lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 Just thoughts but: Why do we need security cameras on every corner when we never used to?. Why do we need hyper security at every airport, railway station, national place of importance when we never used to?. Why do we need to consider the use of Identity Cards when we never used to. Why in the land of Free Speech, do we have to to consider every word we say when we never used to? And, If we didn't need the security cameras, the concrete ring-fence protection, the massively-expanded security service machinery, the identity cards, etc, etc could we not save billlions and billions of pounds that could be spent on reducing poverty or healing the sick?. And a last question. Is anyone proud of what has been achieved in this once Green and Pleasant Land over such a short time? 133947[/snapback] we have all these things because we have a wealth of cultures living side by side and its not human nature to co exist without conflict. of course politicians encourage this, society gets out of control (what it is now) and they brainwash the public into thinking we need them what was crime like 50 years ago comparered to now, alot lower. could you leave your milk money on the doorstep, yes, could you do that now, hell no. Thracian, i wana vote for you!!
Babylon Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 What questions? (notice the ?, that means a question has been asked...) 133981[/snapback] How about for starters, the question where I said what would the companies do with your finger prints if the government sold them to them???????? (notice the question mark that means it's a question) I'm not going back through every page you can do that yourself. yes then imagine producing a law that stopped that kinda thing happening in the first place i.e make it law that you will die if found guilty of murder, theft, rape etc etc etc would you think twice, i rather think so, and if you didnt, you`d die, and society would be MUCH healthier without you.i.d cards? grow up!! 133981[/snapback] Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! And how exactly are they going to be found guilty if their fingerprints are not on the database. They get away with it and live a happy free life while your mum is in her grave. Death Penalty? Grow UP?
Benji Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Why does everyone seem to think theres just one big conspiracy by the Government. Why would Blair risk EVERYTHING by going to war unless he thought it was the right thing to do. We all here speak from a naive perspective. We could argue until we were blue in the face! But there are people who live with it everyday, iraqui civilians, soldiers, journalists, politicians. They witness suicide bombings everyday, i bet they would almost cry if they read people thought it was all a big conspiracy, that the bullets that kill their friends and families do not actually exist.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 unfortunately Thracian we don't live in a world that would accept us without those thingsthere are some evil people in the world and the only reason events like today haven't occured already is because of such things u mention being in place. We have evolved and revolutionised so much that such pre-cautions are needed. Think how easy it is to travel to anywhere in Europe. In the days we had basic technology it took days just to travel across England! But with the benefitial inventions there are the ones only produced to cause havoc. They do exist and any second they could be used to wipe out a whole country, continent or even the world. It really makes u think when we have to protect ourselves from each other, but unfortunately it's how the world works! 133954[/snapback] Not altogether convinced. We didn't need security cameras in the 20's, the 50's the 60's and we could travel well enough across the world at that time. Tell you what. Consider the questions this way. Just fill in the missing word. If there were no ........ in the UK we would have no need of identity cards. If there were no ..... in the UK we would have no need of concrete ring-fencing around principle buildings. If there were no ......... in the UK we would not need security cameras on all major thoroughfares, railways etc. I don't know if there are honest answers. I'm just enquiring. Perhaps Tony Blair could pose the questions in a referendum of sorts. The answers that came back might help focus his mind cos we seem to be in a bit of a mess at the moment.
Benji Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 unfortunately Thracian we don't live in a world that would accept us without those thingsthere are some evil people in the world and the only reason events like today haven't occured already is because of such things u mention being in place. We have evolved and revolutionised so much that such pre-cautions are needed. Think how easy it is to travel to anywhere in Europe. In the days we had basic technology it took days just to travel across England! But with the benefitial inventions there are the ones only produced to cause havoc. They do exist and any second they could be used to wipe out a whole country, continent or even the world. It really makes u think when we have to protect ourselves from each other, but unfortunately it's how the world works! 133954[/snapback] Not altogether convinced. We didn't need security cameras in the 20's, the 50's the 60's and we could travel well enough across the world at that time. Tell you what. Consider the questions this way. Just fill in the missing word. If there were no ........ in the UK we would have no need of identity cards. If there were no ..... in the UK we would have no need of concrete ring-fencing around principle buildings. If there were no ......... in the UK we would not need security cameras on all major thoroughfares, railways etc. I don't know if there are honest answers. I'm just enquiring. Perhaps Tony Blair could pose the questions in a referendum of sorts. The answers that came back might help focus his mind cos we seem to be in a bit of a mess at the moment. 133999[/snapback] but surely today has just proved they can do it, they do have weapons, and they will do it?
