Lack of Patriot Act hurts the UK

[Broken Glass Can]

The UK is having problems tracking the terrorist cells that coused the recent bombings in part because they do not have the use of some of the procedures that the US does in the Patriot Act.

Many of the muslims the Brits were watching were totally surprised by the bombings. The ones they watched were not aware of the other cells planning these acts. Now the British are asking the US for some help from the US, because the US can use provisions in the Patriot Act to investigate cells that may have been in contact with the bombers.

The Patriot Act saves lives in the US.

Don't you forget it!

[HtotheNootch]

The Patriot Act is an unConstitutial violation of every right an American should hold dear.

BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I think most Brits are even willing to accept some terrorism instead of getting a Patriotic Act, but maybe some Brits might answer. I would prefer some terror in my country to Patriotic Act atleast (at some point of course there is a trade off).

P.S. I have noticed that while most other names it UK or Britain, Bush says Great Britain emphasizing Great. Even though I don't like this guy he is charming sometimes.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cute.

You know that when you stop a terrorist who is killing random people in society, you can't identify who was going to be killed until they actually kill them. Not knowing who is alive today because of the Patriot Act, doesn't make those people's lives any less valuable.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
The Patriot Act is an unConstitutial violation of every right an American should hold dear.

BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is hard to argue against Broken Glass Can's claim that it saves life. Policing and anti-terror efforts will always be a trade-off between crime/terrorism prevention and freedom/human rights. If the police would make preventive arrests on all psychiatric patients with profiles that makes them potential killers, murder rate would go down.

I just don't want to live in that sort of society though.

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't want to live in that sort of society though.


[/ QUOTE ]

You got it.

Of course the Palestinians refugees get to live in that type of police state under Israeli occupation. I suspect that some Iraqi's believe they live in that type of state under US occupation.No rights just police state.

Now Americans are living under a (so far partial) police state.

[ptmusic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very cute.

You know that when you stop a terrorist who is killing random people in society, you can't identify who was going to be killed until they actually kill them. Not knowing who is alive today because of the Patriot Act, doesn't make those people's lives any less valuable.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is obviously no way you can prove that Patriot Act has saved a life. You would have to prove that a terror attack would certainly have happened without the Patriot Act AND that no other means of stopping that terrorist act was even possible.

Your logic is like that safari joke: one guy keeps throwing a piece of paper outside his tent once per hour. The other guy says "why are you doing that?" First guy says "to keep the tigers away." Second guy says "but there aren't any tigers around here." First guy says "see? it works."

Yes, the joke is stupid and the analogy breaks down, as all analogies do. I'm not saying the Patriot Act hasn't worked, or that it might work in the future. I'm saying you can't prove it works. The only thing for sure about it is that it infringes on our rights as free citizens.

-ptmusic

[coffeecrazy1]

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
The Patriot Act is an unConstitutial violation of every right an American should hold dear.

BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name for me all the times your civil rights have been violated under the patriot act...

[coffeecrazy1]

Well, I would, but the government won't tell me.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Our general attorney is now in media warning politicians that they must be careful so that they don't make laws that limits individuals' rights or increases surveillance due to terror threat. He says it can ultimately destroy our fair justice system.

Can sleep well tonight too /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[lehighguy]

pwnage /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Cyrus]

Excuse me, but unless you are smoking some serious Rasta sh*t, your post is inexplicable. Where precisely would a Patriot-like piece of legislation have helped the British in avoiding their own 9/11 ?

As a start, I would like you to tell us, please, which of the two is generally more "liberal", the American or the British constitution?

...Give this a quick try. I so like seeing neo-cons in the porridge.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]


BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does this mean that if an attack was stopped similar to the one on 9/11 using only provisions allowed under the patriot act where we could reasonable estimate the number of lives it saved. And it was certain that it would not have been stopped without the patroit act. You would be all for it?

[lastchance]

What's actually in the Patriot Act?

