Yup, that's what it is. Pretty much exactly what it is.
Three British Muslims face prison after a jury at Blackfriars Crown Court in London today found them guilty of involvement in an online plot to spread jihadism. Dewsbury schoolboy Hammaad Munshi was 16 when he was arrested in 2006. Along with 23-year-old Aabid Khan, from Bradford, and 23-year-old Sultan Muhammed, from …
So he was found guilty of "making a record of information likely to be useful in terrorism". If a terrorist wants to transport his bomb from A to B he would probably need a mode of transportation, does this make all van owners guilty of "owning a vehicle likely to be useful in terrorism". He might even need directions, so best arrest the people at TomTom and google maps to because they're Clearly guilty of "distributing information likely to be useful in terrorism".
Just like playing violent video games don't make people killers doesn't mean that reading instructions on how to make napalm doesn't mean they're going to burn people. A few years ago people would have defended their right to read whatever information they liked, but mention Muslims and now they have to be stopped.
The police don't even need evidence anymore they just have to find a Qur'an and they got them. Yet catch someone with a knife or a gun and they get away without jail time because theres no room.
When I was a kid, some of my male schoolfriends had something of a morbid curiosity about war, violence, etc. They looked at magazines selling martial arts gear, they watched films intended for adults, they played at being soldiers, or ninjas and the like. Without exception they all grew out of it and became normal adults.
We were all white English schoolboys growing up in an entirely white North Yorkshire town.
I'd imagine that similar behaviour crops up amongst teenage boys the world over. However, if the teenage boy in question is unfortunate enough to be a muslim in the UK, then he will get hauled before the court and treated as a terrorist.
This is, quite frankly, a disgrace.
- Stop Sign, because this country is going to hell in a handbasket and we need to stop.
My Cybook still has "Fatherland" on it, and my PC has a documentary on hypothetical Nazi Britain (if Hitler had successfully invaded the UK). Fatherland because it's a good book, and the documentary because I wanted to find out what would have happened if we had lost.
It's quite possible I've been using it to plan a fourth reich, and I'm looking to learn from Hitler's mistakes and commit genocide without being caught. Turns out I'm not. I also think it's rather unlikely I'll get done for it, since reading a best seller by a popular author is hardly rare.
None of these new laws seemed to be required. We seemed to manage just fine in Northern Ireland with existing laws to prevent terrorism.
Seems there is an execution complex running through the government and judiciary right into the heart of our unsecular non racially motivated police force.
Yes, I made that last bit up. But it was the police force right? Or was it the CIA?
So for being Irish and not guilty of blowing up a bar or cafe, you get 16 years and for having access to the internet an unhealthy but not unnatural curiosty, you get 6 months.
And for our next trick we want an explanation of WTF the British security inquisitors were doing in Gutanamo Bay Concebntration Camp, quizzing torture victims; maybe even an inquiry about rendition fligjhts.
Now tell me what is unlikely in the above scenario?
They were just downloading this stuff for fun. I mean if you catch a bunch of east end criminals with the plans to a bank, and ideas on how to get gun through metal detector and getaway routes marked out..
its obvious that they are Santa's little helpers and there's nothing to worry about, obvious thought crime!
Yup, I used to talk such bullcrap in school being part irish as I am. Children who followed the news lapped it up and were equally ill-informed as to not spot when I got green and orange mixed up.
Did I mention I also possessed Jolly Roger and tbbom at one time or another? I did particularly like the line "The best lockpick out there is gelignite, closely followed by a sledgehammer, but these lack a little in subtlety."
What he said!
That kind of thinking doesn't necessarily stop with school kids either. In the claustrophobic society we live in, it is not surprising that young people fantasize about breaking away or breaking out of society in some way. And that is probably all this is. Unfortunately our cultural identity has some bearing on the fantasies we have, in the case of these lads all being muslims, their fantasies are islamic by nature.
What is a little worrying here is, going by the article which is admittedly a little sketchy, there appears to be no attempt to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt, only the possession of potentially terrorist information and a childish discussion online about smuggling a sword onto a plane. Hardly the first choice of a hijacker!
I take it also that British justice doesn't oblige the jury to consist of peers of the accused.
How many muslims were on the jury?
