Quake3World

So, someone else in here must have been paying attention to the current 'Prevention of Terrorism' bill being argued over in parliament?

Essentially, the current laws put in place straight after the World Trade Centre attack which allowed for 'indefinite detention of suspects without trial' are due for renewal. They pass out of law this weekend, I think.

The new law being proposed was rejected by the house of lords because they proposed it only last for 12 months before being reviewed again (which seems sensible, given how extreme the bill is). So the commons pass the bill to the lords, the lords debate and reject, it goes back to the commons, they send it back, and so on.

This has been going on for a few days now, with debates going on through the night.

What's interesting is that Charles Clarke (Defense secretary I think) tabled this new proposal SO LATE that the old law would run out before it was passed, if it wasn't accepted quickly. Essentially, Labour seem to be trying to force people to accept it because if they don't, terrorists walk free....

It's a big fuckign con IMO. Sure we need measures/new law to combat terrorism, but one that allows for 'indefinite detention without trial', one which now includes British citizens (the old one didn't) and one which would require that Britain reject the EU 'right to free trial' section of the constitution....

Man, the House of Lords so often looks like an antiquated useless body, but they're really standing up to this shit and for once I appreciate their existence.

Handy reference. Not sure on its accuracy, given it's the Guardian. But the key points are right:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/attacks/ ... 85,00.html

been keepin a close eye on it and its interesting to say the least

Two of my favorite quotes:
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Thomas Jefferson

R00k wrote:http://www.quake3world.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1101

Sorry, but I ran a search for 'lords' and 'terrorism bill' and came up with neither.

IMO since your post doesn't contain much info, this one might lead to a better discussion.

Wasn't trying to say 'old' or anything. Just answering your question that I had been paying attention to it too. Should have said a little more I guess. :icon31:

Coo' man. I did get the wrong idea, apologies.

What about the fact that various people detained for the past 3 years have come out of Belmarsh today? I mean, if these people go on to commit attacks then the government can say 'there, we told you so, nice going tories/lib dems!'.

Seems like the government is using the threat of releasing terrorists as bait for signing a bill which would grant unfair power to the gov't.

Foo wrote:Coo' man. I did get the wrong idea, apologies.

I mean, if these people go on to commit attacks then the government can say 'there, we told you so, nice going tories/lib dems!'.

No they can't. Not if they didn't table new legislation in a timely fashion. It's their own fault.

Spin'll easily take care of that, I'd sadly wager. The fact which will easily stand out would be 'the Lords/Tories/Lib-Dems rejected it!'.

In this case, The Lords.

What really really gets me worked up about all these detentions is when people are let out.

I mean, you've got a guy who's basically been in prison for 2-3 years. Then one day, they finally have to say "Well, we don't have anything on you, unfortunately, so we're going to have to let you go. As long as you agree not to ever prosecute us for taking years of your life away illegally and unconstitutionally. And you can't live in our country either. Even though after 2-3 years of searching, we can't find any evidence that you've done anything wrong to deserve it."

The DoJ/Pentagon is getting away with this? It's the biggest blank check I've ever seen. Like evenutally releasing somebody is some kind of favor and they should be thankful. It's disgusting.

How about this? Last year I was reading about people who were found innocent of crimes they were sent to jail for, released, and then billed by the government for their food and accomodation during their stay in jail.

..and I'm not making that up. Nothing was done about it, either.

Fender wrote:Two of my favorite quotes:
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Thomas Jefferson

How on earth did we go from men such as these to the fucking lying, retarded scumbags we have in power now?

Nightshade wrote: How on earth did we go from men such as these to the fucking lying, retarded scumbags we have in power now?

Umm, because collectively we stopped giving a fuck maybe? There are a variety of reasons for this...some of them structural and not personal. But however you want to slice it, it seems clear that we've encouraged, allowed, and at least tacitly authorized most of it. They are a mirror reflection of our own bullshit.

Mmm, perhaps. Seems to me that the system has devolved to a state wherein it only allows those that are the worst for it to advance.