[coffeecrazy1]

Expanded surveillance and law enforcement powers...most likely to the point of violating not only the Fifth Amendment's "due process" clause, but also the "search and seizure" clause of the Fourth Amendment.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I think most Brits are even willing to accept some terrorism instead of getting a Patriotic Act, but maybe some Brits might answer. I would prefer some terror in my country to Patriotic Act atleast (at some point of course there is a trade off).

P.S. I have noticed that while most other names it UK or Britain, Bush says Great Britain emphasizing Great. Even though I don't like this guy he is charming sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this recent attack will be used to creep in new anti terror laws, which take away the right to trial by jury, I don't think this is a good thing, but i can understand why some people will. It makes me sad to think that the right to a trial by a jury of peers will be lost, the terrorist will have taken away something I care deeply about.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin

[/ QUOTE ]

Sound advice from a very wise man, ignore it at your peril, once freedom has gone you can't have it back by asking nicely.

Mack

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

So does this mean that if an attack was stopped similar to the one on 9/11 using only provisions allowed under the patriot act where we could reasonable estimate the number of lives it saved. And it was certain that it would not have been stopped without the patroit act. You would be all for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I still wouldn't support it. I just had a problem with the OP saying that what happened in England wouldn't have happened if they had a Patriot Act. It's just a false,self-serving statement.

The British government has far more experience in dealing with things like what happened the other day. I'm sure most of you are aware of little group known as the IRA?

Finally, you know what it would have taken to prevent the 9/11 attacks. All it would have taken were two things:

1) Enforcement of existing immigration laws; and
2) Arm the cockpit crew.

[BCPVP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

[phlup]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Patriot Act is an unConstitutial violation of every right an American should hold dear.

BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name for me all the times your civil rights have been violated under the patriot act...

[/ QUOTE ]

Name for me all the times we've stopped a terrorist plot using pervisions from the patriot act?

And don't tell me they wouldn't have that sort of thing all over the media if they'd done it.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Patriot Act is an unConstitutial violation of every right an American should hold dear.

BTW, name me one life it's saved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Name for me all the times your civil rights have been violated under the patriot act...

[/ QUOTE ]

Name for me all the times we've stopped a terrorist plot using pervisions from the patriot act?

And don't tell me they wouldn't have that sort of thing all over the media if they'd done it.

[/ QUOTE ]They wouldn't, you can see why, right?

[MtSmalls]

Hmmm, let see. The U.S. has currently made more than 5000 arrests under the Patroit Act. Number of convictions? ZERO.

What would have really been helpful in possibly preventing the bombing attacks in London, was if the Chimpmeister and his cronies hadn't burned the UK's Al-Queda Mole, Amir Khan, for what turned out to be a useless bust in Afghanistan...

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
The UK is having problems tracking the terrorist cells that coused the recent bombings in part because they do not have the use of some of the procedures that the US does in the Patriot Act.

Many of the muslims the Brits were watching were totally surprised by the bombings. The ones they watched were not aware of the other cells planning these acts. Now the British are asking the US for some help from the US, because the US can use provisions in the Patriot Act to investigate cells that may have been in contact with the bombers.

The Patriot Act saves lives in the US.

Don't you forget it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Her Majestys Constables/MI5 and Special Branch say:

PWNED

The news may not have reached your side of the pond but arrests have been made allready today and suspects identified.

[Broken Glass Can]

[ QUOTE ]

Her Majestys Constables/MI5 and Special Branch say:

PWNED

The news may not have reached your side of the pond but arrests have been made allready today and suspects identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is to prevent the various terrorist acts before they happen. Attentive citizens tipped off Scotland Yard - hardly cause for celebrating great police investigative work. With a Patriot type act, they may have caught them before 7/7.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Her Majestys Constables/MI5 and Special Branch say:

PWNED

The news may not have reached your side of the pond but arrests have been made allready today and suspects identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea is to prevent the various terrorist acts before they happen. Attentive citizens tipped off Scotland Yard - hardly cause for celebrating great police investigative work. With a Patriot type act, they may have caught them before 7/7.

[/ QUOTE ]dude, stop it.

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The UK is having problems tracking the terrorist cells that coused the recent bombings in part because they do not have the use of some of the procedures that the US does in the Patriot Act.