You nutters really think this is our fault don't you? Whipping yourself up about some non-existent Orwellian campaign to harass schoolboys (note for when you've finished hyperventilating - only ONE of the convicted criminals was 16 when arrested); when in reality this country is under a very real threat from people you would give a free pass to - people who hate you with a passion.
What you misunderstand (or simply don't wish to understand), you trivialise and reduce to the ridiculous; in order to ease your wooly liberal consciences - or perhaps to avoid debating the facts.
Thought Crimes my arse. Free speech isn't free speech when the speaker plans also to act on it. - as these miscreants clearly did. I hope they each get a nice long stretch in which to reflect on the links between how to manufacture napalm and its place in the 'Religion of Peace'.
If people in London were getting blown up by neo-Nazi skinheads, then someone who downloaded racist literature, and had bomb-making plans would indeed be thrown in jail without the need for any more evidence, because we don't really have much in the way of other options to prevent such attacks in time to save lives. I find it hard to feel any sympathy for people who share the goals of the subway bombers of July 7, 2005 - or the hijackers of September 11, 2001.
I'm sorry but I am appalled by this. I don't care if they said 'lets plant a bomb under cute babies holding 3 month old kittens' IT'S JUST WORDS! I don't care if my kid draws wars with tanks and little bullets shooting up into the sky, THEY'RE JUST DRAWINGS, I don't even care if they're Muslims or my kid says 'Hail Bin Laden', just words and nothing he says can harm me.
Look, Blair was a liar, like all liars he felt guilty, that guilt meant he couldn't hear certain truths without it making him feel bad. He legislated against speech that made him feel bad. When UK based Iraqi doctors were so angry they burnt themselves to death after reading how many dead he had caused in the Lancet, he legislated.
The idea that he'd gone along with a war that resulted in 500k+ dead people he could not face, the fact he'd taken so much money from the Friends of Israel and they kill so many people he cannot face (what's the total for this year I lost count at 400 back in July). He is trying to broker a middle east peace treaty now, because he cannot face the choices he made and the consequences of those choices.
This is why he directly attacked words.
They're just words.
The quote in the title comes from V for Vendetta:
"There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, (illegal words snipped) "
"You nutters really think this is our fault don't you? Whipping yourself up about some non-existent Orwellian campaign to harass schoolboys"
Yes it is. People like you overreated to the threat we've faced many times for many decades and fucked up free speech.
"people who hate you with a passion"
Jacqui? You mean Jacqui don't you, that bitch is always trying to lock ordinary Brits up. People always hate us with a passion, if they do it in words, it ends there. If we repress their anger it never does end there. That's why we like free speech, oh and also maybe they're right and we're wrong. But to judge that we first have to hear what they say.
"Thought Crimes my arse. Free speech isn't free speech when the speaker plans also to act on it"
I can't read minds. Neither can you. But I accept your right to make your argument, however extreme it is.
if this lot were all downloading hard core kiddie porn we'd all be saying "job well done" when they were hauled into court. As it is, they're only downloading guides to murder, torture and extreme violence which apparently is an everyday act if some of the commentators on here have their way.
"if this lot were all downloading hard core kiddie porn we'd all be saying "job well done" when they were hauled into court."
I think you might want to re-read comments posted on El Reg about hardcore porn laws... I don't remember seing anything like " job well done". You must be mistaking The Register for The Guardian.
I've spent time in Pakistan recently, and I've seen the c*ap that goes on there by the islamic militants. They are the scourge of society.
My attitude, as a result of my experience in Pakistan, has hardened. I understand what's going on, the danger it poses.
Throw the book at these guys and let it be a deterrent to the other extremist musims in the UK.
Actually the governments of the US and UK produce some of the best literature for murder, torture, and extreme violence (or they plagiarize it as in the case of the Gitmo interrogation guides). The cool part is that if you sign up to "kill the enemy" they give you full access to all this great stuff - for free!!! Can you believe it? You get DVD's, manuals, and lots of physical training in how to hurt, main, kill, and mentally destabilize anyone you want - and the best part is you get to keep this stuff when you leave. How great can it be? Can it get any better?
We give this stuff away to 10's of thousands of slightly unstable people every year, but some kid named Raheim goes to jail for downloading someone's homemade napalm instructions? Doesn't sound very reasonable to me. The world has turned into a big freakin' pansy pie.
