Jailed without proof of any actual terrorist activity

[Twatybollocks]

I've been growing increasingly disturbed by the new terror laws that have been introduced over the past few years. The one that worries me the most is you can now be jailed for expressing an opinion. People are being jailed for saying certain things or writing certain things or having hold of certain documents. They are getting longer jail sentences than if they knocked someone over and killed someone for example.

The excuse for the law is what you say or write could influence someone into a terrorist act. A valid point but the law is open to interpretation. The difference between someone expressing anger, an opinion, simply making stuff up to impress people and actually intending to cause an act of terrorism is vast imo.

What kicked off this thread was it is in the news today that a woman has been convicted of having articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". She expressed her opinions on websites and had some documents that are deemed useful to terrorist. To me, yes she should be a suspect, investigated and kept an eye on but they didn't prove her involvement in any terrorist activity at all, nor could they prove any actual contact with terrorist groups.

It was all just, well she might have and she sounds a bit extreme so lets jail her. I think it's a bit, well a lot ott tbh.


Do you think people should be jailed for what they say or write? Do you think if they are jailed should it be for such long (years) terms? Do you believe this will help stop terrorism and is therefore justified or will it increase the problem long term? How confident are you the law won't be abused?

[RobDonkey]

It's just this country becoming more like America. We have our own little CIA now it seems.

[Erskien_Parkour]

Every time some law like this is passed our country moves further away from democracy. Free speech anyone?

oh and inb4 twaty gets arrested.

[yellowmongoose]

The anti - terrioism laws being passed in this country have been worrying me for a long time. They are so unjust! It is not right to be able to jail people because they are SUSPECTED to be terrorist. We don't jail suspected murders do we? You need proof that the person did it. Similarly you need proof that someone is actually aterrorist before you jail them. Surely if someone is suspected as a threat then they can be watched by MI5 (as Twaty already mentioned)?

People should not be jailed for what they say or write. Whether it is pleasant or completely goes against what this country stands for. Thats part of living in a liberal democracy with free speech. People should be allowed to criticise this country, government, way of life etc. even if it seems aggressive or extreme. Yes even if it could be "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

These laws won't stop terrorism. They will make it worse, giving extremists more ammunition to recruit memebers to their cause. Giving them example's of 'hereos' that have unlawfully been imprisoned for their beliefs.

I have no doubt that these laws will be abused. The terms used are so vague and could be applied to anything written against this country in an aggresive manner. This is the main reason I'm worried. Where is it going to end? Am I going to get arrested one day for calling Gordon Brown (or whoever the PM is at that time) an "idiot."

Apologies for the long post. In short my point is that it is unjust to jail people without proof of doing anything wrong (and writing 'extremist' poems seems a bit weak on the wrong front). These laws will only make terrorism worse and are likely to be abused.

[wayland jr]

"Jailing on the suspicion that one is a terrorist" is similar to some of Hitler's laws.

If we (UK) and America keep going like this it could be world war II all over again...

[Gabber-Baby]

"Jailing on the suspicion that one is a terrorist" is similar to some of Hitler's laws.

If we (UK) and America keep going like this it could be world war II all over again...

That's what i was gonna say.


Putting someone in jail for expressing their own views is way too far. That's sort of like putting somone who listens to Death Metal in prison because they might possibly be influenced to kill someone even though they havnt done anything wrong.

[Boyinabox]

What kicked off this thread was it is in the news today that a woman has been convicted of having articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". She expressed her opinions on websites and had some documents that are deemed useful to terrorist. To me, yes she should be a suspect, investigated and kept an eye on but they didn't prove her involvement in any terrorist activity at all, nor could they prove any actual contact with terrorist groups.

I don't know the story that this thread is referencing to (link please guys?) but do we actually know what these useful documents are? I think its easy to jump to conclusions in this when we don't have the full story, especially given how we are used to having everything so public in Britain.
For all we know, those "some documents" could be anything from a chapati flour recipe to the detailed plans for emergency evacuations of 10 Downing Street.

Whilst I get uneasy about some of the measures that have been introduced, I think we seem to forget just how real this threat is and how different it is from other criminal activities. Normal judicial activities like bail and letting the public see the evidence just aren't sensible in this case. And I may be wrong here (since I have no information on the subject) but wasn't this how we dealt with IRA suspects as well?