Babylon Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Even though I said grow up about the death penalty I do agree with it. If one person doesn't commit the crime because of it then great!!!! A point about leaving your milk money out. I seriously think the downward spiral sped up when punishment at school was outlawed, kids these days just don't know right from wrong. You can call a teacher all the names under the sun and they can't do anything. If they know a slap from a cane is coming i'm sure they would think twice... it can only get worse now they want to outlaw smacking your own bloody child!!!!!
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 we have the freedom to say what we think and argue with respect but if you have to start adding personal slate's then why bother, it just makes your argument a hell of a lot weaker.I could say that someone who doesn't even know crude is an oil is slow but i didn't, it's petty. Theres nothing slow about what i read and write mate, i speak from my heart and head without the need of a textbook sheepish response. About the policies; then more fool you for voting! Vote for a party you know whose policies are all told.......oh wait, you'll be struggling to find one. Welll yes, i understand PERFECTLY what a dictator is thanks and i know how elections/parliament run. You asked why we don't intervene in Zimbabwea like with Saddam, so i mentioned Osama because he is the man connected to 9/11. The connection then is between osama and saddam. Neither me nor you can prove whether Uk and USA had a reason to attack iraq as neither of us can prove whether saddam and osama have/do not have any connections in terms of weapons etc 133937[/snapback] wrong, we dont completely have freedom to say what we think. `but if you have to start adding personal slate's` then you say in attack upon me: `textbook sheepish response` contradiction, oh yes. of course i know what crude oil is, i couldnt understand for the life of that particular debate why the hell he or she was mentioning it. I voted against dictator blair, so not a fool, a winner of democracy. To your very last point, why attack iraq then if we dont have a justifyable reason? That to me tells me blair is a terrorist if indeed he invades a country and kills innocent people. and when millions of us and around the world tell him hes wrong, and then hes prooved wrong, and he sticks 2 fingers up to us, yes then he enrolls in a dictator formation. 133952[/snapback] none of the stuff in bold makes sense you voted against dictator blair, a winner of democracy??? You've not just said that.... How can you contradict yourself by having both? There is either a democratic government or if he's a dictator there will be no democracy for you to win from. Although i'm sure you'll make some excuse about why you said that. Yes, me and you do not have a justifiable reason. But we do not know everything in the world affairs, they pretty much do. If anyone is in a position to make the call it is them. Again you call them innocent people, how naive do you have to be? Iraq, the place of love and paradise! 133960[/snapback] r u behaving stupid on purpose, cos if you r just say so now, its iritating. you had a go at me for slating you, right, then you slate me, contradiction benji me old mucker. blair doesnt believe in democracy, so i voted for democracy hence im a winner. you proon, i told you that a dictator ISNT just what your NL media tell you. being a dictator doesnt neceserrily mean you cant vote...i gave you the 2 reasons why hes a dictator, war and free speech ring a bell?
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 exactly, the only people that should care are those with something to hide! 133797[/snapback] TELL us all about your life? no? why not, you dont mind the government knowing... 133821[/snapback] k what you want to know? i apologise for not being a coward shying away from wanting something done against the protection of our country 133826[/snapback] Don't be too smug about people with something to hide. You are probably young but there's few folk get through life with nothing-to-hide, either through fear or shame. Half the German nation at one time for a start when they wanted to gloss over any association with the Nazi's. All the wartime women who had a dalliance with the enemy. People who have stolen things, told lies for a job, taken time off for a fake illness. Folk who have had affairs behind their partner's backs etc. And what about politicians? Let him who is without sin cast the first stone? I don't think there'd be many politicians showing off their throwing arm. There are very few saints on planet Earth and I have certainly never met one.