Hmmm , why do I get the feeling this is both a case of an entirely different kettle of fish and is well rooted in an inherent and basic feature of all UK police forces despite numerous exposure from the mass media from time to time !
As for napalm , that recipe for both home made and commercial variants has been widely available since the Korean Peninsula War in the fifties so last century ago and can be found in numerous text books and assorted other publications many of which have been scanned in the great Google Stanford U Library book scanning fest !
So the question becomes why have not notable printing houses from Oxford University Press and numerous other wealthy publishers been charged with similar crimes thus ?
Yeah, I stole AC's method, so sue me...
What threat are we actually under? Going out on a limb here cause it is late (yes, I am UK time) but I can only really think of one incident in the last few years that was directly caused by "Muslim Terrorists". Yes, it was a tradgedy, yes people did get killed maimed etc. They have my sympathies for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, look back at the 80's and 90's... Think we had just ever so slightly an issue with the IRA claiming to have planted bombs everywhere... only every so often, they actually did... and boom...
The attack that we are under right now is from our own "elected" government. Thanks to them, half of my bookshelf is probably classed under the "Useful for a terrorist act" and as pointed out above, I own a Tomtom and a car... Oh no, I must be planning something... And yeah, I am a mechanical engineer, bridges and tunnels, civilian mostly. Have you any idea how easy it is to bring down some of these modern ones with so little kit...? Older ones tend to be a bit more difficult but hey, nothing four or six white vans loaded with semtex couldn't cure... hell, even one van badly loaded with it could cause years of road closures knowing this government...
AC for a reason, mind you, so many similar names on here :)
You Sir are a clueless pathetic troll and I implore others not to respond to your attempt at trolling.
And then to try and be a grammar nazi is pathetic even for the likes of you.
I for one am not afraid to put up my ID on this post you will note. I wont even stoop so low as to address the vile crap you wrote, so go away and come back when you are fit to be around adults-by the sound of it about 10 years when you turn 20.
Abusing children is a crime. (So is abusing adults by the way.)
If you equate taking photos of abusing children and using the pictures for pleasue with reading about chemistry or even evil religious nonsense, then you are in a poor state of health or in a "good" government job.
Quote some tosser:
"if this lot were all downloading hard core kiddie porn we'd all be saying "job well done" when they were hauled into court."
Were they downloading porn of any sort? If so what were they found guilty of terrorism for?
"As it is, they're only downloading guides to murder, torture and extreme violence which apparently is an everyday act if some of the commentators on here have their way."
I'd like to take a squint at the Anarchist's Cookboook but unfortunately, I don't live in a country I feel free enough to do that.
I feel I live in a country patrolled by the goons of a Chimpanzee. And I don't want to be on a midnight bound, bound and hooded, and headed for Cuba.
The TV is full of murder and violence but if we talk of such things we can be prosecuted ?? I agree with the post further up, I want my world back.
Dissolve polystyrene in petrol, keep adding polystyrene while stirring until you have a sticky syrup. There you go, DIY napalm. I wrote it, you read it, we are now all terrorists.
Simple, really. All you need is petrol, cooking oil (just about any vegetable oil will do) styrofoam pellets, and some laundry detergent (powder, not liquid). And a place to mix 'em, and something to put the results in. (The exact proportions of the various ingredients are left as an exercise for the student.) Brown sugar, potassium permanganate, some high-quality paper (filter paper, as used in high school chemistry labs, would be ideal) and a small (very small) amount of concentrated sulphuric acid would also be useful. (Those who never took high school chemistry might want to skip those ingredients.)
As for the sword... why on earth would anyone want a _sword_?! A machete would be more useful and easier to get, and a gun of some type for more useful. If you're gonna smuggle something in, smuggle in an AK, not a sword.
"when in reality this country is under a very real threat from people you would give a free pass to - people who hate you with a passion."
You mean, muslims? Or just any tanned people? Or Brazilian students in a London tube station? Or people using their camera in the street?
"you trivialise and reduce to the ridiculous" sure, sure. Who needs privacy or human rights anyway? We'd better lock up (or, better, shoot: the prisons are full already) random funny-looking people. After all, they don't look like us. And they read stupid things. Actually we do read the same kind of things, but hey, we're normal (ie white and hopefully christian, to some extent) people, so we obviously don't plan to "act upon it", do we?
