Terrorism - a contradiction

[iain]

As I develop my ideas in different areas, every so often I realise that I've hit a contradiction in my own thinking. I seem to have hit one with regard to terrorism and I'd be interested in people's thoughts.

From my thinking about politics and the Iraq war, I've become concerned in terrorism, and the risk of terrorism, increasing. I worried that money that should be spent on terrorism was being spent counterproductively in Iraq and that the actions of the Coalition were leading to more terrorists.

On the other hand, my studies in security have led me to the conclusion that terrorism is being overplayed as a threat. The risk of being killed in a terrorist attack is tiny (according to Bruce Schneier, if you live outside a major city, you have more chance of dying from a bee sting).

Despite desperate attempts by the British government to remove all our liberties to protect us from terrorists, we are experiencing the UK an unusually long terrorist-attack-free period right now.

So, on the one hand I think that terrorists are being created round every corner and on the other hand I think the terrorist threat is overstated and money is probably being wasted on it which would be better spent saving lives elsewhere. I can't both be right.

[crimresearch]

The political and media assessement of the 'threat' posed by terrorists is a different kettle of fish from the security use of the term.

In the security arena, it is a given that there will be a threat from various quarters, and the primary goal is to decrease the odds of having the threat select *your* assets.

In the propaganda arena, the 'terrorist threat' is a bogeyman used to increase readership, solidify power bases, and solicit votes.

Paul

[toddjh]

I think the contradiction is resolved when you realize that we live at a very special point in history. Organized, global terrorism is in its infancy. It's never been tried before at anywhere near this scale. We have a chance here -- maybe the only one -- to prove right from the get-go that it won't be effective because it won't be tolerated.

If we allow it to continue, we run the risk of starting a trend that could continue for decades and result in larger and larger amounts of damage. A single nuclear warhead in New York or Washington, and the low risk of dying from terrorism could change considerably -- not to mention the economic damage, which would be catastrophic.

On the other hand, stopping it now requires a very large investment on our part. I agree with you that those efforts are being hampered by politics (Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with global terrorism until we invaded). We should've stuck with Afghanistan, where we actually had some international support and goodwill.

Jeremy

[Beancounter]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain


Despite desperate attempts by the British government to remove all our liberties to protect us from terrorists, we are experiencing the UK an unusually long terrorist-attack-free period right now.

Just a thought, but perhaps the reason you are enjoying an unusually long terrorist-attack-free period is because of the efforts of the government to protect you.

Maybe the money is not being wasted?

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter


Just a thought, but perhaps the reason you are enjoying an unusually long terrorist-attack-free period is because of the efforts of the government to protect you.

Maybe the money is not being wasted?

I'm sure that's right. What that doesn't explain is why the government needs to take more (expensive) steps to curtail our liberties - compulsory ID cards, imprisonment without trial etc. - if the current measures are good enough.

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by toddjh
I think the contradiction is resolved when you realize that we live at a very special point in history. Organized, global terrorism is in its infancy. It's never been tried before at anywhere near this scale. We have a chance here -- maybe the only one -- to prove right from the get-go that it won't be effective because it won't be tolerated.

If we allow it to continue, we run the risk of starting a trend that could continue for decades and result in larger and larger amounts of damage. A single nuclear warhead in New York or Washington, and the low risk of dying from terrorism could change considerably -- not to mention the economic damage, which would be catastrophic.

On the other hand, stopping it now requires a very large investment on our part. I agree with you that those efforts are being hampered by politics (Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with global terrorism until we invaded). We should've stuck with Afghanistan, where we actually had some international support and goodwill.

Jeremy

Of course, the other way of looking at it is that we are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, ensuring that we remain terrified without them having to do much at all; and so encouraging other groups into thinking that terrorism is a good way foroward. Perhaps the truth is somewhere inbetween.

[toddjh]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
Of course, the other way of looking at it is that we are playing right into the hands of the terrorists, ensuring that we remain terrified without them having to do much at all; and so encouraging other groups into thinking that terrorism is a good way foroward. Perhaps the truth is somewhere inbetween.