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 That to me tells me blair is a terrorist if indeed he invades a country and kills innocent people. hey lush, this might come as a shock but.... Terror 1 Terror 2 Terror 3 this is what the people you brush with the word innocent do and this is to their OWN people! 133977[/snapback] Im talking about the innocent deaths, not those who attack our troops
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 I absolutly love how you ignore every question I pose you. And you call me a thick twat...Imagine your mum getting stabbed and killed. They find the knife with fingerprints on it but they aren't in the current database. Would you still be happy having your civil liberties intact but knowing your mums killer could of been brought to justice had his fingerprints been taken as part of the ID card scheme. 133943[/snapback] What questions? (notice the ?, that means a question has been asked...) yes then imagine producing a law that stopped that kinda thing happening in the first place i.e make it law that you will die if found guilty of murder, theft, rape etc etc etc would you think twice, i rather think so, and if you didnt, you`d die, and society would be MUCH healthier without you. i.d cards? grow up!! 133981[/snapback] bloody hell about time, we agree on something. But the death penalty is another thread somewhere (and coincidentally i was in the minority for again ) 133983[/snapback] So you agree i.d cards are a waste of time, and that sensible policy on fighting crime is the answer?
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! 133994[/snapback] I didnt answer it, because there isnt one suitable for your viewing. You miss the point. right your a sensible chap right, well lets just pretend for now...IF YOU KNEW THAT YOU`D LOSE YOUR LIFE IF CAUGHT KILLING SOMEONE, OR ROBBING SOMEONE, WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LET ALONE DO IT? and would you say most people would think like you? if not, wheres the crime going to come from... its bad people in government who scare YOU with notions that you NEED them to help you, absolute rollax mate. IF THEY REALLY WANEID TO HELP YOU, THEY WOULD DO THE ABOVE. in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works.
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 We could argue until we were blue in the face! But there are people who live with it everyday, iraqui civilians, soldiers, journalists, politicians. They witness suicide bombings everyday, i bet they would almost cry if they read people thought it was all a big conspiracy, that the bullets that kill their friends and families do not actually exist. 133998[/snapback] ive been known to have a painted blue face, does that count what blair shoulve done, was say were going to take out sadams mob, BECAUSE hes a bad man, NOT, because he has wmd`s.
lush Posted 7 July 2005 Author Posted 7 July 2005 Even though I said grow up about the death penalty I do agree with it. If one person doesn't commit the crime because of it then great!!!!A point about leaving your milk money out. I seriously think the downward spiral sped up when punishment at school was outlawed, kids these days just don't know right from wrong. You can call a teacher all the names under the sun and they can't do anything. If they know a slap from a cane is coming i'm sure they would think twice... it can only get worse now they want to outlaw smacking your own bloody child!!!!! 134003[/snapback] AGREED.
TrickyTrev Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. That is the kind of society that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 ji-jackers. (That is not an attack on Saudi Arabia and Saudi's, I am just saying that a set of laws without any freedom and with barbaric punishment can have profound impacts on the culture of that society) I don't see how ID cards or detention without trial would have prevented these attacks. I see ID cards as nothign more thasn glorified passports which help provide information on the law obiding citizen but won't be much use in fighting organised crime. Detention without trial is just fundamentally wrong, although I do accept some concessions. Such as quick hearings with just a judge and without a Jury. I don't even mind the decision being made behind closed doors. So long as the decision is made by an INDEPENDENT judge.
Benji Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 We could argue until we were blue in the face! But there are people who live with it everyday, iraqui civilians, soldiers, journalists, politicians. They witness suicide bombings everyday, i bet they would almost cry if they read people thought it was all a big conspiracy, that the bullets that kill their friends and families do not actually exist. 133998[/snapback] ive been known to have a painted blue face, does that count what blair shoulve done, was say were going to take out sadams mob, BECAUSE hes a bad man, NOT, because he has wmd`s. 134021[/snapback] he did, but the media focussed its propaganda on the WofMD claim. I've already said i disagree with with how it all went about, but actually going into iraq, be it for what i thought the reason should be was the correct thing to do.
