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]
|
Pre-emptive strikes on terrorism A huge contingent of police and MI5 officers descended on a London house overnight and arrested its occupants who are suspected of developing a chemical bomb to use in a terrorist attack. One suspect was shot in the shoulder during the raid.
Meanwhile in Toronto, Canada, twelve men have been arrested in a raid where the suspects were thought to be assembling an ammonium nitrate bomb, having allegedly assembled three tonnes of the stuff.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Shouldn’t that be an ammonium nitrate bomb?
Indeed it should. Me bad. Fixed now.
The media are of course playing the story that the poor ‘kids’ were innocent. Pathetic.
These little toerags should be told in no uncertain terms that unless they co-operate fully, it’s straight to Gitmo.
I have no time for them or this so-called religion, which is holding the world back. As far as I can see, this so called ‘evil’ ideology basically boils down to this : kill as many people as you can, issue no warning and lie as much as possible. It is not worth my time and I just wish the authorities would make it go away.
Enola Gay said:
“The media are of course playing the story that the poor ‘kids’ were innocent. Pathetic.”
Funnily enough, the law in the UK, for all its faults, has a similar approach, at least until proven guilty.
I’m not too sure how you fit into the libertarian agenda with your approach to justice and liberty? You sound rather fond of totalitarian methods.
Regarding the arrests in Toronto…
Actually the Canadian media so far (at least the CBC) are not portraying these people as innocent. They went as far as publishing all the names of the arrested men… (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsecurity/antiterror-sweep.html)
If all this is true then I am delighted that the cops busted these vermin. However we have learned the hard way to wait for all the facts when UK police shoot someone and to accept nothing at face value when the initial story is released.
Quite, Perry,
Given how broadly “terrorism offences” are drawn these days I would be very skeptical, that there is even a case to answer for a genuine crime, unless someone were charged with something like the good old (nineteenth century) offence of conspiracy to cause explosions.
From one of the earlier BBC reports:
Translation: somebody told them there might be a bomb, and they guessed that people making bombs (if they were) might be armed.
Translation: But actually they had nothing to go on but a tip-off.
Translation: Someone from the anti-terrorism branch excitedly told Dan Sanford that, “This is a big one,” intending him to understand that police were going to have a real coup. Dan counted the officers involved and decided it was the biggest raid this year, so he wouldn’t look stupid either in the unprecedented case that it did turn out to be a real, important, plot uncovered, or if, as usual, it was just lots of policemen rushing around portentously.
Yes but isn’t it strange that all these people seem to have typical plumbers’ names?
Actually 17 men were arrested, 5 of them were young offenders under the age of 19 and under Canadian law the media can not report their names.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060603/toronto_arrests_060603/20060603?hub=TopStories
Nothing has turned up in London so far. This is looking like another cock-up.
It was also very disturbing that the police smashed into the house and then shot an unarmed man without warning or identifying themselves. They seem to have learned nothing from the de Menezes fiasco, and it’s pure luck that they did not kill another person.
Surely 5 of them are accused of being young offenders?
Now that inspires confidence. And I guess nobody wanted the shift bonus.
Apparently there is is story in the News of the World that the guy was shot by his own brother.
I’m rather sceptical. If they had had a gun, the police would have had it on the telly asap. Instead, it is looking as if they can’t find anything.
I recall the misinformation about Menezes, wearing a bulky jacket and fleeing when challenged. Looks like the same could be happening again.
I suspect Enola Gay’s disgust is the idea that taxpayer money should be spent on a public circus-style trial in the civilian legal system that is unprepared to deal with war criminals, when the perps were caught in flagrant posession of devices that make them illegal combatants.
Under the Laws of War, illegal combatants are only entitled to a military tribunal followed by summary execution, with a bill sent to next of kin for the cost of the bullets.
As a Libertarian, I know that the only way to keep general society from devolving into guerilla combat is to very strictly enforce the Laws of War, a point I’ve made on this site for several years now. War criminals are not civilian criminals, they fall under a completely different jurisdiction, taking the action of assuming the right of ultima ratio regum as sovereign actors, and as such are to be treated by that jurisdiction.
I greatly sympathize with Enola Gay’s gut feelings but s/he is of course wrong in the innocent/guilty stakes. Unlike our enemies, we are a relatively civilized society & must play by the rules we ourselves have devised & included in the Statute Book.