But fear is the means, not the end. Has terrorism led to the results they're after? Has it affected U.S. or European foreign policy in the ways they wanted? That's an open question, and it'll be years yet before we'll really know. But personally, I think they badly underestimated how extreme our initial reaction to 9/11 would be (bin Laden said in an interview that he didn't expect the WTC to collapse completely, so that may have something to do with it). We've screwed the pooch since then, but not before we did an awful lot of damage to al Qaeda's infrastructure.

Jeremy

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter


Just a thought, but perhaps the reason you are enjoying an unusually long terrorist-attack-free period is because of the efforts of the government to protect you.

Maybe the money is not being wasted?

IIRC the last terrorist attack on mainland Britain was in late Spring/early Summer 2001 when the Real IRA left four car bombs around London and one in Birmingham. On the whole the reduction in Republican terrorist attacks can be attributed to the Northern Ireland peace process—the Real IRA (a dissident offshoot of the IRA who are opposed to the peace process) and low level sectarian violence in Northern Ireland excepted—which, although seemingly lurching from crisis to crisis, is certainly not money wasted imo. On the other hand, it's not clear how the wide-ranging scope of the Government's anti-terrorist act, with its threats to civil rights, and freedom of speech and religion, is worth the money or in anyway effective in ensuring the security of the UK. When you throw their ID card plans into the mix, it starts to look like that we're having to sacrifice very beliefs and ideals, that supposedly differentiate us from international terrorism, in order to protect them.

[Beancounter]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
I'm sure that's right. What that doesn't explain is why the government needs to take more (expensive) steps to curtail our liberties - compulsory ID cards, imprisonment without trial etc. - if the current measures are good enough.

It appears that my post was from a position of ignorance (surely not ) as I was unaware of the measures that have yet to be introduced. These would appear to support your point but, as a person living in a country with compulsory ID cards, I wouldn't stress too much about those - reduces the number of kids in the pubs at least!

It's a fine line between protecting the public and infringing peoples' civil liberties but, at the end of the day, if you don't do anything wrong, to what extent are your civil liberties being infringed?

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter


It appears that my post was from a position of ignorance (surely not ) as I was unaware of the measures that have yet to be introduced. These would appear to support your point but, as a person living in a country with compulsory ID cards, I wouldn't stress too much about those - reduces the number of kids in the pubs at least!

Round my way, there's not much of a problem with kids in pubs as they're all hanging round the bus shelter necking cheap cider and vodka .

Quote:

It's a fine line between protecting the public and infringing peoples' civil liberties but, at the end of the day, if you don't do anything wrong, to what extent are your civil liberties being infringed?

Under the definitions in the anti-terrorist act, the Ramblers' Association is classified as a terrorist group. The Regulation of Information (Protection) Act places a legal obligation on UK-based ISPs to keep, and make available, records of all their internet traffic; IMs, e-mail, BB postings, you name it.

When "doing anything wrong" becomes anything the government doesn't want you to do, your civil liberties have already been infringed.

[Beancounter]

Cheap cider, now that brings back some fond memories (and serious headaches).

Quote:

Under the definitions in the anti-terrorist act, the Ramblers' Association is classified as a terrorist group. The Regulation of Information (Protection) Act places a legal obligation on UK-based ISPs to keep, and make available, records of all their internet traffic; IMs, e-mail, BB postings, you name it.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of the beast, fighting terrorism is a bit like hunting rabbits with high explosives. The terrorists will blend in with "normal" citizens and plan their attacks under the disguise of anonimity (e.g. 9/11 attacks). Therefore, if we are going to try and counter these people, by definition, we have to inconvenience everyone in order to hinder the few. The internet is a good case in point. If a terrorist attack is to be planned by way of the internet, the only way to find out (if you are not aware of the suspects' identities) is to watch the whole thing. (Sounds like a bit of a herculean task to me but then I am not up to speed with the technology of it)

The real problem arises if this global monitoring is used for nefarious means by the government (or others). Sure, I would feel a little bit uncomfortable knowing that James Bond (or whoever) knows that I am a frequenter of a "Busty Babes" website, but I guess I would have to live with that, after all I wouldn't be hurting anyone (another debate) so why worry?. However, I would be extremely pissed off if they published the fact in the press or it was used against me if I were applying for a job. (By the way, hypothetical situation you understand, honest )

It is unfortunate but I am not sure if there is a solution to the "terrorist threat" beyond greater surveillance.

