ammo storage could be beltless, from an underground magazine.
It looks like a promising technology, but certainly won't be foolproof.
Well, lets have a go at this. But first, it needs to be understood that a state of war exists between North Korea and the South Korea / United Nations forces. They are separated by the DMZ. Anyone in the DMZ is subject to being fired on. It has been like this for 50 years now. From time to time there are incidents that kill people, and threaten to bring the war hot again.
The junior Kim has vowed 'complete liberation of the peninsula', a task left 'half-done' by Kim Il-sung. He is apparently determined to become 'the president of a unified Korea' through armed force.-- Hwang Jang-yop (former Worker's Party Secretary) Speaks
- inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats
In the DMZ, if it moves, it dies. No problem. That is why they can freely use mines there.
- massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator
Nobody should be in the DMZ. If they are, you can kill them. See above. Also, not a problem with mines.
- probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above
Nope. See above.
- fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet
One of those places that has large numbers of people who are starving is in North Korea. They are starving because of the Stalinist, failed, barbaricpolicies of the crime family government of the psychotic "Dear Leader". The people in South Korea would prefer that the 1,000,000 man army in the North, whose reason for being is primarily to reunite the country someday as they previously had, not impose the North's government upon them. There could be peace, and a lot less military spending on the Korean peninsula, if that was what North Korea wanted. Sadly, it isn't, and the North Korean people will continue to suffer. At least with devices like this, millions of fewer people will be starving since it will help contain the area under control of the vile North Korean regime.
I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.
No, ammo is a real concern, especially if large numbers of infantry start coming across the border. They could probably keep a large supply in a bunker though.
I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.
Why go for half measures? Why not just ban war by treaty? Its been done before, and would be at least as effective as what you suggest. I think it would also be much easier to reach agreement on simply banning war since it could be done on simple principle. Your proposal would require all manner of messy discussions about different type of weapons, their munitions, and variations. If you have having that discussion you might have to include some types of obstacles too, since some of them are dangerous and can kill passively. You are better off just banning war since that means that tiny little countries are safe from big, aggressive neighbors. Under your proposal, the tiny countries would be stripped of many useful defensive weapons that can act as combat multipliers to help defend them from a much bigger attacker. That would leave them vulnerable to being easily conquered, and who wants that?
Although there are elements of truth to what you have to say, the stark manner in which you have presented it will cause the Slashdot mainstream to vilify you and force you to wear a polka dot hat.
Let us hope that the Commander Tacoyev reforms of 2007 are accepted. Then, Slashdot will be as civilized as any other blog and:
- You will no longer be forced to wear polka dot hat. - I can continue to drink fermented barley water - Pretty girls riding the bus can ask sit on my lap
I suggest a multi-thousand dollar prize for the first hacker who can open up their servers so the N.K. citizens can see the whole web.
I can't say there is much to recommend it. It is likely that there would be no meaningful payoff that would last more than minutes. Even if you were successful in creating temporary access to a wider range of internet sites, it is likely that the few North Koreas who use the web would be too terrified to make use of it, assuming they even knew about it. Given the nature of the regime, you can assume that their secret police record, monitor, review, and act on the traffic in ways that far exceed the most lurid fantasies about the NSA. Surfing unauthorized web sites would likely constitute a punishable act, especially if an unauthorized site was visited that contained unvetted political, economic, or religious information. If you've stepped over the line in North Korea, you could easily fall prey to the "heredity rule", developed the Dear Leader's father. Under that rule, the North Korean secret police arrest and imprison three generations of a family for the misdeeds of one of them, often for life, which can be short in a North Korean "prison camp" AKA death camp.
Besides, the international incident with the paranoid, now nuclear armed, barbaric regime which is starving its people wouldn't be worth it.
If anyone still insists on it, I suggest you stay away from at least the Koreas and Japan as North Korea has a long history of kidnapping people from those countries for various reasons. Given their ties to organized crime, due to their many criminal enterprises, they could reach even further. Life there is tough even when you are useful to them.
Actually, there is additional evidence. The most interesting is that they have her hand written notes, which lead to a charge in themselves. That also doesnt' include any other evidence they found that lead to her, or that was on her computer.
Recall that from the information so far the investigation is into planned attack on planes with explosives by people with no tickets, no passports, no back door onto a plane, no explosives, no explosive components and no equipment to manufacture explosives.