"Learn some grammar - acquire some critical faculties - and don't be ashamed to put your name to your words."
Critical faculties, huh? Oxford dic says:
• adjective 1 expressing adverse or disapproving comments or judgements. 2 expressing or involving an analysis of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work. 3 having a decisive importance in the success or failure of something; crucial. 4 extremely ill and at risk of death. 5 Mathematics & Physics relating to a point of transition from one state to another. 6 (of a nuclear reactor or fuel) maintaining a self-sustaining chain reaction."
Would you please care to explain what you meant, exactly? (OK, this is a low blow, but Oxford backs me, and you're the pedant one).
And as for putting a name on words, there are quite a few Philips out there, y'know. A full name (+ address maybe) would help, next time you blame someone for posting as AC.
I'm waiting. For the missing dot, for once (hey, you're the one talking about grammar, I should be allowed to answer about punctuation). And I might be stupid, but I don't quite get what you meant by this "Oh wait".
Disclaimer: I'm not the person you answered to. But I do despise the thought militia members. As some lefty nutter once put it, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (and it proves that some Merkins can say sensible things when they try hard enough). But Franklin was an "Indymedia-reading bath dodger", as you put it.
Oh wait... (see, I can do it, too)
Couldn't agree more.
Extremist views on this subject are just as dangerous. On one side of the argument you have comments from people believing this is just another step closer to a police state, where free speech or even dissident thought are punished in the extreme Take this view and you close your eyes to the very real dangers of the modern world. Regardless of what you may believe there are people out there that wish to kill you and are willing to die to do that.
Then you have the other camp who seem to think possession of literature is enough to label and convict a person as a terrorist. Take this view and you close your eyes to the real possibility that the person(s) may have just been curious about the subject or that there is a valid reason for their research.
Just remember we are not privy to the whole story or evidence that was tendered. Certainly the accused in this instance have certainly not exhausted their legal avenues of appeal where the statutes are can be argued and examined in more detail
"If people in London were getting blown up by neo-Nazi skinheads, then someone who downloaded racist literature, and had bomb-making plans would indeed be thrown in jail without the need for any more evidence"
They were: 1999 - David Copeland - 3 dead and 129 injured.
No neo-Nazis were jailed without evidence, not even the ones who pretended they'd committed one or more of the bombings.
OK, by a show of hands, how many of us here have had "documents" at one time or another explaining how to make things like Napalm and Thermite? I know I did. And that was back in the wild west days of BBSing circa 1992. Have I ever "manufactured" it, or even thought about it? No. But I probably still have those files somewhere. Not to mention the hacker/security CDs being sold around that time as well.
Sadly, people like our commenter Philip are the ones in charge. People who think they can tell the good people from the bad people simply by the way they look or the way they answer (or don't answer) certain questions. It's like when a person looks nervous when being questioned by the police, and idiots say "Look at how nervous he is, he MUST be guilty". Because a normal law-abiding citizen (or worse, a legal alien/non-citizen who can be deported at the drop of a hat) certainly wouldn't be nervous when questioned by police trying their hardest to intimidate and coerce a confession.
There was a time when ACTIONS were illegal and THOUGHTS were not. Why? Because you cannot predict future actions based on thoughts. And for the record, you cannot predict intent, either. At least not with any real degree of accuracy. Last summer, I spent over 100 hours drawing up detailed plans for a new desk. Guess what? I never built it. About seven years ago, I bought a home gym, and I even went so far as to set it up. Guess what? I never used it. For those missing the point, let me spell it out for you -- you cannot predict the future. Even if you have 100% accurate information about a person's actions and intent, you cannot predict the future. Someone looking at the plans for my desk would surely have thought I was going to build it. Someone watching me buy the gym and set it up surely would have thought I was going to use it. That's the funny thing with us humans -- we're fickle. We do things for no reason, and we change our minds for no reason.