Many of the muslims the Brits were watching were totally surprised by the bombings. The ones they watched were not aware of the other cells planning these acts. Now the British are asking the US for some help from the US, because the US can use provisions in the Patriot Act to investigate cells that may have been in contact with the bombers.

The Patriot Act saves lives in the US.

Don't you forget it!

[/ QUOTE ]

Her Majestys Constables/MI5 and Special Branch say:

PWNED

The news may not have reached your side of the pond but arrests have been made allready today and suspects identified.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is quite impressive. I was very suprised when I saw the news reports today.

very good news indeed.

[partygirluk]

Erm, we already know who the bombers were. So much for your theory.

[HtotheNootch]

Like I said. The brits already know how to deal with this kind of thing - better than the US even with its mighty Patriot Act.

[coffeecrazy1]

None of our actual Patriots, the founding fathers or the football team members, would say that the Patriot Act is mighty.

In fact, our founding fathers might find its title rather ironic. The football team would wonder what ironic meant.

[HtotheNootch]

[ QUOTE ]
None of our actual Patriots, the founding fathers or the football team members, would say that the Patriot Act is mighty.

In fact, our founding fathers might find its title rather ironic. The football team would wonder what ironic meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to remember that sarcasm doesn't always translate well to online forums. You're post is dead on though.

[coffeecrazy1]

No, no...I caught the sarcasm fine. I just chose to ignore it to make my zinger stronger. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
None of our actual Patriots, the founding fathers or the football team members, would say that the Patriot Act is mighty.

In fact, our founding fathers might find its title rather ironic. The football team would wonder what ironic meant.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course unless you have devised a time machine this is only conjecture. It is impossible to know how they would react to 9/11.

One could surmise that they would strongly feel that it should be the elected leaders of the day and not the ghosts from days past who determine public policy.

However if we are to live the strict designs of the founding fathers shouldn't we then role back all laws enacted after their death?

[daveymck]

We already have prevention of terrorism laws we do not need a similar act to the patriotism one.

The UK has a decent record of tracking down and preventing attacks but on this one it sounds like even with the laws in place in the US these four people could not have been stopped. One worked in his family shop the other in the local chippy and one at a local school (whos wife was pregnant) none of them were miltitant in actions some had travelled to Pakistan (which isnt unusual for those with PAkistani decendants) from what has come out so far there was nothing to tip the police off.

Cutting down the rights of the people to me is a sign of giving in to the terrorists I suspect even in these coming weeks after the attack there would be a great deal of resistance to any draconian laws being passed in Parliment.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
We already have prevention of terrorism laws we do not need a similar act to the patriotism one.

The UK has a decent record of tracking down and preventing attacks but on this one it sounds like even with the laws in place in the US these four people could not have been stopped. One worked in his family shop the other in the local chippy and one at a local school (whos wife was pregnant) none of them were miltitant in actions some had travelled to Pakistan (which isnt unusual for those with PAkistani decendants) from what has come out so far there was nothing to tip the police off.

Cutting down the rights of the people to me is a sign of giving in to the terrorists I suspect even in these coming weeks after the attack there would be a great deal of resistance to any draconian laws being passed in Parliment.

[/ QUOTE ]

No they are coming shortly, Blair has an ugly opportunity to press them through, none of his political opponents can afford to disagree with him for fear of censure in the press.

Most unthinking people will not see it as a problem, which for them at the moment it isn't, you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear right? This is where I disagree, I don't want my conversations, and e-mail correspondence records kept, I don't want to produce ID for no reason other than the whims of Sergeant Pepper and Colonel Mustard. I don't want the state interferring in my harmless legal activities to such an extent. I don't want to be arrested without charges, and held for an indeterminate amount of time, with no access to legal representation, I also don't want this happening to others in my country, this is a much bigger fear than the fear of terrorism.

What if we elected a complete nutter, who decided anyone who disagreed with him was a terrorist, the laws would already be in place, the world wouldn't even notice.