That our enemies have no regard for these rules of the country to which they or their parents have fled fills us with dismay. We are hurt & dismayed. Well, hard fart. It’s about time we took back what little still remains of our Homeland and, by whatever means, got shot of the cancer with which we have stupidly infected ourselves. Our enemy doesn’t suffer from an enlightened squeamishness, nor does he understand it. If our noble security services have made another cock-up (I hope they haven’t) it’s about par for the course but they’re still in the learning process. What we certainly don’t need now are the blinkered liberal trash who, strangely(?), don’t understand that we are fighting for our very survival. Uncle Adolf was a pussycat in comparison. Oh yes, Enola Gay, I do understand.
Jeez plod never learns.
If the bloke who lives accross the road
in Midwesterners quotes
knows the joint is being watched.
What did the possible, and very possibly paranoid terrorists think?
My Father in law, lived, briefly, in the next flat to James Callaghan, which he kept as his constituencty residence when he was PM.
You didn’t see him much but you always knew when he was in because there was this car parked outside in an ordinary suburban street with four burly blokes in it, reading newspapers, eating burgers and drinking coffee… and steaming up the windows so bad that if a nuclear devise had gone off they wouldn’t have noticed it.
Surely Internet correspondent “Enola Gay” is experimenting with irony. This has to be in the tradition of the classic funny man/straight man comedy genre, right. But in print. You guys are the best; don’t ever change. The best straight men a comedy writer could have. Taking yourselves so seriously that you miss the humourous exaggeration. “Kill as many people as you can, issue no warning, lie as much as possible.” Now that’s no way to bad mouth the US Marine Corps.”
Isn’t this totally over the top opinion an indicator that the writer holds the opposite view. Then again he could be American. Love the Enola Gay byline: Going out with a bang or just “kill um all, let God sort um out”?
Permanent Expat,
Since when are the Laws of War (particularly the Geneva Conventions), which both Britain and the US are signors and ratifiers of, not part of our laws?
Holding and charging an illegal combatant in a civilian criminal court is as inappropriate as prosecuting a murder in Small Claims Court.
Every criminal act has a proper jurisdictional venue. Illegal combatants proper venue is the military tribunal, and both Britain and the US are signatories to treaties saying such.
“Illegal combatant” is a useful and appropriate label for dealing with, for example, a Kuwaiti “student” with a gun, captured by coalition forces in Afghanistan. Detaining them in a military stockade for the duration of hostilities is then a reasonable thing to do.
Allowing your government to designate anybody, anywhere an illegal combatant and treat them accordingly is tremendous dangerous. Don’t kid yourself that it will make you safer. The biggest effect will be to make the security forces sloppy and lazy.
RE: Canadian Attacks
On the local (Toronto) news tonight they actually posted the addresses of some of the accused. Maybe it’s just me but doesn’t that seem kind of dangerous?
Also in that report some of the families of the accused were shown as they came out of the court house- the burqa brigade was out in full force. The father of one of the accused works for Atomic Energy Canada.
Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne(Link) has been following all the action on his site.
Since when are the Laws of War (particularly the Geneva Conventions), which both Britain and the US are signors and ratifiers of, not part of our laws?
—–
Treaties are a little different- they only apply when both parties observe the terms.
Terrorists do not observe the terms or conditions specified in the various laws of war or geneva conventions, that is what makes them`’illegal’ combatants. People who _do_ observe the terms and conditions of the laws of war and GCs are ‘legal’ combatants and therefore qualify to be treated according to the GCs.
Informing yourself before commenting on such matters will save you much embarrassment.
Since when are the Laws of War (particularly the Geneva Conventions), which both Britain and the US are signors and ratifiers of, not part of our laws?
—–
Treaties are a little different- they only apply when both parties observe the terms.
Terrorists do not observe the terms or conditions specified in the various laws of war or geneva conventions, that is what makes them`’illegal’ combatants. People who _do_ observe the terms and conditions of the laws of war and GCs are ‘legal’ combatants and therefore qualify to be treated according to the GCs.
Informing yourself before commenting on such matters will save you much embarrassment.