But while people are getting ready to flame me, let me add some fuel by saying this -- what's wrong with a person THINKING something negative? I don't like it, but as long as they're not acting on it, I don't really have a problem with it. What if I was planning on robbing a bank, and really did intend to do so, but then changed my mind at the last minute? While I would not have really done anything, I'm quite certain I would have broken some laws with "conspiracy" in the title. But what harm would I have done to society? How would society have suffered because of my thoughts and not-acted-upon plans?
Let people have their thoughts, good or bad. Judge people only by their actions. You cannot legislate thoughts. Once you attempt to, you have removed the most basic of freedoms, and you can no longer be considered "free" is any way.
Pretty amusing that this:
"What you misunderstand (or simply don't wish to understand), you trivialise and reduce to the ridiculous; in order to ease your wooly liberal consciences - or perhaps to avoid debating the facts"
is immediatlely followed by:
"people who hate you with a passion"
If our governments continue to prop up dodgy, violent regimes, and then attack and/or invade when said regimes stop following orders, we will rightly be a focus of the anger felt by those most affected by our policies.
These are just some of the extemists or repressive regimes supported by the West: the Afghan Mujahideen (from whom the Taliban sprung); recently resigned Pakistani President Musharraf; the current Saudi regime; Saddam Hussein. None of these have been recently nomimated for Nobel Peace prizes. They do (or have done) very nasty things to those that fall under their sphere of control. And our governments do or have supported them.
For most of us here, our countries are democracies, so what our governments do they do in our name. We've sowed, and we are reaping. I'd suggest that it's time to re-evaluate our crop choices.
Please tell me why you think I'm trolling - is it because what I write isn't chiming with what you think, or with the usual El Reg Comments Agree-O-Thon?
Substantiate your assertions - and please define 'vile' within the context of anything I wrote. Or is the reason you feel unable to 'address the vile crap' I wrote, simply because you are, er, unable to?
Your post is entirely without a point. If you feel that we are not threatened by Islamic fundamentalism, then explain why. If you feel that we are and it's all HMG's fault (although this would reveal a total lack of context and historical perspective) - then again, explain why that isn't moral equivalence.
Otherwise it is you, "sir", who is the troll. To call someone 'clueless' then fill the remainder of your post with hot air is the very definition of trolling in my book.
I'll get me tin foil hat.
"I though that would bring the Indymedia-reading bath dodgers out of the woodwork!"
I read lots of stuff, none of it is a problem. If you think there is something so dangerous in words then why not say it right here, right now?
What words are so dangerous that it is illegal for me to read them?
As for comments about downloading extremist stuff and bomb making whatnots, you don't know because you're not allowed to read it so you cannot judge for yourself. Yet do you imagine you would become a terrorist if you read it? So why can't you judge for yourself?
"If people in London were getting blown up by neo-Nazi skinheads, then someone who downloaded racist literature, and had bomb-making plans would indeed be thrown in jail without the need for any more evidence"
No they wouldn't, not enough evidence to convict of bombing that's why they made this anti-reading law. However the bomber would still be out there, and he would have traces of bomb chemicals and other evidence that would convict him. Meanwhile the police are busy locking up website readers instead.
", because we don't really have much in the way of other options to prevent such attacks in time to save lives. I find it hard to feel any sympathy for people who share the goals of the subway bombers of July 7, 2005 - or the hijackers of September 11, 2001."
Quoting 911? Guys like you took away more freedom than any terrorist, you should pat yourselfs on the back for doing their job for them. You just can't tell the difference between a 911 bomber and a kid reading a website so you hypothesize that they are one and the same and pat yourself on the back for something that happened only in your imagination.
I think one problem here is that when many of us were children and interested in 'war' (BTW, I'm a former soldier of 13 years and know quite a bit about 'war' now), it was mainly in past wars involving foreign countries.
The problem now is that the main point of these 'documents' is to promote the killing, maiming and hatred of their follow countrymen (and women) or people of different faiths in the modern 'real time'.
Our childhood 'war' play was always done in a historical context and never actually promoted the hatred of anyone, after all, someone had to be the Germans in the playground :)
Fire warning sign because people don't know what's smouldering beneath them.
Speak for yourself; when I was a kid it was the Cold War, and if I thought about "war" it was about fighting Soviet invaders and maybe getting nuked; I didn't start building a bunker and stockpiling weapons, but I did read about it, and wondered what I'd do if it happened (including implausible "Red Dawn" fantasies) and yet last time I checked, having a vivid imagination wasn't a crime (I was wrong, obviously).