Regards Mack

[daveymck]

I was under the impression that it the proposal was for suspected terrorists although I havent looked at the new proposal this was what was proposed in the last bill. Althoiugh I guess there is nothing to stop it form being imposed on "normal" people when it becomes law.

They could include:


Banning possession or use of specified articles or substances

Prohibiting the use of certain services, such as internet or phones

Restricting work or business

Restricting association or communication with certain individuals, or other people generally

Restricting the person's place of residence or who is allowed into the premises

Requiring the person to be at specified places or in a particular area at certain times or days

Restricting movements within the UK or international travel

A specific 24-hour ban on movements

Requiring the surrendering of a passport

A requirement to give access to specified people to his home

A requirement to allow officials to search his home

A requirement to let officials remove items from premises for tests

A requirement to be monitored by electronic tagging or other means

A requirement to provide information to an official on demand

A requirement to report at a specified time and place

[canis582]

"Those who trade freedom for safety deserve neither."

-Ben Franklin

BGC wants to turn the US into a totalitarian state in the name of the war on terra. He probobly believes that our freedoms come from gawd and not from the blood of young boys.

[PorscheNGuns]

LOL

Name one right you've had violated

-Matt

[canis582]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL

Name one right you've had violated

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, i'd rather wait until its too late.

[Rearden]

You are by far one of the largest sources of party based ignorance in this forum (well... aside from Dead). The UK set up numerous camera systems in public locations during the IRA years... if that didnt help how will a law that allows the government to check your library list help? I'd like you to explain exactly how the USA Patriot act will confound terrorists from striking the US ever again and will prevent a determined, well funded, and oh yeah "willing to die to accomplish their mission" group from harming American citizens. Or, while youre doing federally monitored research at your local library, find a situation where tighter social controls do anything but harm society (in that I mean stop all of the terrorist/rebel/partisan/random small dedicated group attacks) [this from a party that stands for individual rights].

PS: I'm a registered Republican; no need to try calling me a liberal and attempt to dodge the responsibility you've staked out by claiming that the Patriot act saves lives.

[bobman0330]

Do any of you people actually know what's in the PATRIOT act? I mean, good lord, someone posted a wikipedia link right there.

Are you seriously concerned that they're going to look at your library records just to oppress you for reading romance novels or playboy or whatever the hell it is you're concerned about?

It's not as if they'd have to:
A. Go before a federal court.
B. Show probable cause.
C. If they didn't want to notify you immediately, they'd have to show extenuating circumstances to delay notification. Then they'd have to notify you 90 days later.

I for one sure feel oppressed. Now quit making up these BS scenarios, and look at what the act is really for:

Suspected terrorist Mahmoud ibn Kalir (made-up Arab-sounding name) is living in the US, getting money from mysterious overseas Islamic charities, and talking to neighbors about "big things" that are going down soon. This is not a crime, so the FBI gets a wiretap (shockingly, this is a temporarily secret proceeding). He tells his overseas Islamic charity pals that he was reading books from the library about the "big thing" that's going down soon. None of this is evidence of a crime, so they look through his library records and see that he's recently checked out "High Explosives and You" and "Structual Weak Points of Tall Buildings." Fortunately, the PATRIOT act was repealed, so they send him a letter. "Mr. ibn Kalir: We recently searched your library records. Don't be concerned. Love, The FBI" Does this sound good to you?

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LOL

Name one right you've had violated

-Matt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You're right, i'd rather wait until its too late.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of people especially the younger members of society assume that their own government will never turn on them, that they will always be treated fairly, they only consider the obvious positive effects of such legislation, never consider it could happen to them one day. A fair system of laws is at the heart of western democracy, this takes us back 1000 years.

Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

Agreed,
If leaders who wants to make laws like the Patriotic Act are not kept in check by the population and thus escalate their efforts, the population will find that their government ultimately will be a bigger threat to them than terrorism.

Just look at McCarthyism. He made more harm than the American communists collectively managed to do.

[jcx]

Governments spying on its citizens is nothing new. The NSA has been doing it for years. 9-11 provided a great opportunity to make it nice and legal. With or without the Patriot Act, if the govt thinks you warrant surveillance you will get it.