The charges stem from a cache of information seized during the months-long investigation into the plot, including "highly significant video and audio recordings" taken before August 10, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said at a news conference on Monday.
Those recordings include what are called "martyrdom videos," Clarke said.
British authorities have carried out a total of 69 searches of residences, businesses, vehicles and open spaces, which have netted bomb-making equipment and chemicals such as hydrogen peroxide, Clarke said.
"As well as the bomb-making equipment, we have found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 items of removable storage media such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs," he said.
"So far, from the computers alone, we have removed some 6,000 gigabytes of data."
It will take "many months" for investigators to analyze all of the data, he said. CNN's Robin Oakley said the sheer amount of material seized by police indicated that it would be some time before a trial starts.
Oakley said he believed police had revealed so much information partly to assure the public that the terror threat remained high more than a year after the London bombings that killed 52 people and the four bombers.
They also found at least two firearms and £19,000 in cash.
I think that qualifies as evidence. They were making a genuine attempt at the plot.
No officer of the law has ever selectively enforced a law or falsely accused someone of a crime because of religion, skin color, or opinions.
Accusations are easy, convictions actually take evidence.
I very much doubt that a bunch of white Protestants planning to blow up a airliner would get any breaks compared to a bunch of Asian Muslims planning to do the same thing in either enforcement or sentencing.
Must be a nice universe.
Before rushing to judgment, lets see how things work out in Londonistan.
One informed source I've seen estimates that the IRA had 800 active members in the early '70s. In 1972 there were about 1,800 bombings that killed about 370 people. The IRA's goal was political pressure, to get the British to leave Northern Ireland and return to the UK. As a result, it wasn't unusual for there to be a warning about a bomb 5-30 minutes before it went off, or they blew up things when people weren't there. Although there were bombings that killed large numbers of people, I don't think that the IRA was interested in mass slaughter, by and large.
The Islamist extremists, on the other hand, are ultimately waging an imperialist war against Western civilization and culture. They want to become its masters, to force the West to either convert to Islam and live under Islamic Sharia law, or to submit to Muslim rulers. They want to reform the Muslim superstate, the Caliphate, uniting church and state and governing all Muslim lands. (They understand this may take a long time, but they are prepared to do their little bit. They still seethe over losing battles 1,000 years ago, getting kicked out of Spain, etc.) If we don't convert or submit, it is their duty to kill us. That is seldom outright stated, usually the tactical goal is some complaint against US or UK forces being in this country or that, or policy supporting this government or that, but that isn't the long term goal. They also feel free to kill us as infidels. The Islamists don't make warning calls and they plan their attacks to maximize casualties. It has been revealed, for example, that Al Qaeda called off an attack using poison gas in New York subways because they weren't sure that it would kill as many people as they wanted. Look at the Bali Bombing, the 7/7 bombings, the Madrid bombing, and 9/11. That is the pattern of Islamist extremist terror: if the infidel will not bow to our demands, kill them in as large of numbers as possible. 9/11 destroyed 4 jet aircraft, a major sky scraper, heavily damaged one of the largest office buildings in the world (the Pentagon), killed ~ 3,000 people, and did $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. The recently foilded attack plan in the UK was intended to bring down 10 jet aircraft full of people, killing thousands.
There are at least two times the number of Islamist extremists being watched as the IRA had at its height of 1,800 bombings in a year. The Islamists goal is to kill as many as possible per bomb. They are trying to get their campaign going.
What got her into trouble wasn't reading books or playing video games, it was allegedly engaging in terrorist plotting with a cell of like minded people with large sums of cash and night vision scopes, who traveled to areas known as terrorist havens while carrying terrorist training material, and who had an interest in bombs, poison, and weapons.
Being Muslim had nothing to do with her getting into trouble, although it was very likely the source of her inspiration to engage in terrorist activities.
Muslims are no more second class citizens in the UK than the Welsh,.... or Irish Druids.
I don't think that you have to wait for it to go to court to find out. If similar items are offered openly in stores, they probably aren't illegal. Alternatively, any decent lawyer should be able to answer the question.
The thing is, that's an interesting list of books. I'm a curious person, if the guy I loaned my room to left those books on the coffee table I'd pick them up and read them. If he moved out, I wouldn't throw them away.
Fine so far.
The issue isn't whether she's a terrorist or not.