@Philip. You may be terrified of moslem kids talking shite and reading stuff on the web, YOU may think that giving up basic freedoms is a fair price to pay for "safety", and YOU would be wrong. If the price of freedom is the occasional 7/7 then so be it. This doesn't lessen my compassion for the families hurt, but you know what, maybe we need to accept the idea of matyrdom too; matyrdom to the idea of freedom rather than becoming like those we fear. (and yes, I live in London, so I take the same chances as everyone else). If people stopped being such pussies and said, "no, you won't change us"; governments wouldn't be able to get away with this shit.
Don't understand a word of your posts. Indecipherable ranting and babble. You don't even understand the meaning of the phrase 'critical faculties', so where do you suppose that leaves someone who would wish to debate with you?
And for those who attack me, because all they see is some people being imprisoned for what literature they had in their possession, a few salient facts from the case:
The 'napalm' instructions, along with much of the other information, was held on private, secure sites.
Defendants used code names to communicate with each other
Names, addresses, maps and photographs of officials and their residential addresses - along with opening hours in the case of official residences
Maps and photographs of potential targets in New York and London
One of the criminals, Abid Khan, is known to be in communication with suspected terrorists in both Europe and the US and also known AQ operatives in the UK. He is also connected to another group of men who are currently awaiting trial for plotting an attack. Yes a real one.
Quote from the Head of Leeds Anti Terrorism Unit:
"Let there be no doubt, these are dangerous individuals. These men were not simply in possession of material which expressed extremist views. They were also in possession of material that was operationally useful to anyone wishing to carry out an act of violence or terrorism."
Still think this was a case of a group of lively young lads flicking excitedly through a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook?
I'll leave you with just one of many quotes from one of our Abid's communiqués - "If you can find a big target and take it out, like a military base in the UK, then praise be to Allah."
remember it might be a false flag. Terrorism is today a publicity & control argument. (real)Spooks have however determined that of some UK minorities , 20% are rabidly pro-holi-war, 50% are passively pro-holi-war and thankfully 30% are against that sort of s#*t. That means that there really is today in the UK a clear and present danger; as MI7 and Jacqui keep spouting. I think a few more google teens will have to be arrested to get the rabid 20% into the safe jail (where they won't be hardened or taught pro-holi-war?) However, holistically speaking , is this the best way to massage the empathy figures to a less threatening stance? It would be wrong to capitulate to terrozm by changing the actual international policies that lead to the rabid 20%?
And we need the Oil. I'll have to ask a Game Theory expert what the true story is - what the final end point and the least worst outcome is?
So kids , don't dream about making fireworks at home, I did and now I'm a well paid security worker, but that was in the days of yore: Stick to watching CBBC and try and get on Big Brother. Live your life, not forgetting the danger from automotive accidents massively dwarf - up to now - the poor victims of terrorrr
We have two different things going on here:
a) It is entirely possible that the law-enforcement agencies have foiled a significant murder plot
b) A prosecution using bad law.
The point at issue is that some people who may well have been conspiring to murder have been prosecuted for offences which are not the exclusive domain of such conspiritors.Which means one of two things:
i) It *is* the intention of the law enforcers to round up and imprison anybody who takes an interest in explosives (i.e. half the male population)
ii) It is their intention to selectively enforce these laws as a means of prosecuting individuals against whom they don't have enough evidence to make a "conspiracy to..." case stick.
Neither of these options make one particularly enamoured of the law being used.
Philip, you are no better than those arrested muslim guys: you voice your radical thoughts, accept no other opinion, and forcefully attack anyone who doesn't agree. You, sir, should not have the right to do so either.
Just leave it now, willya?
If you find grammatical or spelling mistakes, you can keep them.
You deleted words regarding peaceful public protest (Standing in the street doesn't blow up buildings), yet you include a reference to blowing up a historical landmark (The Old Bailey)?
Besides, hasn't "V for Vendetta" been classed as extremist literature yet? "Insight to commit acts of TERRORISM!"
I was going to add a little bootnote here about making Napalm, and how you'd all now be guilty of the same crime as these muslims. However, in all honesty, i'm too scared.