(Just to add a different opinion to the mix)

[The Visioneer]

I know you will all disagree with me here, but hopefully you will see what I am trying to say, and not what you think I am saying. I say this because I'm not sure I can express my views particularly articulately.

I think the anti-terrorist laws are actually not as bad as you think. I agree that putting people in jail for things they say or write is wrong. However, if what they are saying or doing expresses or implies terrorism, I think the police should have the power to hold them. I would prefer to be safe than sorry when it comes to crimes that have the potential to kill hundreds. I would rather a potential killer is held on suspicion whilst evidence is gathered, than wait until it is too late. If I was suspected of terrorism, I would not hold a grudge if I was held, as I would have nothing to hide; I would hope any innocent person would feel the same.

That said, it is a very grey area, and law enforcement have to be careful when distinguishing when freedom of speech becomes expressing the want to cause terror.

I apologise if what I am saying is not clear - like I said, I do not have a fantastic way with words.

[InsanityPrawn]

The anti - terrioism laws being passed in this country have been worrying me for a long time. They are so unjust! It is not right to be able to jail people because they are SUSPECTED to be terrorist. We don't jail suspected murders do we? You need proof that the person did it. Similarly you need proof that someone is actually aterrorist before you jail them. Surely if someone is suspected as a threat then they can be watched by MI5 (as Twaty already mentioned)?

People should not be jailed for what they say or write. Whether it is pleasant or completely goes against what this country stands for. Thats part of living in a liberal democracy with free speech. People should be allowed to criticise this country, government, way of life etc. even if it seems aggressive or extreme. Yes even if it could be "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."

These laws won't stop terrorism. They will make it worse, giving extremists more ammunition to recruit memebers to their cause. Giving them example's of 'hereos' that have unlawfully been imprisoned for their beliefs.

I have no doubt that these laws will be abused. The terms used are so vague and could be applied to anything written against this country in an aggresive manner. This is the main reason I'm worried. Where is it going to end? Am I going to get arrested one day for calling Gordon Brown (or whoever the PM is at that time) an "idiot."

Apologies for the long post. In short my point is that it is unjust to jail people without proof of doing anything wrong (and writing 'extremist' poems seems a bit weak on the wrong front). These laws will only make terrorism worse and are likely to be abused.

Im with Yellow. tis unfair! If a person from Iraq, and wasnt a terrorist, would we jail the person anyways, just because THEY come from where the terrorists are?

[terrorbite]

Things are only going to get worse. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the public simply don't care. All they care about is celebrities and reality tv. Nobody takes an interest in politics, and even those that do are lied to, or mislead via the mass media.

I saw a clip from a film called Network that was rather poignant which said that first you've got to get mad. Mad at how we're being treated. But nobody does. Hell, I'm a big believer in conspiracies and I think the current state of the world and this country is a disgrace but I don't do anything about it. I just complain.

We need a full-on revolution. Throughout history, there's been great wars, rebellions, uprising, the building and destroying of great empires. We're at the beginning of that cycle again.

Sorry, I guess I've gone off on a huge tangent from what this topic was originally about. For those who are interested, this video (edited pieces from the free film Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com)) talks about what the global elite are planning for us. Its somewhat hypothetical, but I'm sure they'd love it to turn out this way. We're fast approaching it.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo

[Darkscull]

I know you will all disagree with me here, but hopefully you will see what I am trying to say, and not what you think I am saying.

ideally this (the quote) shouldn't need to be said, but all too often people assume things based upon expectations even when there is no evidence. (for example, many people seeing the rest of your post would automatically think "ah, blairite apologist" or something, and dismiss you)

i'm glad you said that in this debate rather than somewhere else, because it applies all too well to the subject at hand.