Quote:

When "doing anything wrong" becomes anything the government doesn't want you to do, your civil liberties have already been infringed

We (you) voted the government in to run the country and they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the country (we would hope - again another debate to be had with David Icke et al). If we don't like it we vote them out and vote in a party that promises they won't infringe on our privacy/liberties in this way . If enough people feel strongly about it then you won't even have to wait for an election because a vote of no confidence could bring about the change.

That is the beauty of democracy but we have to put some trust in the government to "do what is best". To do this they will pass laws to ensure that you don't do what they don't want you to do because what they don't want you do is not in the best interests of the country. Someone has to make that choice (and I am glad it's not me).

Overly simplistic? Probably.

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter
It's a fine line between protecting the public and infringing peoples' civil liberties but, at the end of the day, if you don't do anything wrong, to what extent are your civil liberties being infringed?

My liberties are infringed because there will be a huge database with lots of personal information about me which employees of any number of government agencies will be able to access, legtimately or otherwise, and potentially alter. Also, if someone steals my biometric ID, what do I do about it? Get a new retina pattern? How about if someone malciously or accidentally puts me down as a terrorist suspect or child molestor in the database? None of this is new - it already happens in a small scale in the UK and US. ID cards are a way to make the risk of abuse much greater.

It isn't the card that's the problem so much as the database(s) that go with it.

However, there is another big case against ID cards : the cost. Because the UK is going for a high-tech solution, the Home Office is putting the cost at £3 billion. If it doesn't end up being at least twice as high, it will be a first for large, bleeding edge, government IT projects. On top of that, this cost doesn't include the cost of having card and biometric readers everywhere they are needed in the country (e.g. post offices, benefits offices). The cost to the taxpayer, one way or another, is unlikely to be much less that £10 billion. I very much doubt the benefits it will bring (and the government has admitted it will do little to prevent terrorism) are worth a cost of £200 to every man, woman and child in the country.

My only consolation is that the ID card program will almost certainly be scrapped, or at least massively scaled down, when the realities become apparent to the government of the day.

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter
We (you) voted the government in to run the country and they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the country. If we don't like it we vote them out and vote in a party that promises they won't infringe on our privacy/liberties in this way . If enough people feel strongly about it then you won't even have to wait for an election because a vote of no confidence could bring about the change.

Unfortunately I live in a country where the governing party has not received a majority of the votes since the 1950s; and where the electoral system means that a small proportion of the population (living in government party marginal constituencies) have a lot more say over the election result than everyone else. Personally, because of where I live, I have zero ability to either support or reject the current Government.

Quote:

That is the beauty of democracy but we have to put some trust in the government to "do what is best". To do this they will pass laws to ensure that you don't do what they don't want you to do because what they don't want you do is not in the best interests of the country. Someone has to make that choice (and I am glad it's not me).

If only I could believe that the government made informed choices for the benefit of the country. My belief that this is often not the case (at least in the UK) is based not only on seeing the results but also on reading/hearing first and second-hand accounts of how government works in practise.

[BillyTK]

Quote:

Originally posted by Beancounter
Cheap cider, now that brings back some fond memories (and serious headaches).




Unfortunately, due to the nature of the beast, fighting terrorism is a bit like hunting rabbits with high explosives. The terrorists will blend in with "normal" citizens and plan their attacks under the disguise of anonimity (e.g. 9/11 attacks). Therefore, if we are going to try and counter these people, by definition, we have to inconvenience everyone in order to hinder the few. The internet is a good case in point. If a terrorist attack is to be planned by way of the internet, the only way to find out (if you are not aware of the suspects' identities) is to watch the whole thing. (Sounds like a bit of a herculean task to me but then I am not up to speed with the technology of it)

Googling is probably a more effective strategy than what the government is intending!