Well done, HM. Gov. You're daemonising your own populace. Expect a lot of them ot not like that one bit.
Thank you for being the only one to make an attempt to discuss the issue intelligently with me. We may differ in our views, but despite what others have said - I wholeheartedly welcome a discussion.
I too am concerned about the increasing illiberality and authoritarianism of this awful Government, but not in this case. I think by and large, they are acting correctly and using intelligence-led policing to stop some 'real' nutters who wish us extreme harm. The amount of people in utter denial about this latter point staggers me.
Andreas - I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'radical', or 'no better than those arrested muslim guys'. If you infer that I wish people that plan terrorist actions against my country and fellow citizens, to be incarcerated and/or removed in the process of Justice within a democracy; then guilty as charged - pass me the Che T-shirt.
If, however you are trying to infer something more sinister, you would be wrong and you would have to provide evidence in what I have said to prove otherwise.
The thing is, does the end (stopping nutters from blowing us up) justify the means (passing bad laws which make catch-all offences)? I may be older than many of the Reg readers, and well remember the IRA mainland campaigns in the 1970s. With the exception of the 7/7 bombers, we have taken to prosecuting "radicalised nutters" whose grasp of terrorism is so poor that their effects are less than the kids on many estates on a Saturday evening.
My concerns are that by aggrandising their intentions to "significant threat", as we've done with the infamous "liquid explosives" (which Lewis has covered in detail), we are absolutely playing into the hands of:
a) them - making them feel more important than they really are
b) the assorted fear mongers whose livelihoods depend on the climate of fear.
So the thing is, although many of these people "wish us extreme harm", they still aren't a serious threat because of their incompetence. And the illiberal measures being introduced to enable their prosecution for *something*, anything, are more damaging than what their intended target.
>Andreas - I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'radical'
Cut& Paste from www.askoxford.com:
adjective 1 relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something. 2 advocating thorough political or social reform; politically extreme. 3
departing from tradition; innovative or progressive. 4 (of surgery) thorough and intended to be completely curative. 5 Mathematics of the root of a
number or quantity. 6 of or coming from the root or stem base of a plant. 7 informal, chiefly N. Amer. excellent.
>or 'no better than those arrested muslim guys'
as I wrote: you do not accept other opinions.
'What you misunderstand (or simply don't wish to understand),...', 'Whipping yourself up about...', 'note for when you've finished
hyperventilating... ', 'although this would reveal a total lack of context and historical perspective'
You ridicule or wipe away other writers opinions as uninformed and thereby declare your view intrinsically correct.
again, as I wrote: and forcefully attack anyone who doesn't agree.
you also do so in a very rude and improper manner.
'Reg Commentards ', 'You nutters ', 'Battle of wits with an unarmed opponent', 'bath dodgers ', 'acquire some critical faculties '
I'm not concerned about your views, have them and let others have theirs. What I critisise is the way you voice your opinion. It's agressive, just like the usual terrorism propaganda. You seem to me a supporter of the 'an eye for an eye' philosophy with strong inclinations towards the 'better two of theirs, and those first' flavour of that.
But what can I say, I'm not even british, so I might well not be entitled to an opinion about you.
by sheer coincidence a rent in the space-time continuum has just opened up and let me hear a few minutes of a radio phone-in from the future, debating the compulsory introduction of brain implants for all citizens:
POLITICIAN: blah blah ...very real threat... protect our freedoms.... blah blah... enemies of democracy....
99% OF CALLERS: well, if you're not thinking anything wrong you've nothing to worry about!
LONE CALLER: this is an erosion of our civil lib....
CHAIRMAN: [interrupting] i'm sorry. that's all we've got time for this week!
"The 'napalm' instructions, along with much of the other information, was held on private, secure sites."
Yeh, he sold knives and 'Islamic' flags from an eCommerce site. (i.e. flags of Pakistan, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, etc,...).
I'd like the URL to see for myself.
Napalm is burning petroleum jelly. You know that jelly stuff you get for fondue burners? That's basically what they called napalm. Burns like hell difficult to put out, sticks to stuff.
"Defendants used CODE names to communicate with each other"
As opposed to PET names? Or SCREEN names? Or elReg user names? Or the names we use on forums.
