We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

They never would be missed…

I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground,
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!

The Cereals Authority makes its hay with what is grown;

The Asset “Recoverer’s” take what you think you own;

The Office of the Regions now does what the council did;

The control of state surveillance is quite completely hid;

Elections are conditional, the Standards Boards insist;

They’d none of ’em be missed — they’d none of ’em be missed!

Chorus:

He’s got ’em on the list — he’s got ’em on the list;
And they’ll none of ’em be missed — they’ll none of ’em be missed.

35 comments to They never would be missed…

  • felix

    Well shouldn’t this be pretty easy to fix? From previous threads, it would seem that if we just change the mission of the above organizations to consist of jailing people indefinitely without charges, trials, or access to lawyers, (oh, and torturing them once in a while), we would all be pleased with the level of government intereference in our lives returned to its proper level.

    And we’d be safer too!

  • oh, and torturing them once in a while

    Well, I suppose that represents an improvement over your posts, which continue to torture us frequently with their obdurate silliness and incomprehensibility.

  • felix

    Oh come now, you’re whinging. Nothing I have argued should be difficult for even you to comprehend.

    My suggestion makes perfect sense. If a Cereals Authority infringes too deeply on your freedom, wouldn’t it make sense to take the staff of said authority and set them to a less offensive task, such as imprisoning people indefinitely, without charges, trials, or access to lawyers?

    Because, from previous threads, it is quite clear that that is a function of government that people here are comfortable with.

  • Thank you for proving my point.

    The distinction between the military function of government and the civilian judicial function was clearly made on the previous thread. Just because you chose to ignore it does not mean it wasn’t made.

  • felix

    Oh, I see. The military function of government, in your opinion, is to imprison people indefinitely, without charges, trials, or access to lawyers.

    I’d feel safer with the Cereals Authority in charge, to tell you the truth.

    Let’s review:

    The government telling you to wear a seat belt or pay a small fine:
    Bad! Horribly bad! Makes me whinge and curse!

    The government imprisoning you indefinitely with no charges, trial, or access to a lawyer:
    Thank goodness the state has my best interests at heart!

    You are, shall I say, less than convincing. Do you ever WONDER why the general public finds libertarians to be nuttier than fruitcakes? I mean other than the obsession with hobbits?

  • andrew duffin

    felix definitely wouldn’t be missed around here.

  • Paul Marks

    I agree with felix that all citizens of the United States (regardless of race or religion) are entitled to the protection to the Constitution of the United States.

    Although (and here felix might not agree with me) if found guilty by a jury (a civilian jury if they are not members of the military) of treason to the United States I believe they should be executed.

    As for subjects of the Queen – they also should have all the protection of British law.

    So no long detention without charge and trial (long detention without trial was common in England long before the “War on Terror” – I believe that the rule in Scottish law should be brought in, i.e. if the prosecuter can not get their act together within a certain number of days the accused should go free).

    However, (and here again felix might not agree with me) I do not believe in international treaties taking away the right of local courts to impose the death penality for treason.

    As for prisoners who are not American citizens (in the case of the United States) or subjects of the Queen (in the case of the United Kingdom).

    Well we are now dealing with the matter of prisoners taken in war (although they may not be technically “prisoners of war”).

    felix might not like it, but enemies taken who are not in uniform may (according to all the ancient laws of war) be shot out of hand.

    Such forces as the Taliban do not tend to clearly idenitfy themselves as soldiers by their dress, indeed they tend to dress as civilians in order to merge in with the general population. Therefore, under the laws of war, they may be shot if taken prisoner. As, of course, can members of any of the other “armies of Islam” found dressed as civilians in London or New York or anywhere else – under the laws of war they can all be executed as soon as captured.

    Would felix prefer this to sending them to Gitmo?

    I would remind felix that the declaration of war did not come from the American side – the United States was attacked. And it is the duty of the United States government to hunt down and kill or capture all enemies of the United States.

    If such enemies choose to dress as civilians (or hide amongst civilians – in the hope of using hit and run tactics) they voluntarily place themselves in a postion where, under the laws of war, they can be executed.

    As for courts of law.

    For what offence would these people be tried felix?

    There is no such offence (as far as I know) in American law of being “an enemy of the United States”.

    In World War II German and Italian prisoners in Britian were not given access to the courts about their “false imprisonment”.

    Should the Islamic movement choose to call off their war against the United States then (in my opinion) the people in Gitmo should be set free and sent home. Unless it can be proved that they are responsible for a war crime (and I agree with you felix that this is a matter for the courts).