Quote:

The real problem arises if this global monitoring is used for nefarious means by the government (or others). Sure, I would feel a little bit uncomfortable knowing that James Bond (or whoever) knows that I am a frequenter of a "Busty Babes" website, but I guess I would have to live with that, after all I wouldn't be hurting anyone (another debate) so why worry?. However, I would be extremely pissed off if they published the fact in the press or it was used against me if I were applying for a job. (By the way, hypothetical situation you understand, honest )

It is unfortunate but I am not sure if there is a solution to the "terrorist threat" beyond greater surveillance.

Project Echelon might p!ss you off a bit; it's only an eyepatch and a fluffy white cat short of a global domination conspiracy

Quote:

We (you) voted the government in to run the country and they are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the country (we would hope - again another debate to be had with David Icke et al). If we don't like it we vote them out and vote in a party that promises they won't infringe on our privacy/liberties in this way . If enough people feel strongly about it then you won't even have to wait for an election because a vote of no confidence could bring about the change.

That is the beauty of democracy but we have to put some trust in the government to "do what is best". To do this they will pass laws to ensure that you don't do what they don't want you to do because what they don't want you do is not in the best interests of the country. Someone has to make that choice (and I am glad it's not me).

Overly simplistic? Probably.

There has to be a few core values that any democratically elected government has to abide by—even if they've only got a "living constitution" and not a written one—otherwise it's no longer a democracy–something about power coming from the people and invested in the government, not the other way round

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
However, there is another big case against ID cards : the cost. Because the UK is going for a high-tech solution, the Home Office is putting the cost at £3 billion. If it doesn't end up being at least twice as high, it will be a first for large, bleeding edge, government IT projects. On top of that, this cost doesn't include the cost of having card and biometric readers everywhere they are needed in the country (e.g. post offices, benefits offices). The cost to the taxpayer, one way or another, is unlikely to be much less that £10 billion. I very much doubt the benefits it will bring (and the government has admitted it will do little to prevent terrorism) are worth a cost of £200 to every man, woman and child in the country.

My only consolation is that the ID card program will almost certainly be scrapped, or at least massively scaled down, when the realities become apparent to the government of the day.

I agree that the goverment is never going to pull this off.

However, depending on who you talk to, benefit fraud costs the UK £4 billion a year. If (and it's admittedly a big if) a decent ID card system could eliminate that, it would pay for itself quite rapidly.

[Tmy]

Boston is hosting the Democrat convention at the end of July. Security is basically gonna shut down the main highway, parking lots, and train stations for most of the day on the Friday.

Basically they are crippleing the city as much as a terror attack would.

I think security goes overboard sometimes. I wonder how mcuh more the feds are spending in security after 911??

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by Tmy
Basically they are crippleing the city as much as a terror attack would.

But at least nobody gets killed.

[Tmy]

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm


But at least nobody gets killed.

You're underestimating the spike in road rage!

[Beancounter]

Quote:

Originally posted by BillyTK

it's only an eyepatch and a fluffy white cat short of a global domination conspiracy

Not heard that one before

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm


I agree that the goverment is never going to pull this off.

However, depending on who you talk to, benefit fraud costs the UK £4 billion a year. If (and it's admittedly a big if) a decent ID card system could eliminate that, it would pay for itself quite rapidly.

The total benefit fraud might be £4 billion but, on the Government's own figures, identity related benefit fraud is about £50million. For example ID cards won't do anything to stop the guy who claimes dole and does building work for cash-in-hand.

[Nasarius]

Quote:

Project Echelon might p!ss you off a bit; it's only an eyepatch and a fluffy white cat short of a global domination conspiracy

Yes indeed. If you're at all concerned about the privacy of your e-mail, please use the strongest public-key encryption available (PGP with a 4096-bit Diffie-Hellman key, I think).
Unless significant advances are made in prime factorization algorithms, even the NSA can't crack it. Yet...give it 10-20 years, and you'll probably want to switch to a bigger key (this estimate is from Bruce Schneier's Applied Cryptography)

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
The total benefit fraud might be £4 billion but, on the Government's own figures, identity related benefit fraud is about £50million. For example ID cards won't do anything to stop the guy who claimes dole and does building work for cash-in-hand.

An excellent point.

Right, then, I'll go back to disapproving of ID cards on all levels.

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm


An excellent point.

Right, then, I'll go back to disapproving of ID cards on all levels.