Yeah, it's called politics.

Foo wrote:Man, the House of Lords so often looks like an antiquated useless body, but they're really standing up to this shit and for once I appreciate their existence.

the house of lords has saved us from the tyranny of idiots enough times - as long as we've got door-to-door salesmen running the country we need someone who can tell them when to shut up.

used to take a lot of interest in british politics, but a few years ago i did a job that involved spending time with politicians and it sapped all the interest out of me. for the most part they were a gaggle of petty-minded, self-serving, bickering twats. their lack of anything even resembling common sense or pragmatism was just staggering.

it's worth remembering all the bills over the last decade that this follows ('Criminal Justice', 'Regulation of investigatory Powers', etc). long before 9/11 they managed to re-classify 'terrorist' as anything from an ira bomber to the organiser of a free party.

it's passed by the way:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4341269.stm

edit:
and click here https://www.rednoseday.com/rnd/donation

Hannibal wrote:

Nightshade wrote: How on earth did we go from men such as these to the fucking lying, retarded scumbags we have in power now?

Umm, because collectively we stopped giving a fuck maybe? There are a variety of reasons for this...some of them structural and not personal. But however you want to slice it, it seems clear that we've encouraged, allowed, and at least tacitly authorized most of it. They are a mirror reflection of our own bullshit.

Well that's true for the most part - directly and indirectly.

But it's not true for me personally. Even if the majority elected them into office though -- which is still arguable in my opinion -- the largest part of their constituency are people who simply believe things that are not true. In other words they've been mislead.

So the question is; even if we could have seen this coming, and held a massive media campaign against the republicans, and bought all the media mouthpieces before they did, and waged a counter-war against misinformation, how would we be any different?

I guess my point is, there is a divide in the country imho, between people who care enough to learn and people who don't want to learn anything that goes against their beliefs.

So, even if they represent a large part of us, their belief system alone goes against one of the most important bulwarks of our form of government -- being educated on the issues. Sure there are systemic problems that get in the way on a large scale -- the tools to keep yourself educated aren't readily available for a lot of people to begin with, for instance -- but how would that change the stances of people who believe in a "faith-based" governemnt, or people who start with ideologies and work their way backwards on issues?

I can accept the fact that a large part of people still support this administration, even though I don't like it; but I find it hard to accept any responsibility for the awareness level of people who refuse to listen to facts -- even facts their own government releases -- and instead, choose to believe the rhetoric of their "mouthpiece of god."

Brings me to another quote:
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. - George Washington
Written by George in a treaty with Tripoli, I believe and signed by John Adams after being ratified by Congres after George left office.

Fender, that was literally centuries ago. Thomas Jefferson was hastled by evangelicals of the time for his views when he ran for office, yet today they regard him highly having forgot that past. The same evangelicals that were too regressive for their time, are apparently in line with government in 2005. Praise Jesus.

I don't see what will stop another regressive administration from being voted in. We could have republican administrations to 2012 or even 2016.

Fender wrote:Two of my favorite quotes:
"They that can give up essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one." - Thomas Jefferson

very cool quotes

This is just pre-election point scoring by Blair.
The laws wouldnt survive the minute someone takes it to the Human Rights Commission.
They tried in Northern Ireland here, called 'internment', and it turned into the biggest fuck up of the troubles next to Bloody Sunday.
And that didnt stop the UK bombings.

Has the UK stopped fucking around with NI?

They're fucking themselves around pretty well right now, with this McCartney hoo-haa and all.

Nightshade wrote:Mmm, perhaps. Seems to me that the system has devolved to a state wherein it only allows those that are the worst for it to advance.

I agree....that's what I meant (in part) by 'structural' in my original statement.

And Rook, I'm not talking about Bush or any administration in particular...I'm trying to make a general point about our disengagement with politics, each other, and rational discourse as a collective value.

Graham Greene once said in a movie (I forget which one): "You are as far from yourself as a hawk is from the moon". This perfectly sums up my take on much of contemporary life.