I honestly don't know why the Europeans here would object to a Patriot-like act in their respective countries. You've turned over all right to defend yourself to the state and gladly handed in your guns. If your personal protection is solely the responsibility of a benevolent government, shouldn't that government have all the tools necessary to ensure you don't get blown to bits?

[mackthefork]

First you say this....

[ QUOTE ]
Governments spying on its citizens is nothing new. The NSA has been doing it for years. 9-11 provided a great opportunity to make it nice and legal. With or without the Patriot Act, if the govt thinks you warrant surveillance you will get it.


[/ QUOTE ]

then totally confuse me by saying this......

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly don't know why the Europeans here would object to a Patriot-like act in their respective countries.

[/ QUOTE ]

then lose all credibility by coming up with this gem.....

[ QUOTE ]
You've turned over all right to defend yourself to the state and gladly handed in your guns. If your personal protection is solely the responsibility of a benevolent government, shouldn't that government have all the tools necessary to ensure you don't get blown to bits?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean come on we are safer in Europe precisely because everyone isn't armed, thats why we don't get shot so much as you Americans, and your guns didn't help on 9/11 so how could guns have helped us here? Governments are kind of like the terrorist themselves in that they use peoples fear to push agendas which should be left well alone. Also our government is no more benevolent then yours is.

Regards Mack

[Arnfinn Madsen]

This carry gun-argument falls into its own dirt, since murder rate in western Europe is lower than in the US; thus making it safer here.

Most our governments are not just naively watching terrorism happen, they have just decided that there are other things higher on the priority list than combating terrorism. Human rights being one.

[jcx]

I support an armed population not in the hope of thwarting all terrorism, as this is an achilles heel in any free society. The guns are to remind the government there is a line they shouldn't cross.

The question remains: Why would a society that has allowed, even welcomed, the government to take control of and regulate nearly every facet of their lives object to a Patriot Act?

[Arnfinn Madsen]

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Norway the Labour Party was in control of basically everything from the 50s to 70s. In the 90s it was revealed that they used the equivalent of CIA to control the communist inside their own party. A comission was set up to investigate and they found a lot of politically-motivated surveillance. A lot of the victims of surveillance were given the right to read their own files and some filed for compensation.

The politicians then decided that the only way to prevent it was to limit the police's options and closely monitor it. Our CIA now needs permission from other units before they can start wide-scale surveillance. Now we have no Patriotic Act but we also can feel confident that we will not be surveilled without good reason.

Power corrupts, thus all power must be held in check. Patriotic Act is IMO a way for the power to try to get out of that grip. Convenient? Yes. Healthy for society? No.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in Norway the Labour Party was in control of basically everything from the 50s to 70s. In the 90s it was revealed that they used the equivalent of CIA to control the communist inside their own party. A comission was set up to investigate and they found a lot of politically-motivated surveillance. A lot of the victims of surveillance were given the right to read their own files and some filed for compensation.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah same here people got access to files after they became open under the offical secrets act.

He is basically wrong, I don't want to argue about whether its better to have guns or not, that is skirting the issue, the point is the UK government interferes with the lives of UK citizens far less than the US government does with US citizens, we never had a Guantanamo, you had to have done something wrong to be arrested until recently, we don't do death penalty anymore (too many innocent people murdered by the state). I like the philosophy behind life in the USA, but its changing now, and not for the better, people need to look at whats happeneing and really think if its good for freedom and fairness.

Regards Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
This carry gun-argument falls into its own dirt, since murder rate in western Europe is lower than in the US; thus making it safer here.

Most our governments are not just naively watching terrorism happen, they have just decided that there are other things higher on the priority list than combating terrorism. Human rights being one.

[/ QUOTE ]

1000 times more people died from Hospital Aquired infections in the UK in the last decade than were killed by terrorists. Sures it's important to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths, but you are right, there are much bigger killers, and things that affect peoples daily lives much more than terrorism.