    Normally enemies captured in civilian dress, or fireing from a position where they hoped to be protected from counter fire by the presence of civilians, would not be sent to a camp (they would be executed), perhaps the Unted States with its policy of sending such people to camps has made a mistake.

    The European Parliament (amongst others) has demanded the closure of such camps, although I doubt they would like a no prisoners policy (the only practical alternative when dealing with enemies who operate out of uniform) any better.

    It should also be remembered that as the enemy were taken out of uniform (and indeed for other legal reasons) the men at Gitmo are NOT techically prisoners of war – indeed under the laws of war they should be dead. The choice of the United States to keep these people alive is deeply problematic.

    By the way I was not a supporter of the judgement to attack Saddam in Iraq, nor am I a supporter of aid to Israel.

  • Paul Marks

    On Guy’s points.

    Yes these organizations have no reason to exist, are a waste of taxpayers money, and impose regulations that destroy business enterprises (and, therefore, lives) and should be abolished.

    Before felix jumps in with things like “what about the price controls in Iraq” or “what about the new personal weapons ban which will leave innocent people open to attack by all the criminal gangs…….”

    I do not support these things either.

  • Chris Harper

    Felix,

    What on Earth are you talking about? Have you ever read any posting or comment on this site?

    I think you will find that the situation with Guantanimo, abu Graib, diplock courts. detention without trial etc et al is generally loathed on Samizdata, although it is not obsessively discussed; there is a great deal more happening in the world than just that.

    If you want to slag us off, fine, slag us off. But do us the courtesy of carrying out a little basic research before labeling the people here on the basis of nothing but your own ignorant imaginings.

  • Julian Taylor

    One particularly unpleasant line in that so truly ominous definition of a ‘Chief Surveillance Commissioner’ is the proviso that “The decisions of the CSC are not subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in court”. Does this also mean that his decisions may not be debated or discussed by the Lords, in which case is he/she/it solely responsible to the Prime Minister’s office?

  • Chris Harper

    Comments are being moderated?

    MODERATED!!!!!

    What will happen to the cut and thrust of immediate commentary?

    What will happen when we, who are at the far ends of the world, wish to comment when the illuminati are all abed and snoring?

    Sigh.

    I know it is all about disruption, but just another example of how it is not just the state who seek to excercise control.

  • Chris Harper

    ????

    What goes on?

    Did I get caught by a short test of a new comments system?

    No one else knowing what I am talking about?

  • Nick M

    Guy,
    You missed out the Rural Payments Agency.

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2223045.html

    I was a temp there a few years back and it was a model of total bureacratic nonsense. I never saw any of the “depraved antics” but the supervisors would regularly take time off to go shopping in the afternoon and sign themselves out as having worked til 7-30pm.

    I was once declared superflous and then offered the same job back by a different manager 5 minutes later!

  • Chris Harper wrote, concerning Samizdata moderation policy: I know it is all about disruption, but just another example of how it is not just the state who seek to excercise control.

    To save Perry the effort, from the Samizdata Social Policy Statement: Just because this blog is ‘open to the public’ that does not mean it is no longer private property…

    I’ve been caught too, as have others. Just lie back and admire the graphics; everything will be posted (or not) in due course.

    Best regards

  • Chris Harper

    Nigel,

    Yeah, I know the site is private property, but, but, but, sigh.

    The bosses can do what they like. Moan.

    God, I almost sound like an antipropitarian on this. I don’t comment much any more, but one retains some affection for the past. Moderated comments will kill heated discussions.

    Verity would not approve.

    Not that I would dare to speak on her behalf.

  • Comments have been selectively moderated for quite some time now. If your comment triggered the moderation system, that is the price we pay for not being deluged by comment spam. There was a time when the turing test was enough but now the spammers find it cost effective to hire Indians to enter spam manually, which as result required us to add an extra layer of defences.

  • Nick M

    The Price of freedom is eternal vigilence!

  • guy herbert

    Just in case anyone else other than felix is in doubt about the matter, I do regard imprisonment without trial (and the rest) as a more serious matter, and a worse thing, than the existence of the Home Grown Cereals Authority.

    We contributors are individuals with differing opinions, and the site doesn’t necessarily endorse them. Comments are despammed and debored as the editors see fit.