Benji Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 exactly, the only people that should care are those with something to hide! 133797[/snapback] TELL us all about your life? no? why not, you dont mind the government knowing... 133821[/snapback] k what you want to know? i apologise for not being a coward shying away from wanting something done against the protection of our country 133826[/snapback] Don't be too smug about people with something to hide. You are probably young but there's few folk get through life with nothing-to-hide, either through fear or shame. 134011[/snapback] Not at all, i have as many things to shy from as the next person, even in the few years i've been on this earth. But i would never look to harm anybody or be involved in such happenings. I have nothing to be smug about, especially at a time like this. We are talking about the extremes of extremes, not being a saint.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Its a fuking discrace! Why do they bomb our country! If i was Tony Blair i would chuck them out! They need ID cards and they need them now! KICK THEM OUT 133958[/snapback] They bomb our country because there's a War going on. US and British forces, together with other UN troops are in Afghanistan, Iraq (and elsewhere in small numbers) hunting Al Queda forces because of the Twin Towers, Saddam Hussein, oil, their politically oppressive regimes whatever. The Arabs of Al Queda represent a different way of thinking to the Western capitalist democracies (curiously having great objection to westerners in Arab countries while apparently saying little about Arabs in western countries, but still). Anyway, with their traditional base in Afghanistan under attack, together with the other focal points, they are, (understandably from their point of view) hitting just as hard in return. There is a statement: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so there are categorically two points of view that have clashed to cause this conflict. It is just that, in my view, you will never fight terrorists with armed force, whether it be the IRA, Al Queda or the Basque Separatists of Spain. Terrorists thrive on publicity. You have to win the war through words, through the media, through holding the moral high ground, through refusing to sacrifice your principles in the face of aggression. Had America responded to the Twin Towers with the right PR response, Al Queda would have largely remained impotent and America would have had friends everywhere. As it is a lot of people have died and are dying for nothing. All the original problems that created the conflict are unresolved and are either getting worse or not improving. Finally and ironically, Osama Bin Laden has emerged, certainly among Arabs as probably the greatest warrior leader in the history of warfare having caused havoc and destruction to America and the entire Capitalist Alliance. Let's hope Tony Blair has the wisdom to deal more cleverly with the London bombings. PS: sorry for trying to simplify what is a complex conflict.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Blair is not a terrorist. We have always been a target for terrorism in the last 30-40 years. It isnt fair to not allow any asylum seekers or refugees on the chance that a few may be terrorists, because thats what we'd have to do to stop the few that get through the net. Theres terrorist plans against us every day, most of which are found out and stopped because of our good intelligence and police services. This is just one that they didnt stop. Our country has done amazingly well to get till now without having a major attack. 133694[/snapback] Sadly life is not about right and wrong, justice or injustice it is about winning or losing. And we must decide whether it is worth fighting (peacefully,I hasten) for our way of life or having it swamped by outsiders who would impose their own ideals. Life has always been about survival - of either the fittest, the cleverest, the luckiest, whatever. It isn't fair that a lion stalks an injured wildebeest at the back of the herd. It's life and its harsh. One of our problems is having a sense of fairness and justice which over-rides our need to protect our way of life because, make no mistake, we won't change the thinking of the outsiders, at least those who would lead them, and we certainly shouldn't try by violently fatal means as I explain in my conclusion. Another problem is having nothing to unite us. We are more interested in our houses, our possessions, our comforts than protecting our country and our way of life. We don't even club together to help our own as many immigrant families do. They live in groups and all meet regularly at their places of worship not only for religious reasons but because it gives them power, because it gives them protection, because it gives them brotherhood. (It also makes them vulnerable to manipulation). Our churches are all but empty. Proabably the most passionate and relevant gathering we have left is at the football ground. And while we live with those problems, people who represent other ways of life gradually infiltrate the seats of local and national government, climb the ladders of power and play on our sense of fairness to usurp more power. That is not THEIR FAULT because, rightly or wrongly, they care about what they believe. It is OUR FAULT because we don't or we don't care enough to stand united and defend what we have built and what is already being eroded. So