Well, actually, I think it is.
The issue is that mere possession of such reading material should not be illegal.
Where is that indicated? My read on it is that it is the combination, just like the perfectly legal crowbar in your workshop can turn into a "burglary tool" when it is in your hands at 3:00 AM in the back of a house down the block when you are trying to break in.
I am exceedingly fucking worried that it is deemed illegal..... When mere possession, especially without intent, becomes illegal, then everybody is a criminal. This is very very wrong.
I have no doubt that you are exceedingly worried, but I don't think that you are right about this being an issue of mere possession. It seems pretty likely to me that she had the intent.
I'm willing to grant that I could be wrong about this, but I would want to see some evidence.
No, not random computers. Computers of minorities and people whom they don't like.
Although that is more or less right, it needs to be clarified. What you should say is that they search the computers of the minority of people who are engaged in or supporting terrorism. The police also happen to dislike it when people support or engage in terrorism, like trying to blow up the police or other fine subjects of Her Majesty's realm. Fortunately, the majority of Her Majesty's subjects, including the Muslims, are peace loving people who don't engage in terrorism, and are therefore likable.
I hear that next year's Darwin Award winners will be heavily drawn from people reading this stuff and trying it at home, or finding some pissed off Muslims to try it with.
The write-up is wrong. Now is the time to download ALL the above-mentioned documents, and share them. Let them try to arrest all of us.
I think it is safe to say you missed the essential elements of what happened, so lets recap what we know from the news:
The arrested was Samina Malik, 22, an Asian woman who allegedly was working or had worked at Heathrow airport as a shop assistant. (Could she have been an insider at a juicy target for terrorists?) She has been charged with four offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Malik was allegedly associated with Sohail Anjum Qureshi, previously charged as part of the same investigation. How was he nabbed? It is alleged that on 18 October he was plotting to go to Pakistan (well known as home to various terrorist organizations, training camps, and the gateway to Afghanistan)(groups in Pakistan have been tied to a number of attacks planned against the UK) taking with him, among other things:
-Camping equipment -£9,000 cash -A night vision scope -The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook -Two metal batons -Combat manuals
It is alleged that was taking terrorist materials to Islamabad..
Investigators then followed the trail from Anjum, back to Malik. Allegedly, she had a number of publications on her computer from what look to be a narrow range of interests:
The al-Qaeda Manual, The Terrorists Handbook The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook How To Win Hand-To-Hand Fighting The Firearms and RPG Handbook Dragunov sniper rifle manual 9mm pistol manual Anti-tank mine manual
(Fascinating reading for a 22 year old woman, isn't it? Do you think her goal was to be the life of the party?)
She was allegedly filling a writing pad full of handwritten notes, which led to one of the charges against her. (Any bets about what those notes were about? Hmmmm... Heathrow... Pakistan... Al Qaeda....)
No doubt there are other aspects of this that we don't know about. As it is, you have to scour several news reports to get this much.
Now, I very much doubt that she is in trouble simply for having those document in and of themselves. What is likely the case is that it is the combination of what she was doing, involving herself with some sort of terrorist cell, AND having those documents. That is trouble in the same sense that having a crowbar in the garage means you have a crowbar in your garage, whereas having a crowbar in your hands at 3:00 AM in back of somebody's house in the next town over means you have a burglar tool, which will make you subject to heavy penalties.
I doubt that the authorities have much interest in trying to arrest people for simply having those publications. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that their hands are more than full simply trying to cope with the small percentage of people that both have those publications and are trying to use them in attempts to kill large numbers of people. You may also want to keep in mind that the more false signals you generate, the less effective the police will be in tracking down those who are trying to kill you for being, take your pick: an infidel, British
That's exactly what they're moving towards. It is a succession of British Home Secretaries' wet dream.
They already routinely intercept all Internet communication (go on, tell me you believe otherwise).
I doubt that they have either the storage or analytical capacity for ALL internet communications, including file transfers in emails, ftp, ssh, and uucp. Its pretty certain that they aren't getting much, if any, mail moving over VPNs,.
They already have a law that makes it a criminal offence not to provide the necessary keys to decrypt any encrypted data they believe you have on your system (even if they have no proof either that such data is really there or that you have such decryption keys, if memory serves).