    The fact that some of the commentators are bloodthirsty brutes who revel in human suffering and degradation as long as they can categorise those bleeding as enemies – that’s enemies of America or Christendom, usually, strangely enough, though not always expressly so defined – does not mean that any of the contributors or editors think that way. The others can speak for themselves.

    felix might also have noted mine was a domestic English squib.

  • Just John

    Let’s mark down too dumb commenters that hijack all the threads,
    Like that whinging cur Felix… I’ve got him on the list!
    They natter on ’bout whatever comes into their fool heads,
    And they never would be missed… they never would be missed!

  • Walter E. Wallis

    I took 2 prisoners in 1950. Under today’s interpretations I would have likely shot them.
    It is not a crime to make war againct the United States, it is WAR! To attempt to define war in criminal justic terms is silly. Whenever Bush says bring to justice I shiver. Send to hell is the only logical act.

  • ResidentAlien

    Felix,

    I’m sure that if you continue to selectively pick out those quotes that most offend you and blend them together to form one monolithic “official” libertarian/Samizdata world view you will be able to continue to live happily in your own little world where libertarians are bloodthirsty fruitcakes.

  • There’s that gub’ment loving nuisance who just now is rather rife —
    The right-wing analyst
    I’ve got him on the list

    And those who love an action that is taking human life
    They’d none of ’em be missed
    They’d none of ’em be missed

    And apologetic statists of a compromising kind
    Such as Kim du Toit and Instaglenn and likewise…never mind

    And RC Dean and Verity and also Perry too
    The task of listing others I would rather leave to you

    But it really doesn’t matter whom you put upon the list
    For they’d none of them be missed
    They’d none of them be missed

    He got ’em on the list
    For war they do love best
    And they’d none of them be missed
    They’d none of them be missed

    – Josh

  • Felix continues to deliberately overlook the nuances (well, I call them nuances, but they’re actually rather more obvious than my word selection implies) of the debate, so I think I’ll leave him to his foaming.
    I do have a question for Guy, however; are you sure your surname is “Herbert” and not “Gilbert”?

  • felix

    you will be able to continue to live happily in your own little world where libertarians are bloodthirsty fruitcakes.

    I don’t think I called anyone bloodthirsty on this thread. I don’t think the people here want to personally take any part in imprisoning and torturing suspected “unlawful combatants”. That’s a bit too blue collar for the hobbit crowd.

    My point is that if you are the type of dude that is driven to cursing by the dark hand of state intervention forcing you to wear a seat belt on a public road, you might want to think twice before applauding a government that imprisons suspects indefinitely without trial or charges or access to lawyers.

    And yeah, I know. They will never come for you, right?

    Here’s what we know about one of the Guantanmo detainees. And we know it not because of any sort of “checks and balances”, but because the government was so incompetent that they accidentally declassified some documents. The military’s report on the guy was over a hundred pages long, and of all that information, the only thing that even remotely suggested any ties to terrorism was one memo that claimed he had vague ties to a suicide bomber.

    And that’s enough to keep someone locked up indefinitely with no charges. And if that’s enough to keep them locked up, what does that suggest about those who were locked up for years and then let go? And what does it suggest about the guilt of one of the men who committed suicide who was, apparently unknown to him, scheduled to be released?

    And people here curse the intrusiveness of the government because of……seat belt laws?

    If someone was planning on discrediting the ideology usually expressed on this site, I don’t think they could do much better than reproducing the pro-gulag and pro-suicide comments from this and other recent threads.

  • Chris Harper

    James,

    Naah naah na nah nah.

    bloody hurts, dunit.

  • Chris Harper

    Felix,

    If someone was planning on discrediting the ideology usually expressed on this site, I don’t think they could do much better than reproducing the pro-gulag and pro-suicide comments from this and other recent threads.

    If you would like to point out these pro gulag comments I will be happy to discuss them with you. If you can find them I will join with you in condemming them.

    Although I do have to say I think the right to suicide is a fairly fundamental right. I am certainly against making it a capital offense, or otherwise criminalising it as it has been in past societies.

    However, from this and other postings I am of the opinion that you have pre judged what you expect to find here and are offering criticisms on the basis of that pre judgement, not on what you would find if you read the postings.

    If I can belabour a point- You are pre judging, pre judice, in a single word – prejudiced. You are offering criticisms based not on the facts but on your prejudice; or another word – bigotry.

    You sir, are a prejudiced bigot; determined to project your own bigotries on other people. All right wingers support locking people up without trial do they? Do you also think that all niggers got rhythm as well?