the sooner Blair stops pontificating about what he is "going to do" about beating terrorists and actually makes some uncomfortable decisions the better. It is time Blair concentrated on protecting England, the English way of life, the English people and stopped being arrogant enough to believe he can be missionary to the world. Other people might not want to be changed any more than us. We can still set examples, still give advice, still offer assistance, still do a lot of worthy things but our politics should be neutral and our focus should be on sorting OUR problems and protecting our heritage...by whatever means is necessary (like denying access to our Welfare Service to any foreigner who hasn't paid into it, like re-introducing National Service, like closing our borders either wholly or partially). Oh yes, and we should get out of Iraq. It is a farce in any case, with the same psychopaths running the torture chambers who were there in Saddam's day. But it is NOT our responsibility though it MIGHT be the responsibility of the United Nations or some still-to-be-formed International Government Organisation to which we might subscribe. And being party to killing people (except, perhaps in direct self-defence) is categorically against the Commandments and what is the value of a Commandment if it is ignored every time it just happens not to be convenient?. It is a question I might ask the leaders of other religious persuasions but I won't because they have to set their own standards and answer for them later if they truly believe what their religion asks for. 133940[/snapback] Well said Thracian, i couldnt agree more, and i`d love all of us English to read this, which brings me to one particular paragraph you wrote: `It is time Blair concentrated on protecting England, the English way of life, the English people` blair is a foreigner to our country, his number 2 gordon brown, the chairman of new labour etc etc etc I doubt blair cares one iota about the English way of life, or even the british peoples ways of life. what i think he does care about, is destroying britishness for a more marxist european state of europe, something i dread may cost me my life one day, attacking it. 133968[/snapback] I didn't vote for him the first time and called it "the biggest own goal in British history" and certainly wouldn't have dreamed of voting for him the second time after all his half-truths and misinformation over Iraq, Europe etc. I love Scotland as a country, believe Scottish people to be intelligent, innovative, passionate and a lot of other worthy things more often than not but, like you thoroughly resent the overweighted Scottish influence within our Parliament, especially when Scotland has an elected Assembly of its own. That we now have a Government the English people didn't actually support with a majority is diabolical. Some democracy of Stephen would say.
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! 133994[/snapback] I didnt answer it, because there isnt one suitable for your viewing. You miss the point. right your a sensible chap right, well lets just pretend for now...IF YOU KNEW THAT YOU`D LOSE YOUR LIFE IF CAUGHT KILLING SOMEONE, OR ROBBING SOMEONE, WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LET ALONE DO IT? and would you say most people would think like you? if not, wheres the crime going to come from... its bad people in government who scare YOU with notions that you NEED them to help you, absolute rollax mate. IF THEY REALLY WANEID TO HELP YOU, THEY WOULD DO THE ABOVE. in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. 134017[/snapback] That may be 0.0001% get caught drinking alcohol. When I played the London casinos back in the 70's I saw plenty of alcohol consumed by Arabs in private situations.
Babylon Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 Errrrr... what like the death penalty in america where they have higher rates of crime than the UK. That one worked out really well!!!! 133994[/snapback] I didnt answer it, because there isnt one suitable for your viewing. You miss the point. right your a sensible chap right, well lets just pretend for now...IF YOU KNEW THAT YOU`D LOSE YOUR LIFE IF CAUGHT KILLING SOMEONE, OR ROBBING SOMEONE, WOULD YOU EVEN THINK ABOUT IT, LET ALONE DO IT? and would you say most people would think like you? if not, wheres the crime going to come from... its bad people in government who scare YOU with notions that you NEED them to help you, absolute rollax mate. IF THEY REALLY WANEID TO HELP YOU, THEY WOULD DO THE ABOVE. in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. 134017[/snapback] You miss my point though. Of course I wouldn't kill someone if there was a death penalty, but I also wouldn't kill someone even though there isn't one. In america there are plenty of people who still kill, rape, mug etc etc even though there is a death penalty. Yes a death penalty would make some criminals think again, but not all. 100's get killed every day in america. You may only ever catch 50% of them though, surely if you had all finger prints/dna on record XX% more would be caught. Wouldn't it put your mind a little more at rest knowing 100's of extra criminals a year are sent to prison or sentanced to death? Like I said earlier a family member could get killed by someone who would of been caught had their details been on a database. They won't introduce it though as in this day and age there are way too many do gooders and PC brigade out there.