However, if what they are saying or doing expresses or implies terrorism, I think the police should have the power to hold them.

the key word being implies. there is no quantifiable value of 'terrorism' (there isn't even a standard definition), there is no qualitative way of telling whether something implies this or that or not.

it is all opinion.
the problem most people have with these terror laws is not that they value free speech over human life (like some rightwing people tend to imply), but rather that it all depends on the opinions of those in charge, from the first police/mi5 person that flags someone to be watched, to the judge who sentences and the jury that delivers verdicts.

one thing that has been proven throughout history is that people are not very good at being objective, or fair, especially those who have the power to enforce their decisions, and of those especially those who aren't held accountable for their decisions (which is pretty much everyone who holds that power, at the moment, but that's a different debate).

that is why laws are (usually) decided by committees, set down in writing and published, so that the workings of the system are transparent. the best laws give definitive guidelines and definitions, and incorporate difficult cases as precedence, so that there is as little ambiguity as possible.

the latest laws concerning security consist of little more than ambiguity. the key terms are not defined in the law itself, but rather elsewhere, where they can be changed in a moment without publication or consultation. as someone has said, it is perfectly possible (although at the moment they wouldn't get away with it for long, since there isn't a solid enough power base), for us to wake up one day and find that it is now incitement to terrorism to disagree with the government (since that encourages dissatisfaction and unrest, which can lead to seditious acts).

That is why many many people disagree with the new terror laws in their current form. there were other options, like setting proper guidelines, but the government didn't want it's options limited. the problem with that is that the government should be limited.
before these new laws they had the power to react to emergencies, and any suspected plot close to fruition would generate sufficient evidence to hold people under the old laws, if they saw them in time.

I would rather a potential killer is held on suspicion whilst evidence is gathered, than wait until it is too late.

that is all fine and well, and exactly what it used to be like.
the new laws added extra time to find evidence, which may be needed in some cases, but for that to be effective they had to have lower evidence requirements for being held without charge (and this evidence conveniently can't be published for security reasons).
so now, someone can be held for however many months because someone else thinks they're a bit dodgy, with no explanation, and no one held accountable.

although the person who first says there a bit dodgy doesn't have absolute power to have someone arrested and needs to pass it up the chain of command, it still comes down to gut feelings and first impressions (after all, if they had more than that, they could arrest them with a charge).

if that isn't scary enough in itself, some people are afraid that names of people to be detained could be passed down the chain of command from higher levels, bypassing the usual justifications and effectively creating political prisoners.

even if no charges are brought, taking someone out of society for however many months will have a big effect on their life, and possible business or political agendas.
i'm not sure what safeguards (if any) are in place to prevent this, but i can't see them being very effective (after all, you do what your boss tells you, and it's not your place to ask why. they probably can't answer for security reasons anyway)

I probably repeated myself quite a bit there, i'm tired you see.

[crab]

"Jailing on the suspicion that one is a terrorist" is similar to some of Hitler's laws.

If we (UK) and America keep going like this it could be world war II all over again...

Godwin's Law wins again!

[Rook]

The anti - terrorism laws being passed in this country have been worrying me for a long time. They are so unjust! It is not right to be able to jail people because they are SUSPECTED to be terrorist. We don't jail suspected murders do we? You need proof that the person did it. Similarly you need proof that someone is actually a terrorist before you jail them. Surely if someone is suspected as a threat then they can be watched by MI5 (as Twaty already mentioned)?
Unfortunately, this is actually the safest option. The reason we don't jail suspected murderers is that (if they are indeed guilty) their crime has already been committed; one person is dead, and from then it's just a matter of punishment.

Jailing suspected terrorists is more akin to jailing someone you think might be planning to kill a shitload of people [pardon my french]. Having special services watching them doesn't cut it, as all it needs is a few tiny slips for the person being watched to get away/do something terroristy. Or worse, for something like this to happen:

Man shot 7 times without proof of any actual terrorist activity. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7073125.stm)

I know that's a little different, but still. As I often think, but rarely say, if you don't like it, move. I certainly plan to.

[Urlosenged]

I can't believe there's people actually against her being jailed. She was all over the place encouraging terrorists and praising previous terrorist attacks! I'd much rather live safe in the knowledge that 1 of them has been locked safely away than have her still around, writing whatever she likes about the country she lives in. Free speech is great up to a point; encouraging people to kill citizens of the country you live in is surely way past the point where free speech should apply. I'm not saying "Oh no, you can't criticise the government" because that's just stupid, of course people should be allowed to do that. I am saying that writing things to encourage mass murder is wrong and should be punished as so.

Oh, and she owned a book of poisons. Was she going to make a nice Sunday dinner with them do you think?

[Socks]

For some reason, over the past few years, I've observed the American mood of xenophobia increasing. Burning the flag, and other silly laws have grown into a ridiculous series of propaganda which leads the citizens, especially the younger generation, into fear of foreigners and the very unlikely chance of terrorism. Bobby Fischer was exiled (to Iceland?) for talking shit about the states, and this was before 9/11. This terrorist situation has gone way over its limitations.

