Terrifying Terror Laws
Pseudonym | 13.10.2005 08:24 | Anti-militarism | Repression | Terror War | London
'He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression.' - Thomas Paine (1795)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only a government preparing to become totalitarian would require the new Terror Laws enacted in the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said police need to act on intelligence, without evidence, to protect the law-abiding public from terrorists, criminals and anti-social individuals, but who is going to protect us from brutal police with unprecedented powers?
The game has changed, says Blair, and so must the law, but civil rights were introduced in medieval Britain to ensure a fairer system and these respected statutes have balanced justice and security in this country for eight hundred years. What Blair is proposing is a return to the Dark Ages, when men were caged in dungeons based on rumour, suspicion or lies.
Blair is wedded to the notion that suspects are guilty until proven innocent because he believes senior police presented a compelling case. The same police who claimed to be acting on intelligence when they shot an innocent man on July 22nd , whom they insisted was connected to the failed tube attacks. They were dead wrong and a Brazilian paid with his life
On July 7th we had a “suicide bomber” who was due to be a dad in two months, another had just bought a Mercedes and one, rather than fasting and praying to Allah before deliverance into Paradise, ate a McDonald’s! None of the July terrorists fit the profile of extremists exacting revenge for the Iraq war. They were Pakistanis, Ethiopians and a Jamaican!
A British-born black Muslim convert who travelled to Afghanistan to study Islam, decided Jihad was not for him, so upon arriving back in London he was approached by MI5 with a job offer. Agents wanted him to infiltrate mosques and gather intelligence, or perhaps even assist with ‘terror drills’ like the one on July 7th in the underground? Luckily, he refused!
The accused are victims, but the government, police and media are only addressing the issue from the premise that suicide bombers struck the Capital, without producing a shred of conclusive evidence. The CCTV images prove nothing. It is alleged their documents were found on the train, but that is not proof of guilt either, and where are the eyewitness accounts?
There is no investigation! Blair does not want the hindrance of lawful proceedings or an inquiry, he already knows the truth and that will remain hidden. He has the apparatus to make his version of events stick. Three months detention without charge is enough time to extract a ‘confession’ by interrogation and then there is torture, condoned by George Bush.
The next phase is to condition the people into accepting the death penalty for terrorists. In Bali, five hundred protestors stormed the prison DEMANDING the immediate execution of three Islamic militants jailed for the 2002 nightclub bombings. The angry crowd vowed to unite against the “terrorism menace” while a more dangerous menace is seizing our rights.
Only a government preparing to become totalitarian would require the new Terror Laws enacted in the United Kingdom. Tony Blair said police need to act on intelligence, without evidence, to protect the law-abiding public from terrorists, criminals and anti-social individuals, but who is going to protect us from brutal police with unprecedented powers?
The game has changed, says Blair, and so must the law, but civil rights were introduced in medieval Britain to ensure a fairer system and these respected statutes have balanced justice and security in this country for eight hundred years. What Blair is proposing is a return to the Dark Ages, when men were caged in dungeons based on rumour, suspicion or lies.
Blair is wedded to the notion that suspects are guilty until proven innocent because he believes senior police presented a compelling case. The same police who claimed to be acting on intelligence when they shot an innocent man on July 22nd , whom they insisted was connected to the failed tube attacks. They were dead wrong and a Brazilian paid with his life
On July 7th we had a “suicide bomber” who was due to be a dad in two months, another had just bought a Mercedes and one, rather than fasting and praying to Allah before deliverance into Paradise, ate a McDonald’s! None of the July terrorists fit the profile of extremists exacting revenge for the Iraq war. They were Pakistanis, Ethiopians and a Jamaican!
A British-born black Muslim convert who travelled to Afghanistan to study Islam, decided Jihad was not for him, so upon arriving back in London he was approached by MI5 with a job offer. Agents wanted him to infiltrate mosques and gather intelligence, or perhaps even assist with ‘terror drills’ like the one on July 7th in the underground? Luckily, he refused!
The accused are victims, but the government, police and media are only addressing the issue from the premise that suicide bombers struck the Capital, without producing a shred of conclusive evidence. The CCTV images prove nothing. It is alleged their documents were found on the train, but that is not proof of guilt either, and where are the eyewitness accounts?
There is no investigation! Blair does not want the hindrance of lawful proceedings or an inquiry, he already knows the truth and that will remain hidden. He has the apparatus to make his version of events stick. Three months detention without charge is enough time to extract a ‘confession’ by interrogation and then there is torture, condoned by George Bush.
The next phase is to condition the people into accepting the death penalty for terrorists. In Bali, five hundred protestors stormed the prison DEMANDING the immediate execution of three Islamic militants jailed for the 2002 nightclub bombings. The angry crowd vowed to unite against the “terrorism menace” while a more dangerous menace is seizing our rights.
Pseudonym
Comments
Hide the following 11 comments
Judge Dread
13.10.2005 12:02
It is very scary and also infuriating when surrounded by people who just sit around and say 'ooh it's terrible', 'it shouldn't be allowed' but then don't actually do anything to try and prevent it.
fredrico
e-mail:
musteatvegan@yahoo.co.uk
Pseudonym
13.10.2005 12:35
The countries you named as the ethnicity of these accused suicide bombers all have considerable Muslim populations? Do all suicide bombers have to come from the Gulf???
Please just stick to to reality and resist dramatising things like some Daily Mail front page.
Deputy Dog
I think defeating international terrorism is very important!