"Names, addresses, maps and photographs of officials and their residential addresses - along with opening hours in the case of official residences...Maps and photographs of POTENTIAL TARGETS in New York and London"
Like? Something flammable presumably, wooden, or wine & cheesy? We're talking about an incendiary device here.
"One of the criminals, Abid Khan, is known to be in communication with suspected terrorists in both Europe and the US and also known AQ operatives in the UK. He is also connected to another group of men who are currently awaiting trial for plotting an attack. Yes a real one."
Gosh, a real one? So not like this then? Why are they not arresting these known AQ operatives then? Surely arresting people that communicate with them would tip them off? And why was this info released (this guy talks to known AQ operatves)? If it would tip them off that the spooks know these AQ operatives... that doesn't quite make sense somehow.
Once you get past the fluff it comes down to an alleged plot against the Queen / New York/ Israel using bombs / sucide jackets / napalm with the motive of Allah worship or something. As evidence of the plot they propose ball bearings and info on napalm and bombs.
i.e. no plot, lots of fragments of possible plot schemes.
What appears to have happened is he came in with fake id and fake money and was arrested, but strangely the charges about fake id and money were not pressed rather a terrorist materials one was. I'm curious what happened there.
Lots of questions about this. But ultimately those questions will never be answered because he was prosecuted for possessing information that can be found in Wikipedia.
I'd certainly agree that if it IS bad law then that would be wrong. Seems to me though, that it's catching some interesting fish at the moment.
Where the potential harm lies of course (and I think this is the point you're making) is in its interpretation - and this is where close scrutiny is required. I'm still not quite cynical enough to believe that our creaking, fusty old democracy (together with the Police and Judiciary) isn't up to the job of doing this reasonably well.
The corollary to your argument, of course, is not to legislate at all. This would work, if your assertion that the people we are arresting and incarcerating really are harmless innocents, merely 'talking the talk'.
And that's where you and I must agree to differ. I'm afraid I don't buy the incompetence argument. For every Richard Reid, there is at least one Mohammed Siddique Khan - and there are structured, fully-funded networks in place to provide training and competency in the terrorists' art to new recruits.
So yes, whilst we have to rely on legislators, the Police and our Justice system to be able to tell the difference (and they have definitely been found wanting on occasion - particularly in the 70s IRA period), I just don't see the alternative.
I guess a much more interesting debate would centre around just what would constitute 'good' law in this regard?
A 23 year old makes secret contact with a 15 year old schoolboy to talk about puppies? He's obviously dodgy. But no, this guy wants to talk about bombs so that's Ok.
Anyway, we're all jumping to conclusions. Just because someone wants to read about making bombs and comes from an ideaology where belief is taken to its 'logical' conclusion and isn't really particularly known for its restraint and moderation, it doesn't mean that he means any harm.
While all the stupid liberals are up in arms and decrying commenters as being not-very-grown-up just because they want to think about things and not take the message they're being fed, isn't it clear that what got Ahmed Sulieman off the hook clearly didn't apply to the other two? Something went in his favour, something which didn't for the two who maybe wanted to make their thought-crimes a little more practical?
The only thought-crime mentality around here is that imposed on people like @Philip who's told he's not a grown up because he's thought the wrong 'non-mamby-pamby-pinko-liberal' thought, not the same nonsense as everyone else. His was the most balanced post here.
Here's to the people who don't fall for silly mob mentaility and can think for themselves!
Jean Charles De Menezes was a sparky from what I could gather and was on his way to do a job when some bunch of testosterone (and unprosecuted!) fuelled murderers took his life.
I've got books on Napalm manufacture, automatic rifle manufacture, napalm based explosive light bulbs, etc. . . .
Heck, I've even got books on World wars but haven't really got the stomach to start one.
Information is not illegal or anyone with a brain and curiosity would be a criminal (if that isn't the case already.).
These people are "connected" to "suspected terrorists"? Sure, can't imagine a more solid basis for imprisonment. They got a incoming call from someone owning two cell phones, and it was a false number, surely.
I hope this comment was not too difficult to understand. I tried to use simple words.
@Richard: "Here's to the people who don't fall for silly mob mentaility and can think for themselves!" says the guy who regurgitates the Gov-Daily Mail-Grauniad BS...
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019