[Midget]

you can be jailed for conspiracy to murder, so why not conspiracy to commit a terrorist act?

[Sloth]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo I went thru that whole video... not one Ron Paul endorsement?

You know, its sucks being a libertarian in this world.

[katt]

her poem about beheading was very disturbing. i think someone who lists beheading videos as being their favorite is off kilter and needs some help.

in fact it kinda reminds me of the whole school shooter mentality where the people get into really violent weird stuff and write about it before hand.

"She had a library of material that she had collected for terrorist purposes
^ from my viewpoint, that is where it begins to seem reasonable that she might be planning on doing more than just 'expressing herself'

maybe the police arrested someone who had no intention of ever acting. but if you separate her from her religious affiliation and look at her behavior from a completely neutral perspective it seems more fair to wonder if she was a threat (maybe not on a huge scale but a smaller one)

[wayland jr]

I can't believe there's people actually against her being jailed. She was all over the place encouraging terrorists and praising previous terrorist attacks! I'd much rather live safe in the knowledge that 1 of them has been locked safely away than have her still around, writing whatever she likes about the country she lives in. Free speech is great up to a point; encouraging people to kill citizens of the country you live in is surely way past the point where free speech should apply. I'm not saying "Oh no, you can't criticise the government" because that's just stupid, of course people should be allowed to do that. I am saying that writing things to encourage mass murder is wrong and should be punished as so.

Oh, and she owned a book of poisons. Was she going to make a nice Sunday dinner with them do you think?

This is exactly the problem, the majority of the public is blind!

This is what Hitler did "the gypsies are bad people they will kill your families and eat your children!" and people believed him, they thought it was good that people could be imprisoned without trial for being an ethnic minority.

The way this is going it will slowly turn into "all non-British residents are terrorists" and no one will notice or they will even support it.

Oh, and she owned a book of poisons. Was she going to make a nice Sunday dinner with them do you think?

I'm sorry, what? If she has a book of poisons it doesn't mean she will use it, I have a book of poisons... it's a chemistry book! People are jumping to conclusions too fast.

I have a knowledge of explosives, but that doesn't mean I'm going to bomb places. My dad's house is full of swords, pole arms, 2 bows, 2 crossbows and other weaponry, but he's a reenactor... he doesn't go down the pub on a Friday night and kill some innocent bystanders!

People need to wake up! Stop believing everything they see and do something about it!

PS: By the way I could be jailed for writing this, hardly an act of terrorism is it?!

PPS: It laws like this that give terrorists what they want; they want to inspire terror and they have. The best thing we can do is get on with everyday lives and show we aren't scared of them.

[terrorbite]

I went thru that whole video... not one Ron Paul endorsement?

You know, its sucks being a libertarian in this world.
Well, it wasn't about saying which politicians to support :)

InfoWars.com (http://www.infowars.com) is a good site if you want the real news on things, as are its sister sites:

PrisonPlanet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com)
PrisonPlanet.tv (http://www.prisonplanet.tv)
JonesReport.com (http://www.jonesreport.com)
TruthNews.us (http://www.truthnews.us)
Also:
Uninformed.co.uk (http://www.uninformed.co.uk)

Although they all contain the same stuff really.

[Twatybollocks]

I don't know the story that this thread is referencing to (link please guys?) but do we actually know what these useful documents are? I think its easy to jump to conclusions in this when we don't have the full story, especially given how we are used to having everything so public in Britain.
For all we know, those "some documents" could be anything from a chapati flour recipe to the detailed plans for emergency evacuations of 10 Downing Street.

Whilst I get uneasy about some of the measures that have been introduced, I think we seem to forget just how real this threat is and how different it is from other criminal activities. Normal judicial activities like bail and letting the public see the evidence just aren't sensible in this case. And I may be wrong here (since I have no information on the subject) but wasn't this how we dealt with IRA suspects as well?

(Just to add a different opinion to the mix)

The story was on the BBC website but I can't find it at today. If I find it I'll link it later.

She sounded extreme and she wrote extreme poems and she had extreme views. She also had books which could be used to hurt or kill people. She MAY have done something in the future.