14.10.2005 09:20
Good, then I will be able to ride on a tube or bus without having to be worried about being blown up by insane terrorist fanatics! I will also be able to shop in places like Oxford Street without the area being exvacuted due to a terrorist threat thus interupting my days shopping. I will also be able to go out for a drink in a bar or a club without worrying about getting blown to bits like the victims of the Bali bombings as well. Wake up the reall enemy are the terrorists who want to blow us all to kingdom come, not the government who are trying to protect us from such lunatics!
Concerned
Deputy Dawg
14.10.2005 09:21
And the so-called investigation is what most people call, a cover-up!
Do you really think I write like a professional Daily Mail journalist?
Wow... thanks!
Pseudonym
Concerned about Concerneds Brain Capacity
14.10.2005 14:39
And personally i dont care if u never shop in oxford street again u selfish little 'i wanna be able to shop safely while were murdering them abroad' PRICK!
Get the Hell Back to Nike Town
Reply to the above
14.10.2005 16:02
So overthorwing brutal evil murderous dictatorships like Saddam Husseins and the Taliban in Afghanistan who incidently attacked America on September the 11th 2001 killing 3,000 people is wrong! Would you rather these foreign countries were ruled by brutal murderous dictatorships or by the new democracies which Britain and America have put in place? Iraq and Afghanistan are much better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein and The Taliban. Oh and when Iraq invaded the sovereign democratic country of Kuwait in 1990, massacering thousands of its people and ravaging and ransacking that country I didn't here any of you lot complain one bit! Remember who started the violence in the Middle East - Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda!
Concerned
Round Round Baby Round Round
14.10.2005 19:34
Sure Saddam was a prick but the UK have such a History of Imperialism, torture, murder, setting up dictatorships that even NAZI Germany would be jealous. so i guess that means if some1 wants to topple the British regime they should. Obviously i think it should be toppled but by its own people. Face it cowboy ur not the model country and ur an arrogant prick if u think all countries must be rescued by the UK in order to be like them. There is no democracy in Iraq the Parties runnin for the elections were carefully chosen (anti occupation parties were not allowed to run) the economy of Iraq is controlled by foreigners (this was decided by the coalition of the willing and not by the Iraqi people) and even in lame things like the new constitution only a 2/3 No vote would mean it doesnt pass meaning Iraq could have a new constitution with only 34% of people approving. Well kneel down everyone we have found our promised land. Praise Britain ALLELLUJAH and all that crap ur trying to sell.
PS the start of the midle east crisis didnt start in 1990. If u bother looking a bit further back ul find many decades of US/UK control in these regions (many installed dictators by the US UK in Egypt Kuwait Saudi Arabia IRAQ, The Israeli Palestinian issue was started by the UK in 1948 by sending hundreds of thousands of arabs on the streets and then allowed Israel to carry on taking more of their land and commit violent murders and other such atrocities even till today, exploitation of lands and people, for money (who do u think sold Saddam the WMDs) ask Rumsfeldt hel know.
Concentrated
Concerned
15.10.2005 11:28
Iraq was targetted by oilmen, arms dealers and contractors. That's all that happened. It was nothing to do with "freedom". Afghanistan was targetted because Bush wanted to be seen to be doing something. Afghanistan offered to hand Bin Laden over to the US if they followed the internationally accepted principle of extradition (i.e. you present a compelling legal case). The US snubbed them and then proceeded to kill more civillians than died in 11/9. That doesn't sound much like a "humanitarian mission" if you ask me.
So who is going to be next for US "liberation"? Any of the other -stans? I doubt it. Any of the sub-Saharan African countries? I doubt it. China? Hahahahaha! Not in a million years. Not even poor old Chechnya will see the welcoming sight of a superfortress carpet bombing willynilly them from miles up high.
Bush & Blairs illegal War on Terror[ism] has completely shat on international law. Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo have torn up the Geneva Convention. Extrodinary Rendition has stamped all over the national sovreignty of many countries. The Pentagon has dliberately targetted civillian infrastructure and use reviled weapons like cluster bombs and napalm.
I find the "coalition" has been proven to be a greater threat to global security than Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein could ever have dreamed to be.
9/11 could have been an opportunity for the West to do some soul searching on its foreign policy. To come clean and make good on the mistakes that lead to that point. Instead, Bush & Blair just hung up a big sign saying "Business as usual!" and are hellbent on compounding the errors.
BTW Pseudo: "Professional Daily Mail journalist" is an oxymoron
Deputy Dawg
concerned, i am !
15.10.2005 12:07
I have no doubt you are still holding out for the discovery of WMD's in Iraq to uphold your xenophobic propaganda driven views of the world. Fact; you have as much chance of being struck by lightning as you have being killed by a terrorist.
I feel sorry for you and hope that your brain develops in the near future.
Finally a question. Is consumerism really more important than liberty?
munki logik
But
15.10.2005 17:26
Observer
You ignore Saddam's links with international terrorism!
17.10.2005 09:59
Ok so Britain and America may have supportted Saddam in the past, but does that mean they should never been allowed to atone for past sins? Surely if Britain and America helped and armed Saddam's evil regime in the past then that doubles or triples their responsibility to get rid of him? In terms of simple logic then when America and Britain were supportting Saddam, yes they were wrong, very, very wrong as you keep pointing out. But when they finally did decide to get rid of him, they were right, very right to get rid of such an evil dictator!
Come not even God himself refuses to allow people to atone for past sins and put right what wrong they did in the past.
Really Concerned