Hehe, another poor fool brainwashed into joining my anti-ID card cult.

[richardm]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
Hehe, another poor fool brainwashed into joining my anti-ID card cult.

When do I get my new trainers, by the way?

[Darat]

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm


I agree that the goverment is never going to pull this off.

However, depending on who you talk to, benefit fraud costs the UK £4 billion a year. If (and it's admittedly a big if) a decent ID card system could eliminate that, it would pay for itself quite rapidly.

I've yet to have it explained to me how the ID card would eliminate this fraud. Isn't most of the fraud by people claiming for benefits they are not entitled to rather then people inventing bogus identities to make claims with?

(Edited to add: Perhaps I should have read the other posts before I responded? )

To Iain's first post.

After being caught up in the terrorist bomb that destroyed or damaged most of the centre of Manchester in 1996 I have been even more resolute in resisting most of the so-called attempts by UK governments to make us safer from terrorists.

Terrorism uses fear as its weapon. To alter how we live because of that fear is to allow terrorists some measure of victory. Yes we should be vigilant, yes have security checks and so on, but we should not take any actions, even if they would make us 'safer', that fundamentally alter our culture and society, that restrict our freedoms or remove any rights.

I truthfully mean it when I say I would rather be less "safe" then give up any of my rights as a UK citizen under the guise of "protecting" me from terrorists.

[crimresearch]

"Terrorism uses fear as its weapon. "

Not always in the direct sense of say, a blackmailer...'Give us 100 million dollars or we will blow up more buildings...' is different from blowing up buildings to gain unlimited media attention for one's political agenda, which helps to raise 100 million dollars worth of recruits and supporters...

More precise to point out that terrorism in the present context uses various actions to allow them to mainstream their propaganda as a weapon. Without the 'terror' ist acts, their propaganda stands to be lost in the crowd of competing claims...violence gets an automatic bully pulpit.

Paul

[TAILGUNNER]

DOUBLE EDGED SWORD

yes countless millions are being spent against terrorism and rightly as you say nothing has happened here in the uk is a long time

be thankful then that the moneys not being wasted as the result terrorists 0 good guys 3 speaks for itself with three known instances where terrorist threats have been neutralised before an event

also to note take away the visble presense which is there to do nothing more than re-assure the public and you are left with funding for the security services you dont see and it is them that actually are fighting the war on terror and as a result of what they do it is costly

as for the approach that you are more than liable to die from a bee sting thats very true however there is still a threat and as such still a risk that it could be you as the person killed

what you are missing is something you actually touched on but not in the right way

civil libertys

never before in recent history has it been possible for the freedom loving countries to stop and reverse their trends on the movement and checking of people(a system exploited fully not only terrorists but criminals and wrong doers alike) since the introduction of the politically correct world everything has been under the scrutiny of various bodies to ensure rights of race creed colour ability disability are protected and it has been allowed to run amok and turned the entire system into a joke, until now

now those governing bodies can track and maintain an eye on the dubious people without the fear of being dragged to court for persecution and for the police of which i know a few here in the uk the war of terrorism has been a blessing in disguise and it would be inconceivable that any government now with its hands free would decide to return to a stage where its hands are tied because the suspected terrorist has shouted out its because of my relegion and an army of lawyers come running to aid him to freedom and compensation

the leadership view is its better to spend money on that which free's them than to hand it out in cheques of apology to evil people

naturally the libertarians will find fault with this as a working system but in my experience libertarians only ever see good in people and are often shocked to find the person they aided turned out to be the killer of many he was accused of in the first place

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER
civil libertys

never before in recent history has it been possible for the freedom loving countries to stop and reverse their trends on the movement and checking of people(a system exploited fully not only terrorists but criminals and wrong doers alike) since the introduction of the politically correct world everything has been under the scrutiny of various bodies to ensure rights of race creed colour ability disability are protected and it has been allowed to run amok and turned the entire system into a joke, until now

now those governing bodies can track and maintain an eye on the dubious people without the fear of being dragged to court for persecution and for the police of which i know a few here in the uk the war of terrorism has been a blessing in disguise ...