The arrested men’s lawyer was on the TV saying that her client had been shot by the Police has he investigated the noise of the Police breaking the door down without any warning. Another report claims that the Police have not yet confirmed that he was shot by a Police Officer and the News of the World is running the story that one of the brothers grabbed an officers weapon and his brother was shot by mistake. All we need now is Sir Ian Blair to hold a press conference and then later admit that he had been misled as to the facts and we will definately have a pattern developing where Met shootings are concerned.
Could it be the Ian Blair has learned his lesson and is using the News of the World to communicate their deliberate mis-information?
Anyone else notice how the Beeb reported the Police compliants people delayed the search for nearly six hours with the implication that they might have hindered the investigation? Didnt Ian Blair write to the Home Sec after the Tube killing asking for the investigation into the shooting to be delayed until after his officers had done their own investigations? (The Police complaints people were also the only people outside of the property wiithout any chem bio suits) – whats that all about?
I am not sure whe it happened exactly but I have realised after hearing about this latest raid that I no longer trust the Police to do the right thing any longer.
They seem to have learned nothing from the de Menezes fiasco, and it’s pure luck that they did not kill another person.
Maybe they did, and what they learned was better PR management. The News of the World is the place for maximum exposure of unsubstantiated allegations about someone whose standing you want to discredit.
I can’t understand what either the ‘Laws of War’ or that highly dubious and specifically US legalistic conception of “unlawful combatants” has to do with domestic (putative) law-enforcement incidents in Britain and Canada. Whatever the factual situation we don’t in Britain (or Canada) permit the security forces to do anything they like to anyone they choose on the mere assertion of outlaw status. Nor does outlawry exist here; not even in theory since 1938 (though it handn’t been used for hundreds of years before that). When it did it was the oucome of trial; it wasn’t a procedure used to avoid trial.
I am not competent to discuss legalities, Geneva Convention, the small print of the Law.
I only see that, over the last many years, we have stupidly imported a problem which could, literally, be the death of us.
If this were a ‘health problem’ we would long ago have had the necessary treatment to get rid of it.
Legislation is easy, as NuLab have proved.
It’s that tricky ‘ol implementation and enforcement that they can’t get a handle on.
I don’t see how calling someone an “illegal combatant” is saying that the government has the power to call anyone arrested under any circumstances an illegal combatant. There are standards. A better word, if the accused are citizens, might be “traitor”. Or has that term disappeared from the law as well?
Traitor is apposite.
There being so many of them, apart from disaffected Muslim youth et al, who have brought this country to its nadir, that the word has fallen into disuse or may even be considered politically incorrect by those to whom it applies. A spade is, unfortunately, no longer a spade.
A treason charge might be appropriate in some cases. It’s a pity that treason charges weren’t brought against some of those British Citizens who went to fight with the Taliban although summary detention in Guantanamo is easier and has no risk of acquittal.
I was always impressed by Margaret Thatcher’s attitude to the IRA hunger strikers. She ignored their demands to be treated as other than common criminals and murderers and let them starve themselves.
It seems like the arests in London and Toronto relate to conspiracies to cause explosions or murder. They can be prosecuted as such. Governments will always fully (ab)use any power they have, we have already seen that police use terrorism powers to deal with peaceful protests, trespass and the like. If you give them the power to class people who, if judged under criminal law, would merely be “suspects” as “illegal combatants” you are allowing the gov a hugely powerful tool they will certainly abuse. One of the regular commenters here enjoys blowing up household appliances. Put that together with the fact that he comments on an “extremist” website, a spiteful neighbour informing on him and you can imagine how a gov might use its powers.
Robert Speirs,
I agree. Quoting myself from this thread.
And again, from the same thread
There is an effort in our countries to gain executive control of trial and punishment. ResidentAlien @4:57 got it right.
We have a mechanism for domestic crime detection and punishment. The only constitutionally valid exception to it that I am aware of is martial law. Congress states emphatically that their intention was never to approve domestic martial law in either of the laws they passed. It is up to the courts to recognize this and, within constitutional constraints, uphold congress’ intents. Also precident is entirely on the side of the more detailed law being given precidence in application. They would have to reverse that policy for this to be allowed to stand.
Just saw ResA’s latest post at 8:28. I agree with it, too.