In which case you have a number of investigators, legal personnel, and technicians tied up over 1 pc, and you know about it. How did you end up there? How are they managing to do that to the tens of millions of other PCs in the UK? That doesn't really seem to scale.
The next logical step, using government logic and assuming you don't buy the conspiracy theories about certain mainstream OSes already doing it, is to mandate the installation of government-sanctioned security software on all computers connected to the Internet.
Flight of fancy / political porn.
In a highly-connected world, that would get you pretty close to arbitrary scanning of everyone's hard drive.
Assuming the above is true, which I don't grant. Besides, not everyone's PC is hooked to the internet at all times, and many people are still on slow connections. And, of course, that also assumes that security software, hardware firewalls, and sniffers would never notice the traffic.
Of course, any terrorist is unlikely to voluntarily install such software or connect a computer with detailed planning of their proposed atrocities to the Internet,
So you admit that scanning of all computers won't be mandatory and enforced?
but since when has whether a law will actually help to prevent terrorist attacks had any connection with government legislative policy in the UK?
Since 9/11? Since 7/7? Since some of the various IRA campaigns? You tell me.
My point is that the charge against her is apparently "possession of forbidden documents."
I think you are probably completely wrong there. I think it is most likely she has run afoul of the law for what you could call "contextual crimes", that is, having something that is innocent unless you are involved in law breaking which could involve that particular item. Some examples:
A crowbar in your workshop or garage is a crowbar. A crowbar in your hands at 3:00 AM in another town used to help break into a house is considered a burglary tool, and in many jurisdictions will subject you to heavy penalty, possibly years in jail.
Owning a gun in the United States is legal in most places. Using that gun in a crime makes it a "gun crime" which generally makes the penalty much more severe than if you had been unarmed, or armed with a lesser weapon.
Having a manual on boobytraps may be perfectly legal. That is, until you get involved with a band of extremists and make plans or preparations to actually emplace boobytraps. Then, possession of that manual becomes an element of criminal planning, and a tool to accomplish what may turn into a serious or even capital crime.
The list of manuals she had includes at least:
- The al-Qaeda Manual, - The Terrorists Handbook - The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook - How To Win Hand-To-Hand Fighting - The Firearms and RPG Handbook - Dragunov sniper rifle manual - 9mm pistol manual - Anti-tank mine manual
Her reading list isn't really what you expect from 22 year old girls, it it?
If she was a soldier in the British Army, or even an ordinary subject of the Crown, I expect she would have been fine. Instead she allegedly got caught up with some sort of terrorist or extremist cell. At that point, those manuals became a tools, means to commit a criminal or even treasonous act, and her possession of them became a criminal act.
you're getting close to the "don't worry about making everything illegal, the cops will only arrest people they think are criminals" argument.
That is nonsense. There is nothing of sort implied in his statement. His statement was that the arrest of her fellow, Anjum, lead the police to her. He had some of the same documents as she did. I will also note that there were a number of other suspicious elements which lead to terrorism charges. Besides, police arrest or not, prosecutors charge or not, judges judge.
Absolutely flipping ludicrous. Has a crime been committed? Has anyone been accused of committing a crime? No?
Well, yes, actually. In fact, more than one. They are trying to prevent a repeat.
And where, I ask, has our precious "innocent until proven guilty" gone?
It is still there, but it applies at trial, not in investigations. Investigations don't involve questions of legal guilt or innocence. You investigate based on leads or suspicion, not based on presumption of guilt.
Then let the police keep their fat noses in their coffee and donuts.
I think you are confusing the police and intelligence services with undertakers. It really is better when terrorists are stopped before an attack instead of cleaning up bodies after an attack.
If there is going to be a terrorism icon, it should be one that stands on its own and captures the essence of the subject, like maybe this explosion. If that is a little too "spot on", then maybe some dynamite. It should not be something used to represent another subject area, including:
Censorship Privacy Big Brother Republicans Democrats
The particular flavor of extremists providing most of fodder for discussion on Slashdot have goals independent of the often petty political squabbles here.
Slashdot Mirror
This just serves to illustrate that we should never blindly trust what people tell us...
I've often found that the terms in which a discussion is framed, and what is omitted, is at least as important as what is directly stated.
A way of splitting the difference would be to give karma for mods above +3 Funny.
Or, NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!
That would be:
DUCK!! NUMBER FIVE IS ALIVE!!
The issues you raise aren't that difficult.