I'm not quite clear what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that before this, the government was scared of tracking people who were not white and English due to fears of political correctness? If so, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

I do agree with you that to some extent the government and police have used the threat of terrorism to get away with curtailing our liberties in ways unthinkable in the past. I just don't think that's good thing.

[TAILGUNNER]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
I'm not quite clear what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that before this, the government was scared of tracking people who were not white and English due to fears of political correctness? If so, do you have any evidence to support your claim?

^so difficult not to end up with the discussion taking this turn, hence my use of race creed colour ability and disability as such no that was not what i was suggesting, the suggestion being that governments on the whole who embraced freedom found themselves targets because in the equation they forgot to account for those who would exploit and it lead to a system that if all the world had good intentions would be fantastic, sad though it is the world is not full of people like that and that is why we are under threat and the governments are thankful its allowed them to close the door on a few exploitable policys, and lets be clear these measures where beginning when the IRA was doing its upmost to kill and disrupt and may i cite the services continued and historic monitoring of extremist groups in the uk as such the 'white english' statement is flawed and an unneccesary distraction^

I do agree with you that to some extent the government and police have used the threat of terrorism to get away with curtailing our liberties in ways unthinkable in the past. I just don't think that's good thing.

^unless the world overnight becomes a world full of people who embrace good its a neccesary evil that will not be surrendered now as the consequences of allowing libetarian views to get their way which in the current climate would ultimately lead to many deaths ,which are being avoided at present by the change in government civil liberties policies, it may not be good thing, but there is no alternative thats works^

[iain]

Tailgunner,

I can't imagine how you could think that being pro-civil liberties means assuming that everyone is going to be good and not being able to cope with bad and evil people. Do you have evidence to support this? For example, can you show that countries with more civil liberties also have more crime and terrorism?

It's all about finding a balance between allowing law abiding people to live their own lives without interference and ensuring that those who break the law are dealt with appropriately.

You seem to think that being pro-civil liberties somehow means allowing everyone to do whatever they want; but in my experience that is entirely untrue. What it does mean is moving the balance a bit so that, for example, fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted and as a consequence, fewer guilty people are correctly convicted.

Of course, this is all a balance and you have to draw that line somewhere. On one extreme, you could lock up everyone which would ensure that every single criminal was convicted. I doubt you would want that; so you too are looking for a balance and you simply find the balance you are happiest with in a slightly different place mine.

Edited to add : I would also be cautious of the word libertarian if I were you. There are a number of people in this forum who are members of the US Libertarian party and whilst they do tend to favour civil liberties, they have a number of other opinions which many liberals such as myself strongly disagree with.

[TAILGUNNER]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
Tailgunner,

I can't imagine how you could think that being pro-civil liberties means assuming that everyone is going to be good and not being able to cope with bad and evil people. Do you have evidence to support this? For example, can you show that countries with more civil liberties also have more crime and terrorism?

It's all about finding a balance between allowing law abiding people to live their own lives without interference and ensuring that those who break the law are dealt with appropriately.

You seem to think that being pro-civil liberties somehow means allowing everyone to do whatever they want; but in my experience that is entirely untrue. What it does mean is moving the balance a bit so that, for example, fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted and as a consequence, fewer guilty people are correctly convicted.

Of course, this is all a balance and you have to draw that line somewhere. On one extreme, you could lock up everyone which would ensure that every single criminal was convicted. I doubt you would want that; so you too are looking for a balance and you simply find the balance you are happiest with in a slightly different place mine.

Edited to add : I would also be cautious of the word libertarian if I were you. There are a number of people in this forum who are members of the US Libertarian party and whilst they do tend to favour civil liberties, they have a number of other opinions which many liberals such as myself strongly disagree with.