This is the point though. She may have. She's being jailed for something she MIGHT do. It's like Minority Report but worse!

If you change the word extreme to angry they it reads differently. She sounded angry, she wrote angry poems and she had angry views. How many people are angry and have angry views? Change it from angry to extreme and suddenly she's a terrorist. I don't agree at all with terrorism but with our policies in the Middle East and the amount of death we've caused I can understand people being angry.

How many of you have downloaded and read The Anarchists Cookbook? I did when I heard about it because I was curious and wanted to see how easy it was to get phone calls for free, tricks for opening locked doors etc. The book includes details on poisons and how to make home made bombs. If you have that on your computer now that's enough to get you jailed.

All you need to do is make some angry comments on the web or say the wrong thing in public, even if you don't mean it, are just showing off or having a laugh. This is enough for the police. They can search all your gear, find such stuff and put you away for a long time.

It's a scary law as is most of the anti-terrorist legislation. As has already been mentioned in this debate laws normally take years to pass because so much care is needed to try and make them balanced and future proof. These laws have been rushed in following knee jerk reactions and they are dangerous. Not only for now but also for the future when who knows who may be in power and decides to widen the scope to include people being…undemocratic for example.

Now they are pushing to extend the holding period for suspects. For what? For evidence gathering or torture or both?

[Tweekish]

She sounded extreme and she wrote extreme poems and she had extreme views. She also had books which could be used to hurt or kill people. She MAY have done something in the future.

She also called herself the Lyrical Terrorist. If she owned all of that stuff, wrote martyrdom poetry, worked airside at a major international airport and posted her feelings on the internet she is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid to think that people wouldnt react to it badly.

So yes, theres a good chance that she may do nothing at all. There is a slim chance she could have acted.

Im not sure what concerns me more though; being punished for owning terrorist manuels, or the law stating what we can and cannot read.

[Darkscull]

she is either incredibly naive or just plain stupid to think that people wouldnt react to it badly.

this is an important point.

considering how many people in the world appear to be naive, stupid, or both, do people think it's justified to assume that they arn't, and lock them up for it?

[faragher]

The anti - terrioism laws being passed in this country have been worrying me for a long time. They are so unjust! It is not right to be able to jail people because they are SUSPECTED to be terrorist. We don't jail suspected murders do we? You need proof that the person did it. Similarly you need proof that someone is actually aterrorist before you jail them. Surely if someone is suspected as a threat then they can be watched by MI5 (as Twaty already mentioned)?

People should not be jailed for what they say or write. Whether it is pleasant or completely goes against what this country stands for. Thats part of living in a liberal democracy with free speech. People should be allowed to criticise this country, government, way of life etc. even if it seems aggressive or extreme. Yes even if it could be "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism."
Just to address a couple of issues here (and to expland on Midget's point a bit.)

"Conspiracy" is not the correct term here - you can only be charged with conspiracy (or being an accessory to) when the crime has actually taken place. You can also have an attempted murder - but again, some action needs to have happened. Some crimes (though rarely crimes against the person) do not require the act to actually take place - but these are specifically legislated for - like "going equipped to commit a burglary".

In this case, we have a specific law designed to stop the planning or incitement of a terrorist act. It prevents the collection of certain types of material (I'll come on to freedom of speech later...) and the use of these materials. The woman in question has not been jailed - she has been bailed (albeit under house arrest - but that is because she is a flight risk) pending sentencing.

So. Freedom of speech. I love this one. Yes, we should have freedom of speech, and we should be able to express any opinion, and we should be able to read and write whatever we want. But we can't. We never have been able to.

It has always been illegal to possess certain types of pornography (and I'm not even talking about the really nasty stuff here - in the UK most pornography is still illegal.), or to enourage certain kinds of behavior (i.e. incitement to racial hatred). In fact, if anything, we are as liberal as we have ever been about this kind of thing. I know people that 20 years ago had some interesting experiences with the police due to their possesion of "The Anarchists Cookbook".

So, I guess what I'm saying is that we always draw a line about what we consider acceptable - what is "free speech" and what is a risk to society. We have never had, and never will have free speech, so we should try not to use that phrase, or get on our soapboxes about it in debates :)

The big question is where do we draw the line? Do we say that it is OK for someone to possess a book about Extremist Martyrs but not a book on how to build a personal bomb harness? Do we say that it is OK to have a copy of Mein Kampf, but not a more recent racist tract that encourages violence? Well yes, actually we do - and these two examples are more similar that you might think. The difference is between examining what people though and how they behaved in the past, and condoning or encouraging that behavior in the present.