It would be easy to separate target acquisition sensors from target engagement sensors.
They could keep the weapons and target engagement sensors protected in underground bunkers until the firing cycle. That would keep them both protected and hidden.
The use of camouflage and dummy positions would make it more difficult to engage the real weapons stations while exposing the attackers
They could add armor.
They could employ longer range weapons and engage further out.
Ammo storage could be beltless, from an underground magazine.
It looks like a promising technology, but certainly won't be foolproof.
degenerated into the Crazy Olympics
Degenerated? "Crazy Olympics?"
It isn't even a contest. South Korea is left setting on the bench, consoled by its modern economy and democracy. The field is North Korea all the way.
North Korea has the:
Gold
Silver
Bronze
Runner Up
and "Miss Congeniality"
With the recently added events, they could be in an even better medal position next year.
I think that North Korea's official motto must be the inverse of Google's.
- inability of current computer vision and AI technology to make sufficiently informed decisions about threats
In the DMZ, if it moves, it dies. No problem. That is why they can freely use mines there.
- massive moral issue of allowing an autonomous device to kill humans without specific targeting by a human operator
Nobody should be in the DMZ. If they are, you can kill them. See above. Also, not a problem with mines.
- probable violations of laws of war and humanitarian laws as a result of the above
Nope. See above.
- fact that military-industrial complex can waste money on shit like this when there are people starving on the same planet
One of those places that has large numbers of people who are starving is in North Korea. They are starving because of the Stalinist, failed, barbaric policies of the crime family government of the psychotic "Dear Leader". The people in South Korea would prefer that the 1,000,000 man army in the North, whose reason for being is primarily to reunite the country someday as they previously had, not impose the North's government upon them. There could be peace, and a lot less military spending on the Korean peninsula, if that was what North Korea wanted. Sadly, it isn't, and the North Korean people will continue to suffer. At least with devices like this, millions of fewer people will be starving since it will help contain the area under control of the vile North Korean regime.
I see these as slightly more problematic than whether it has enough frigging ammo.
No, ammo is a real concern, especially if large numbers of infantry start coming across the border. They could probably keep a large supply in a bunker though.
I think there should be an international treaty banning all lethal weapons without a brain attached to the trigger.
Why go for half measures? Why not just ban war by treaty? Its been done before, and would be at least as effective as what you suggest. I think it would also be much easier to reach agreement on simply banning war since it could be done on simple principle. Your proposal would require all manner of messy discussions about different type of weapons, their munitions, and variations. If you have having that discussion you might have to include some types of obstacles too, since some of them are dangerous and can kill passively. You are better off just banning war since that means that tiny little countries are safe from big, aggressive neighbors. Under your proposal, the tiny countries would be stripped of many useful defensive weapons that can act as combat multipliers to help defend them from a much bigger attacker. That would leave them vulnerable to being easily conquered, and who wants that?
Technically we have a dupe here...
Do you want to know what they are?
Although there are elements of truth to what you have to say, the stark manner in which you have presented it will cause the Slashdot mainstream to vilify you and force you to wear a polka dot hat.
Let us hope that the Commander Tacoyev reforms of 2007 are accepted. Then, Slashdot will be as civilized as any other blog and:
- You will no longer be forced to wear polka dot hat.
- I can continue to drink fermented barley water
- Pretty girls riding the bus can ask sit on my lap
Goodbye! Dzienkuje!
Base 13, dude. Base 13
There is a great disturbance in the force.... as if all over the globe, people are taking off their left shoe, and dropping it with a thunk!
I suggest a multi-thousand dollar prize for the first hacker who can open up their servers so the N.K. citizens can see the whole web.
I can't say there is much to recommend it. It is likely that there would be no meaningful payoff that would last more than minutes. Even if you were successful in creating temporary access to a wider range of internet sites, it is likely that the few North Koreas who use the web would be too terrified to make use of it, assuming they even knew about it. Given the nature of the regime, you can assume that their secret police record, monitor, review, and act on the traffic in ways that far exceed the most lurid fantasies about the NSA. Surfing unauthorized web sites would likely constitute a punishable act, especially if an unauthorized site was visited that contained unvetted political, economic, or religious information. If you've stepped over the line in North Korea, you could easily fall prey to the "heredity rule", developed the Dear Leader's father. Under that rule, the North Korean secret police arrest and imprison three generations of a family for the misdeeds of one of them, often for life, which can be short in a North Korean "prison camp" AKA death camp.