    You are, like all bigots, ignorant. Not just ignorant, but opiniated with it.

  • felix

    If you would like to point out these pro gulag comments I will be happy to discuss them with you. If you can find them I will join with you in condemming them.

    I pointed them out repeatedly on this and a previous thread.

    Although I do have to say I think the right to suicide is a fairly fundamental right. I am certainly against making it a capital offense, or otherwise criminalising it as it has been in past societies

    I think suicide should be legal. I think Neil Diamond recordings should be legal. I am not pro either of them, although I suppose in certain circumstances I can understand why people would choose the first of those two.

    However, from this and other postings I am of the opinion that you have pre judged what you expect to find here and are offering criticisms on the basis of that pre judgement, not on what you would find if you read the postings.

    I’m not sure what you are referring to here. In each post I respond to the content of posts that people here have written. Well, except for the hobbit thing, but that just amuses me too much to leave out.

    All right wingers support locking people up without trial do they?

    No – but quite a lot of them here do, don’t they? And I was quite surprised that this many people on a site that generally leans libertarian would so easily discard their freedom out of fear. If I would have had any prejudice, it would have been that people here would oppose giving away their freedom, rather than celebrating doing so in a quite tasteless and bloodthirsty way.

    Sadly, no.

  • Paul Marks

    felix claims that if a person was going to be released from Gitmo this proves they were “innocent” – this is not true.

    For example, some people have been picked up on the field of battle and sent to Gitmo – MORE THAN ONCE.

    Daft I know – but there it is.

    A policy of “if you caught opposing American forces, and you are not in uniform, you will be shot” would rather clear up matters.

    The Afghan war was hardly optional (given the choice of the Taliban to ally with Bin Laden) so the war there can hardly be blamed on President Bush – and I hope felix does not think that the war is matter of bringing Omar, Osama Bin Laden and so on to courts as if they were criminals (rather than enemies).

    War and criminal law enforcement are different things.

    The whole idea that this is a criminal law matter is absurd.

    As for Iraq: As I have said before I did not support the judgement to go to war (although a legal case can be made for it on the grounds that the war of 1991 never actually stopped – with no formal peace treaty, indeed with armed skirmishing continuing every year), but the war is now on.

    The war is not “unwinnable” (as the media claim) but nor is it a criminal justice matter.

    More than 2500 Americans have been killed in Iraq, but the main target of the enemy in Iraq has NOT been Americans – the main target (overwhelmingly) has been civilians in Iraq. This is because the enemy, quite correctly, judge that the civilians will not vote for them

    (I note that the media that has been quick to attack U.S. forces for the alleged killing of civilians have ignored the fact that vast numbers of civilians are being killed EVERY DAY by THE ENEMY – there is a report that the X number of people have died in car bomb explosions or in other ways as if these were natural events like earthquakes – not actions carried out by THE ENEMY).

    I repeat that it would be utterly absurd to treat enemy forces captured in Iraq as “criminals” who should be dealt with by courts. That is not the way wars are won.

    As these foes are not in uniform they can (by the laws of war) be shot out of hand.

    It is up to THEM to think of a good reason why they should be kept alive.

    If they really believe that God will reward them for their actions they should not be too unhappy about death.

    But the suicide bombers seem to be a minority of the enemy. The majority seem to bleat about their “human rights” as soon as they are captured.

    “What about British subjects who choose to go and fight against American and British forces on Afghan plains or in Iraq?”

    Technically I suppose that felix has a point – they (if captured) should be taken home to tried for treason.

    However, there is a long established practice of executing (without trial) people from one’s own country found to be fighting for the enemy. At least if they have not even bothered to claim the protection of the uniform or another country (I repeat that the practice of the enemy of operating out of uniform places them outside the protection of the laws of war).

    Certainly this would avoid the nonsense of having these people appear on the evening news complaining about how badly they were supposedly treated in captivity.

    Lastly I fail to see what any of the above has got to do with “fear”.

    I am not scared of being blown up in Britian – and I would be happy to visit the United States. I think the chances of being blown up by the enemy are rather low (not that it would matter if they were not low).

    If the enemy wish to live they should give up the war. If they choose not to give up the war (perhaps because they honestly believe that the Islamic faith does not give them that option) they should be killed.

  • guy herbert

    f….,

    I don’t think I called anyone bloodthirsty on this thread

    No. I did that.