Now clearly we need to be careful about this, because it is a series of very small steps from the restraint of certain types of literature to the restraint of certain types of behavior to, well pick your dystopia (V? 1984? Saudi Arabia?). What I think that we need to bear in mind is that we have had this kind of law for a long time - laws that prevent hatred, blasphemy, porography. It has always been illegal to incite violence and hatred, all we have done is bring our definitions up to date to cope with a changing world. 20 years ago Al Quaida was a distant and somewhat mystical idea. Now it isn't and our laws need to reflect that.

We also need to have a little bit of faith in the fact that we are not a country of morons. We have the government which proposes laws. These laws have to gain approval within parliament. And then they have to get through all those other stages. And once they are passed, they then are applied by the independent Judiary who make decisions every day about their interpretation.

And before you go all "Parlimentary Dictatorship. Tyranny of Labour" on me, remember that we still don't have 60 day detention without charge etc. despite the best efforts or Tony and Gordy.

So coming back to the debate (and hopefully, for the love of god, stopping soon!), all this is really about is where we draw the line. Do we say that people can have free and unfettered access to any information or literature? Or do we accept that for the good of individuals and society that we need to restrict some stuff? (remember the porn and racial hatred when you answer this question...)

[Darkscull]

all this is really about is where we draw the line. Do we say that people can have free and unfettered access to any information or literature? Or do we accept that for the good of individuals and society that we need to restrict some stuff?

I agree that this is the essence of the conflict.

A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and go through all the processes that such legal matters need to go through.
the problem at the moment, as i have said, is that the line is drawn on a case by case basis by people relying on their personal opinions.

[Urlosenged]

This is exactly the problem, the majority of the public is blind!

This is what Hitler did "the gypsies are bad people they will kill your families and eat your children!" and people believed him, they thought it was good that people could be imprisoned without trial for being an ethnic minority.

The way this is going it will slowly turn into "all non-British residents are terrorists" and no one will notice or they will even support it.
How exactly is it going to turn into that? Perhaps if the BNP get into power, yes. But I can't see that happening somehow. And I think comparing the current government to Hitler is just a tad over the top. The fact is she didn't do nothing as the gypsies in your oh-so-eloquent example did. She was actively promoting terrorism in the country we live in. She was so grateful for all that our country provides (a free health service [the quality of which is not for debate here], the benefits system etc etc) that she wanted people, perhaps herself, perhaps not, to kill actually innocent members of the public*. And you're in here saying "Oh that's fine, she should've been allowed to do that."? I think you're the blind one, blinded by all your little theories that we're slowly turning into an Orwellian state.


*Though of course I always say nobody is totally innocent, but that's for another day.

[Twatybollocks]

Where do we draw the line? We trust that our established system will employ these laws with common sense but look at this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm

I can't find an update to say if he's been sentenced yet but the crime he's been accused of does carry a long jail term as a possible punishment.

"Collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism"

The Anarchists Handbook can be downloaded of the web and even bought through Amazon. I use to have a copy ffs. I'm not a terrorist. And what exactly could be useful to a terrorist? A Chemistry book? A copy of Rambo might be useful to terrorists, so could a story which details some sort of bomb making process. Who decides what's on the list of materials that are banned and those which aren't? Is there a full list available anywhere so we can avoid being jailed by 'accident'?

The trouble with the wording of the law means it can easy be abused or misunderstood. If a 17 year old with a copy of a readily available book can be arrested anyone can over anything. If not now then maybe in the future. This law could be with us for decades. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes we don't have total free speech, never really have I agree. However you can't use this argument to condone people being locked up, without charge or access to any legal resources and ultimately jailed for something you've said, somthing you've read and what you may or may not do in the future. It's plain wrong.

[faragher]

Where do we draw the line? We trust that our established system will employ these laws with common sense but look at this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm

I can't find an update to say if he's been sentenced yet but the crime he's been accused of does carry a long jail term as a possible punishment.