Besides, the international incident with the paranoid, now nuclear armed, barbaric regime which is starving its people wouldn't be worth it.
If anyone still insists on it, I suggest you stay away from at least the Koreas and Japan as North Korea has a long history of kidnapping people from those countries for various reasons. Given their ties to organized crime, due to their many criminal enterprises, they could reach even further. Life there is tough even when you are useful to them.
Actually, there is additional evidence. The most interesting is that they have her hand written notes, which lead to a charge in themselves. That also doesnt' include any other evidence they found that lead to her, or that was on her computer.
Recall that from the information so far the investigation is into planned attack on planes with explosives by people with no tickets, no passports, no back door onto a plane, no explosives, no explosive components and no equipment to manufacture explosives.
Actually there was evidence:
Air plot suspects appear in court
They also found at least two firearms and £19,000 in cash.
I think that qualifies as evidence. They were making a genuine attempt at the plot.
No officer of the law has ever selectively enforced a law or falsely accused someone of a crime because of religion, skin color, or opinions.
Accusations are easy, convictions actually take evidence.
I very much doubt that a bunch of white Protestants planning to blow up a airliner would get any breaks compared to a bunch of Asian Muslims planning to do the same thing in either enforcement or sentencing.
Must be a nice universe.
Before rushing to judgment, lets see how things work out in Londonistan.
One informed source I've seen estimates that the IRA had 800 active members in the early '70s. In 1972 there were about 1,800 bombings that killed about 370 people. The IRA's goal was political pressure, to get the British to leave Northern Ireland and return to the UK. As a result, it wasn't unusual for there to be a warning about a bomb 5-30 minutes before it went off, or they blew up things when people weren't there. Although there were bombings that killed large numbers of people, I don't think that the IRA was interested in mass slaughter, by and large.
The Islamist extremists, on the other hand, are ultimately waging an imperialist war against Western civilization and culture. They want to become its masters, to force the West to either convert to Islam and live under Islamic Sharia law, or to submit to Muslim rulers. They want to reform the Muslim superstate, the Caliphate, uniting church and state and governing all Muslim lands. (They understand this may take a long time, but they are prepared to do their little bit. They still seethe over losing battles 1,000 years ago, getting kicked out of Spain, etc.) If we don't convert or submit, it is their duty to kill us. That is seldom outright stated, usually the tactical goal is some complaint against US or UK forces being in this country or that, or policy supporting this government or that, but that isn't the long term goal. They also feel free to kill us as infidels. The Islamists don't make warning calls and they plan their attacks to maximize casualties. It has been revealed, for example, that Al Qaeda called off an attack using poison gas in New York subways because they weren't sure that it would kill as many people as they wanted. Look at the Bali Bombing, the 7/7 bombings, the Madrid bombing, and 9/11. That is the pattern of Islamist extremist terror: if the infidel will not bow to our demands, kill them in as large of numbers as possible. 9/11 destroyed 4 jet aircraft, a major sky scraper, heavily damaged one of the largest office buildings in the world (the Pentagon), killed ~ 3,000 people, and did $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. The recently foilded attack plan in the UK was intended to bring down 10 jet aircraft full of people, killing thousands.
There are at least two times the number of Islamist extremists being watched as the IRA had at its height of 1,800 bombings in a year. The Islamists goal is to kill as many as possible per bomb. They are trying to get their campaign going.
You might find Londonistan interesting reading.
What got her into trouble wasn't reading books or playing video games, it was allegedly engaging in terrorist plotting with a cell of like minded people with large sums of cash and night vision scopes, who traveled to areas known as terrorist havens while carrying terrorist training material, and who had an interest in bombs, poison, and weapons.
Being Muslim had nothing to do with her getting into trouble, although it was very likely the source of her inspiration to engage in terrorist activities.
Muslims are no more second class citizens in the UK than the Welsh,
I don't think that you have to wait for it to go to court to find out. If similar items are offered openly in stores, they probably aren't illegal. Alternatively, any decent lawyer should be able to answer the question.
The thing is, that's an interesting list of books. I'm a curious person, if the guy I loaned my room to left those books on the coffee table I'd pick them up and read them. If he moved out, I wouldn't throw them away.
.... When mere possession, especially without intent, becomes illegal, then everybody is a criminal. This is very very wrong.