Mack

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
the point is the UK government interferes with the lives of UK citizens far less than the US government does with US citizens, we never had a Guantanamo, you had to have done something wrong to be arrested until recently, we don't do death penalty anymore (too many innocent people murdered by the state). I like the philosophy behind life in the USA, but its changing now, and not for the better, people need to look at whats happeneing and really think if its good for freedom and fairness.


[/ QUOTE ]

Glad to have some pretentious blather from our overseas pals about the state of affairs in our country.

Firstly, it's funny to me that none of you are even trying to pretend that you aren't grossly mischaracterizing the Patriot Act.

Secondly, "[YOU] NEVER HAD A GUANTANAMO"?? You mean you personally?? This claim merely shows your ignorance and desire to claim moral superiority, not anything about the truth. In fact, until the House of Lords found it illegal, many foreign nationals living in the UK (compare with enemy combatants captured in the field of battle) were detained on suspicion, without any sort of trial, indefinitely. They were given the option of being deported to their home countries as their only out. Of course, this was less of an out, since the reason they weren't deported in the first place was that they were so likely to be tortured or otherwise abused in their home countries that it was illegal under UK law to deport them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4100481.stm

But at least you never stained your moral purity by interning enemy soldiers during a war. (Recently. Read about the Boer War concentration camps [actually, mostly civilians, not soldiers] if you're into history.)

And a little Euro-snobbishness about the death penalty. Good post, bud.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Sures it's important to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths, but you are right, there are much bigger killers, and things that affect peoples daily lives much more than terrorism.

[/ QUOTE ]

This definitely won't true be if terrorists acquire nukes and the means to use them.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the point is the UK government interferes with the lives of UK citizens far less than the US government does with US citizens, we never had a Guantanamo, you had to have done something wrong to be arrested until recently, we don't do death penalty anymore (too many innocent people murdered by the state). I like the philosophy behind life in the USA, but its changing now, and not for the better, people need to look at whats happeneing and really think if its good for freedom and fairness.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Glad to have some pretentious blather from our overseas pals about the state of affairs in our country.

Firstly, it's funny to me that none of you are even trying to pretend that you aren't grossly mischaracterizing the Patriot Act.

Secondly, "[YOU] NEVER HAD A GUANTANAMO"?? You mean you personally?? This claim merely shows your ignorance and desire to claim moral superiority, not anything about the truth. In fact, until the House of Lords found it illegal, many foreign nationals living in the UK (compare with enemy combatants captured in the field of battle) were detained on suspicion, without any sort of trial, indefinitely. They were given the option of being deported to their home countries as their only out. Of course, this was less of an out, since the reason they weren't deported in the first place was that they were so likely to be tortured or otherwise abused in their home countries that it was illegal under UK law to deport them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4100481.stm

But at least you never stained your moral purity by interning enemy soldiers during a war. (Recently. Read about the Boer War concentration camps [actually, mostly civilians, not soldiers] if you're in to history.)

And a little Euro-snobbishness about the death penalty. Good post, bud.

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual you come on all high and mighty, putting words in my mouth and scrambling up the meaning of the very words you are quoting.

Firstly this thread is full of ignorant bullshit about Europe, I'm happy with the comparisons I made.

What I have clearly said, is we never had a Guantanamo type situation (detention without charge) now we do, and its not a good thing in my opinion.

Secondly you are talking about the Patriot act, I am talking about the proposed legislation the UK government would like to put through the House of Lords, I know quite well what measures are being discussed, you are of course right, I am not aware of what the Patriot Act does.

Why are you talking about the death penalty, I was mistaken to raise it, but its looked on very poorly over here, draw up a list of countries that still have it and you'll see why.

We all know that every countries military almost without exception has commited attrocities, its not big and its not clever, just because we did it a 100 years ago, doesn't make it okay for the US and allies to do it now.

Regards Mack (not on the moral high ground)

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sures it's important to prevent unnecessary suffering and deaths, but you are right, there are much bigger killers, and things that affect peoples daily lives much more than terrorism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This definitely won't true be if terrorists acquire nukes and the means to use them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets hope it never happens.

Mack