"Collection or possession of information useful in the preparation of an act of terrorism"

The Anarchists Handbook can be downloaded of the web and even bought through Amazon. I use to have a copy ffs. I'm not a terrorist. And what exactly could be useful to a terrorist? A Chemistry book? A copy of Rambo might be useful to terrorists, so could a story which details some sort of bomb making process. Who decides what's on the list of materials that are banned and those which aren't? Is there a full list available anywhere so we can avoid being jailed by 'accident'?

The trouble with the wording of the law means it can easy be abused or misunderstood. If a 17 year old with a copy of a readily available book can be arrested anyone can over anything. If not now then maybe in the future. This law could be with us for decades. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes we don't have total free speech, never really have I agree. However you can't use this argument to condone people being locked up, without charge or access to any legal resources and ultimately jailed for something you've said, somthing you've read and what you may or may not do in the future. It's plain wrong.So, I read the linked article, and read the relevant sections of the Terrorism Act (2000), and I have a couple of things to say:

s57 - for this the articles have to directly linked to terrorism. So your Poisons Manual, or your Rocket Launcher instructions are pretty much this. It is fairly obvious that these items have a specific target audience, and that is people who want to know how to be better baddies. I don't think that there is anything wrong with banning this kind of material, in the same way that there is nothing wrong with banning racist or other offensive material where its purpose is to incite or facilitate harm.

s58 - this is the tricky one. It is a bit vague, but then so are a lot of laws. What happens is that you get a few sample cases, and the judges lay down what does and doesn't apply. But just from reading, I can get a few clues about this:
- There is a clear definition of terrorism in the act itself which comprises of 3 parts - an action (or a threat of action) against property, with an intention to influence the government with the purpose of advancing a particular ideology or cause. You can see why threat of action is there - alot of terrorism consists of "do as we say or we will blow up xyz" kind of stuff. So any articles would have to fulfill or facilitate that.
- There is a straightforward defence available (and outlined in the act) which is that they can "prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession." s58(3).

I would reckon that the kid getting arrested for this is a case of overzealous policing, and will probably not get through the CPS or the courts. That is the way our system works - the police look at interpreting the law to arrest as manay as possible, the CPS considers if there is a case to take to court, and then the Courts decide whether or not they are actually guilty.

The police will soon stop arresting people for possesion of the Anarchists Cookbook if they know that the cases will get knocked back...

[Wahoo]

The story was on the BBC website but I can't find it at today. If I find it I'll link it later.

She sounded extreme and she wrote extreme poems and she had extreme views. She also had books which could be used to hurt or kill people. She MAY have done something in the future.

This is the point though. She may have. She's being jailed for something she MIGHT do. It's like Minority Report but worse!

If you change the word extreme to angry they it reads differently. She sounded angry, she wrote angry poems and she had angry views. How many people are angry and have angry views? Change it from angry to extreme and suddenly she's a terrorist. I don't agree at all with terrorism but with our policies in the Middle East and the amount of death we've caused I can understand people being angry.

How many of you have downloaded and read The Anarchists Cookbook? I did when I heard about it because I was curious and wanted to see how easy it was to get phone calls for free, tricks for opening locked doors etc. The book includes details on poisons and how to make home made bombs. If you have that on your computer now that's enough to get you jailed.

All you need to do is make some angry comments on the web or say the wrong thing in public, even if you don't mean it, are just showing off or having a laugh. This is enough for the police. They can search all your gear, find such stuff and put you away for a long time.

It's a scary law as is most of the anti-terrorist legislation. As has already been mentioned in this debate laws normally take years to pass because so much care is needed to try and make them balanced and future proof. These laws have been rushed in following knee jerk reactions and they are dangerous. Not only for now but also for the future when who knows who may be in power and decides to widen the scope to include people being…undemocratic for example.

Now they are pushing to extend the holding period for suspects. For what? For evidence gathering or torture or both?

I know it's a long thing to quote and I don't have much to say, but for an earlier point of yours, if I have an angry view I don't write a whole book on it, and how I would kill people.

[Sloth]

Well, it wasn't about saying which politicians to support :)

InfoWars.com (http://www.infowars.com) is a good site if you want the real news on things, as are its sister sites:

PrisonPlanet.com (http://www.prisonplanet.com)
PrisonPlanet.tv (http://www.prisonplanet.tv)
JonesReport.com (http://www.jonesreport.com)
TruthNews.us (http://www.truthnews.us)
Also:
Uninformed.co.uk (http://www.uninformed.co.uk)

Although they all contain the same stuff really.
i get all of my news from Coast to Coast AM... Noory fer Presidents!