Fine so far.
The issue isn't whether she's a terrorist or not.
Well, actually, I think it is.
The issue is that mere possession of such reading material should not be illegal.
Where is that indicated? My read on it is that it is the combination, just like the perfectly legal crowbar in your workshop can turn into a "burglary tool" when it is in your hands at 3:00 AM in the back of a house down the block when you are trying to break in.
I am exceedingly fucking worried that it is deemed illegal.
I have no doubt that you are exceedingly worried, but I don't think that you are right about this being an issue of mere possession. It seems pretty likely to me that she had the intent.
I'm willing to grant that I could be wrong about this, but I would want to see some evidence.
No, not random computers. Computers of minorities and people whom they don't like.
Although that is more or less right, it needs to be clarified. What you should say is that they search the computers of the minority of people who are engaged in or supporting terrorism. The police also happen to dislike it when people support or engage in terrorism, like trying to blow up the police or other fine subjects of Her Majesty's realm. Fortunately, the majority of Her Majesty's subjects, including the Muslims, are peace loving people who don't engage in terrorism, and are therefore likable.
Some reading material for you all:
I hear that next year's Darwin Award winners will be heavily drawn from people reading this stuff and trying it at home, or finding some pissed off Muslims to try it with.
The write-up is wrong. Now is the time to download ALL the above-mentioned documents, and share them. Let them try to arrest all of us.
I think it is safe to say you missed the essential elements of what happened, so lets recap what we know from the news:
The arrested was Samina Malik, 22, an Asian woman who allegedly was working or had worked at Heathrow airport as a shop assistant. (Could she have been an insider at a juicy target for terrorists?) She has been charged with four offences under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Malik was allegedly associated with Sohail Anjum Qureshi, previously charged as part of the same investigation. How was he nabbed? It is alleged that on 18 October he was plotting to go to Pakistan (well known as home to various terrorist organizations, training camps, and the gateway to Afghanistan)(groups in Pakistan have been tied to a number of attacks planned against the UK) taking with him, among other things:
-Camping equipment
-£9,000 cash
-A night vision scope
-The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook
-Two metal batons
-Combat manuals
It is alleged that was taking terrorist materials to Islamabad..
Investigators then followed the trail from Anjum, back to Malik. Allegedly, she had a number of publications on her computer from what look to be a narrow range of interests:
The al-Qaeda Manual,
The Terrorists Handbook
The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook
How To Win Hand-To-Hand Fighting
The Firearms and RPG Handbook
Dragunov sniper rifle manual
9mm pistol manual
Anti-tank mine manual
(Fascinating reading for a 22 year old woman, isn't it? Do you think her goal was to be the life of the party?)
She was allegedly filling a writing pad full of handwritten notes, which led to one of the charges against her. (Any bets about what those notes were about? Hmmmm... Heathrow... Pakistan... Al Qaeda....)
No doubt there are other aspects of this that we don't know about. As it is, you have to scour several news reports to get this much.
Woman charged in terror investigation
Female terror book suspect in the dock
Airport worker on terror handbook charges is remanded
Woman charged under UK terrorism act
Too many terrorist plots to name, say MI5
Woman charged under anti-terror laws
Now, I very much doubt that she is in trouble simply for having those document in and of themselves. What is likely the case is that it is the combination of what she was doing, involving herself with some sort of terrorist cell, AND having those documents. That is trouble in the same sense that having a crowbar in the garage means you have a crowbar in your garage, whereas having a crowbar in your hands at 3:00 AM in back of somebody's house in the next town over means you have a burglar tool, which will make you subject to heavy penalties.
I doubt that the authorities have much interest in trying to arrest people for simply having those publications. Everything I've seen seems to indicate that their hands are more than full simply trying to cope with the small percentage of people that both have those publications and are trying to use them in attempts to kill large numbers of people. You may also want to keep in mind that the more false signals you generate, the less effective the police will be in tracking down those who are trying to kill you for being, take your pick: an infidel, British
That's exactly what they're moving towards. It is a succession of British Home Secretaries' wet dream.
They already routinely intercept all Internet communication (go on, tell me you believe otherwise).
I doubt that they have either the storage or analytical capacity for ALL internet communications, including file transfers in emails, ftp, ssh, and uucp. Its pretty certain that they aren't getting much, if any, mail moving over VPNs,.