Babylon Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 When I played the London casinos back in the 70's134063[/snapback] Way hay.... bit of a high flyer then hey Thracian??!!
TrickyTrev Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 There is a statement: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" so there are categorically two points of view that have clashed to cause this conflict. That sort of statement applies to Palenstinians and other groups fighting for their own freedom. That includes deplorable groups like the IRA who, in their eyes, were fighting for the noble cause of freeing Ireland from British rule and of course those insurgents in Iraq. It also includes now much loved Nelson mandela who was branded the 'greatest terrorist of the 20th century' by Margeret Thatcher. I do not agree with the actions of these groups, violence solves ntohing, but can certainly appreciate that to other they are 'fighting for their freedom.' This tag CAN NOT be applied to Islamic Fundamentalist. These attacks are about imposing a hideous ideaology on people which surpresses freedoms, including the greatest freedom of them all the right to life. These people are scum and to simplify it with talk of the Arab world Versus The West is a gross injustice to the human race. I prefer to put it as Human Kind Versus a few hearetless ####s. (I agree the war on Iraq has made us a greater target for terrorist attacks and was a massive own goal in terms of the war on terror, which I also agree can't eb thought through traditional military force)
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. That is the kind of society that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 ji-jackers. (That is not an attack on Saudi Arabia and Saudi's, I am just saying that a set of laws without any freedom and with barbaric punishment can have profound impacts on the culture of that society) I don't see how ID cards or detention without trial would have prevented these attacks. I see ID cards as nothign more thasn glorified passports which help provide information on the law obiding citizen but won't be much use in fighting organised crime. Detention without trial is just fundamentally wrong, although I do accept some concessions. Such as quick hearings with just a judge and without a Jury. I don't even mind the decision being made behind closed doors. So long as the decision is made by an INDEPENDENT judge. 134025[/snapback] Lovely concept that. The Independent Judge. To get anywhere near that concept you need the judiciary to be independent of Government (when we can't even have the BBC independent of Government). Then there needs to be at least three to make a judgement, randomly and independently selected and all of them allowed to remain incognito except in the case of a complaint through which an assessor highlights serious misapplication of the law. The full text of any trial should be open to scrutiny except in the case of a significant threat to national security (again as assessed by an independent panel).
Thracian Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 When I played the London casinos back in the 70's134063[/snapback] Way hay.... bit of a high flyer then hey Thracian??!! 134071[/snapback] Been downhill ever since but every dog has his day and it was fun while it lasted.
TrickyTrev Posted 7 July 2005 Posted 7 July 2005 in saudi arabia, consumption of alcohol is a crime punished by death, how many drink alcohol? 0.0001% it works. That is the kind of society that provided 15 of the 17 9/11 ji-jackers. (That is not an attack on Saudi Arabia and Saudi's, I am just saying that a set of laws without any freedom and with barbaric punishment can have profound impacts on the culture of that society) I don't see how ID cards or detention without trial would have prevented these attacks. I see ID cards as nothign more thasn glorified passports which help provide information on the law obiding citizen but won't be much use in fighting organised crime. Detention without trial is just fundamentally wrong, although I do accept some concessions. Such as quick hearings with just a judge and without a Jury. I don't even mind the decision being made behind closed doors. So long as the decision is made by an INDEPENDENT judge. 134025[/snapback] Lovely concept that. The Independent Judge. To get anywhere near that concept you need the judiciary to be independent of Government (when we can't even have the BBC independent of Government). Then there needs to be at least three to make a judgement, randomly and independently selected and all of them allowed to remain incognito except in the case of a complaint through which an assessor highlights serious misapplication of the law. The full text of any trial should be open to scrutiny except in the case of a significant threat to national security (again as assessed by an independent panel). 134075[/snapback] The Independent Judge is far less far fetched than the Independent politician.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.