i would say there maybe is a slight an only slight misunderstanding possibly due to myself not highlighting a point

i am at present under the rules of civil libertys as such i can walk down the road without fear of persecution for any reason and that is with the new era we now live under, my original post should have encompassed this, civil liberties were allowed to run to its extreme, it would have made more sense in what i was attempting to say, the freedom loving countries went down a road of allowing civil liberties 'a good thing', but it rolled out of control and those of an evil nature were then free to take advantage of those liberties and the ensueing rights that accompany them even though the evil people themselves stood against these very liberties and rights

as such it was difficult for any government body to reign in those of evil intent without breaching the very liberties it had allowed

the current clamping down has in reality only taken us back a few steps but it has proved effective in the uk not only against terrorism and avoiding it but also by virtue of the loops holes and get of jail free clauses being shut down criminal activities and extremist organisations

so in reality a balance has been struck maybe it isnt the balance that everybody wants as the age old adage about never having enough freedom is a truth for some people but nethertheless it is a balance that works hence our avoidance so far of a terorist outrage and the success of our talking organised crime initiatives

as for you requested evidence to back or deny a claim that civil liberties creates more terrorism than a country without civil liberties

in countries with civil liberties its called terrorism in countries without civil liberties its romantisised and called freedom fighting go figure

should ^fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted and as a consequence, fewer guilty people are correctly convicted.

read as ^more guilty people are correctly convicted?^

not being picky but have to ask in case

btw thanks for the warning on the word libertarian, over here it doesnt seemingly have the same attachment as such i hope any of the group mentioned do not take offence

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by TAILGUNNER
as for you requested evidence to back or deny a claim that civil liberties creates more terrorism than a country without civil liberties

in countries with civil liberties its called terrorism in countries without civil liberties its romantisised and called freedom fighting go figure

Like Chechenya? Pakistan? Can you name some names?

Quote:

should ^fewer innocent people are wrongly convicted and as a consequence, fewer guilty people are correctly convicted.

read as ^more guilty people are correctly convicted?^

not being picky but have to ask in case

I meant what I said. In general terms, protecting innocent people from wrongful arrest and imprisonment means raising the bar higher in terms of the strength of evidence required to arrest and convict : for example, that the police should not be able to stop or arrest people purely due to their skin colour, or convict people purely on the basis of confessions which may not be reliable. This does make it more difficult to convict guilty people too, so fewer guilty people will be convicted.

There are some things which can break out of this. For example DNA evidence can lead to fewer innocent people and more guilty people being convicted in many cases; but even there caution is required (e.g. the "prosecutor's fallacy" over DNA evidence and recent evidence that fingerprints are not as unique as previously thought).

Quote:

btw thanks for the warning on the word libertarian, over here it doesnt seemingly have the same attachment as such i hope any of the group mentioned do not take offence

No problem. Sit back and enjoy the regular pro/anti libertarian slanging matches that appear in this forum.

[Jon_in_london]

We should not spend money on counter-terrorism or infringe on civil liberties.

Kids should have the right to beat the ***** out pensioners without having their rights curtailed and perverts should be able to arse-feck little boys without police intrusion into their private lives.

It would be sad if terrorists blew out your mother's guts as she pics up her £70 pension cheque and she spends the rest of her life paralysed from the chest down and sh!tting into a bag but hey! at least big brother isnt watching

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Kids should have the right to beat the ***** out pensioners without having their rights curtailed and perverts should be able to arse-feck little boys without police intrusion into their private lives.

That's a pretty big strawman you've got yourself there.

Quote:

It would be sad if terrorists blew out your mother's guts as she pics up her £70 pension cheque and she spends the rest of her life paralysed from the chest down and sh!tting into a bag but hey! at least big brother isnt watching

More than sad, but also incredibly unlikely to happen. It would be terrible if my mother got run over by a car; and that's thousands of times more likely to happen to her than a terrorist attack, but I'm not advising her stay in the house at all times just yet.

[Jon_in_london]

Quote:

Originally posted by iain
That's a pretty big strawman you've got yourself there.
yet.

Thanks. His name is Strawwy. I bought him from the Royal Society for the Protection of Scarecrows for 69p. Poor blighter, been beaten up by a bondage-freak-teddy-bear and all!

[iain]

Quote:

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Thanks. His name is Strawwy. I bought him from the Royal Society for the Protection of Scarecrows for 69p. Poor blighter, been beaten up by a bondage-freak-teddy-bear and all!

If you care for him and nurture him, one day you'll be proud, if a little sad, to see him making his own way in the world. I suspect the teddy-bear thing was just a story to gain your sympathy though - bondge-freak-teddy-bears are notoriously wimpish under their tough exterior.