They already have a law that makes it a criminal offence not to provide the necessary keys to decrypt any encrypted data they believe you have on your system (even if they have no proof either that such data is really there or that you have such decryption keys, if memory serves).
In which case you have a number of investigators, legal personnel, and technicians tied up over 1 pc, and you know about it. How did you end up there? How are they managing to do that to the tens of millions of other PCs in the UK? That doesn't really seem to scale.
The next logical step, using government logic and assuming you don't buy the conspiracy theories about certain mainstream OSes already doing it, is to mandate the installation of government-sanctioned security software on all computers connected to the Internet.
Flight of fancy / political porn.
In a highly-connected world, that would get you pretty close to arbitrary scanning of everyone's hard drive.
Assuming the above is true, which I don't grant. Besides, not everyone's PC is hooked to the internet at all times, and many people are still on slow connections. And, of course, that also assumes that security software, hardware firewalls, and sniffers would never notice the traffic.
Of course, any terrorist is unlikely to voluntarily install such software or connect a computer with detailed planning of their proposed atrocities to the Internet,
So you admit that scanning of all computers won't be mandatory and enforced?
but since when has whether a law will actually help to prevent terrorist attacks had any connection with government legislative policy in the UK?
Since 9/11? Since 7/7? Since some of the various IRA campaigns? You tell me.
I think you have a house of cards there.
My point is that the charge against her is apparently "possession of forbidden documents."
I think you are probably completely wrong there. I think it is most likely she has run afoul of the law for what you could call "contextual crimes", that is, having something that is innocent unless you are involved in law breaking which could involve that particular item. Some examples:
A crowbar in your workshop or garage is a crowbar. A crowbar in your hands at 3:00 AM in another town used to help break into a house is considered a burglary tool, and in many jurisdictions will subject you to heavy penalty, possibly years in jail.
Owning a gun in the United States is legal in most places. Using that gun in a crime makes it a "gun crime" which generally makes the penalty much more severe than if you had been unarmed, or armed with a lesser weapon.
Having a manual on boobytraps may be perfectly legal. That is, until you get involved with a band of extremists and make plans or preparations to actually emplace boobytraps. Then, possession of that manual becomes an element of criminal planning, and a tool to accomplish what may turn into a serious or even capital crime.
The list of manuals she had includes at least:
- The al-Qaeda Manual,
- The Terrorists Handbook
- The Mujahideen Poisons Handbook
- How To Win Hand-To-Hand Fighting
- The Firearms and RPG Handbook
- Dragunov sniper rifle manual
- 9mm pistol manual
- Anti-tank mine manual
Her reading list isn't really what you expect from 22 year old girls, it it?
If she was a soldier in the British Army, or even an ordinary subject of the Crown, I expect she would have been fine. Instead she allegedly got caught up with some sort of terrorist or extremist cell. At that point, those manuals became a tools, means to commit a criminal or even treasonous act, and her possession of them became a criminal act.
you're getting close to the "don't worry about making everything illegal, the cops will only arrest people they think are criminals" argument.
That is nonsense. There is nothing of sort implied in his statement. His statement was that the arrest of her fellow, Anjum, lead the police to her. He had some of the same documents as she did. I will also note that there were a number of other suspicious elements which lead to terrorism charges. Besides, police arrest or not, prosecutors charge or not, judges judge.
Absolutely flipping ludicrous. Has a crime been committed? Has anyone been accused of committing a crime? No?
Well, yes, actually. In fact, more than one. They are trying to prevent a repeat.
And where, I ask, has our precious "innocent until proven guilty" gone?
It is still there, but it applies at trial, not in investigations. Investigations don't involve questions of legal guilt or innocence. You investigate based on leads or suspicion, not based on presumption of guilt.
Then let the police keep their fat noses in their coffee and donuts.
I think you are confusing the police and intelligence services with undertakers. It really is better when terrorists are stopped before an attack instead of cleaning up bodies after an attack.
If there is going to be a terrorism icon, it should be one that stands on its own and captures the essence of the subject, like maybe this explosion. If that is a little too "spot on", then maybe some dynamite. It should not be something used to represent another subject area, including:
Censorship
Privacy
Big Brother
Republicans
Democrats
The particular flavor of extremists providing most of fodder for discussion on Slashdot have goals independent of the often petty political squabbles here.