    Paul,

    For example, some people have been picked up on the field of battle and sent to Gitmo – MORE THAN ONCE.

    As I asked Andrew Dodge when he made the same assertion on another thread, would you care to offer evidence?

    The Afghan war was hardly optional…

    Oh yes it was – for the UN forces. Justified maybe, but entirely optional. For the Afghans on the other hand, with the exception of the Taliban leadership who could have expelled or repudiated bin Laden, it was clearly not optional.

  • For the Afghans on the other hand, with the exception of the Taliban leadership who could have expelled or repudiated bin Laden, it was clearly not optional.

    And I would remind you that Afghanistan was already at war before the US intervened. A large number of Afghans were trying to overthrow the Taliban already.

    Whatever you think of Iraq, if ever there was a war in which the USA was both totally justified and on the right side of history, their intervention in Afghanistan as a direct consequence of 9/11 was it.

  • Chris Harper

    The Afghan war was hardly optional

    In colluding with and sheltering al Queda Afghanistan committed an act of war against the United States. The government of Afghanistan chose their path and rushed down it with eyes wide open. Afghanistan, NOT the USA, started that war. The Americans simply responded.

    In failing to cooperate with the weapons inspectors, and in refusing to cooperate in demonstrating that all weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed, whether they had or not, Iraq violated the terms of the ceasefire it accepted following the first phase of the Gulf War.

    Both countries chose the wars which unseated their governments.

    If you don’t like the effects of war then don’t f***ing start them.

    Felix – we have tried rational discussion, now listen to this. Felix, you are a berk. Please take the most offensive possible interpretation of that appellation.

  • guy herbert

    Chris Harper,

    Who are you to exercise the royal we? This is my posting on the editors’s blog.

    If you can’t out-argue Mr f then please don’t insult him, on my thread at least. If someone disagrees with one consistently, one ought at least to consider the possibility that one is oneself the berk.

    My Son, these maxims make a rule,
    An’ lump them aye thegither;
    The Rigid Righteous is a fool,
    The Rigid Wise anither:
    The cleanest corn that ere was dight
    May hae some pyles o’ caff in;
    So ne’er a fellow-creature slight
    For random fits o’ daffin.

  • Chris Harper

    Guy,

    You are absolutely correct.

    The correct term was ‘I’, ‘we’ was simply an inappropriate error.

    My apologies.

  • knirirr

    Here’s another version (not by me) that actually scans.

    As some day it may happen that our rights will disappear,
    I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list!
    Of officious types of people who just love to interfere,
    And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!

    There’s the neighbour who’ll inform on you for turning on a hose,
    The airlines with their confidential lists of friends and foes,
    The Chancellor who’s lost the plot (except the one he’s hatched),
    The DPM whose office comes with house and girls attached,
    And men of doubtful morals who with postal votes ‘assist’,
    They’d none of ’em be missed — they’d none of ’em be missed!

    He’s got ’em on the list — he’s got ’em on the list;
    And they’ll none of ’em be missed — they’ll none of ’em be missed!

    There’s the righteous Mayor of London, who won’t let you drive your car,
    And the tabloid journalist – I’ve got him on the list!
    And the umpteen failed bureaucrats who’ve earned the title ‘Tsar’,
    They never would be missed — they never would be missed!

    Then the Eurocrat who pokes his nose in business not his own,
    Who passes laws for Shrewsbury but lives outside Cologne,
    And the overzealous officers, whose raids are rightly feared,
    (For they shoot on sight when threatened by a dodgy-looking beard,)
    So I beg leave to inform you (though I hope you’ve got the gist)
    I don’t think they’d be missed – I’m sure they’d not be missed!

    He’s got ’em on the list — he’s got ’em on the list;
    And I don’t think they’ll be missed — I’m sure they’ll not be missed!

    There’s all those who say you shouldn’t fear if nothing you’ve to hide,
    And on ID cards insist – I’ve got ‘em on the list!
    But should you leave the country you might not get back inside –
    You never would be missed – you never would be missed!

    And the lunatics at DEFRA, their incompetence their crime –
    The subsidies are years behind, but fines arrive on time –
    The yobbo at the Home Office, whose underlings he blames,
    (The top job changes hands so much, it’s useless naming names)
    But it really doesn’t matter whom you put upon the list,
    For they’d none of ’em be missed — they’d none of ’em be missed!

    You may put ’em on the list — you may put ’em on the list;
    And they’ll none of ’em be missed — they’ll none of ’em be missed!