[katt]

The Anarchists Handbook can be downloaded of the web and even bought through Amazon. I use to have a copy ffs. I'm not a terrorist. And what exactly could be useful to a terrorist? A Chemistry book? A copy of Rambo might be useful to terrorists, so could a story which details some sort of bomb making process. .

you may have downloaded a copy of that book but did you also write threatening declarations on the internet too? I think if you put the two together people will start to wonder if someone is serious.

They probably should have spied on her some more before acting I suppose. But still, how far does someone have to go before they are seriously suspected of intent to do harm?

[terrorbite]

i get all of my news from Coast to Coast AM... Noory fer Presidents!
Yeah, Alex Jones is a regular guest on there I believe.

[maldirth]

Surely the detention of a terror suspect acts as a deterrent against
radical behaviour, and prevents people with radical sympathies from commiting acts of terrorism? These 'people' are quite capable of making their
own choices - they choose to express their sympathies in such a way that
would worry the average, normal person and therefore deserve to be jailed. My only
concern is at the moment detention isn't long enough. It should be indefinite.

[Darkscull]

Surely the detention of a terror suspect acts as a deterrent against
radical behaviour, and prevents people with radical sympathies from commiting acts of terrorism? These 'people' are quite capable of making their
own choices - they choose to express their sympathies in such a way that
would worry the average, normal person and therefore deserve to be jailed. My only
concern is at the moment detention isn't long enough. It should be indefinite.

you have made the biggest mistake of your posting career. if i could minus you again already, i would.

people are people are people, using the phrase 'people' implies that you consider some of those that are usually called people as being somehow below the term, and not on the same level as others.


in response to your actual point, it's never a deterrant, it's used to justify even more radicalisation.

also, you're saying that some people are so above others in the scale of things that anyone that worries them should be jailed?

wtf?!

[maldirth]

you have made the biggest mistake of your posting career. if i could minus you again already, i would.

people are people are people, using the phrase 'people' implies that you consider some of those that are usually called people as being somehow below the term, and not on the same level as others.


in response to your actual point, it's never a deterrant, it's used to justify even more radicalisation.

also, you're saying that some people are so above others in the scale of things that anyone that worries them should be jailed?

wtf?!


No, I think that people who show sympathy with ideas that threaten the safety of the public should be imprisoned for all our sakes.

[Darkscull]

No, I think that people who show sympathy with ideas that threaten the safety of the public should be imprisoned for all our sakes.

I think that such a policy would be a threat to the safety of the public...

[Twatybollocks]

No, I think that people who show sympathy with ideas that threaten the safety of the public should be imprisoned for all our sakes.

That's an extremely dangerous and short-sighted viewpoint. You are of course assuming a governmental body would never choose to interpret or extend the laws to include anything they deemed unsavoury, say for example disagreeing with a government policy as a threat to safety and therefore should be prisoned indefinately.

Such policies are evident in countries who have an appalling history for violating even basic human rights therefore I think you are showing sympathy with ideas that potentially threaten the saftey of the public and therefore you should be imprisoned for all our sakes!

[Purple Wabbit]

This is a subject that really worries me. As people have said, if terrorists can be locked up without trial or even evidence, how long is it before the definition of who a terrorist is extends? People who have sympathies with terrorists? People who have sympathies with those who oppose the government? People who are heard to criticise the government?

We are in a time when people can be imprisoned for the mere suspicion of terrorism. I was of the opinion that this country's legal system worked on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty' - apparently not any more!

If people can be held without evidence, how long will it be before the government decides that terrorism extends to those who disagree with their policies? Suddenly calling Gordon Brown a wanker loudly while in the pub with your mates could be seen as inciting civil unrest, and therefore a terrorist activity. I'm not exaggerating, it's not that big a leap.

We're inching closer and closer to a Big Brother type situation and it's really beginning to scare me.

[maldirth]

That's an extremely dangerous and short-sighted viewpoint. You are of course assuming a governmental body would never choose to interpret or extend the laws to include anything they deemed unsavoury, say for example disagreeing with a government policy as a threat to safety and therefore should be prisoned indefinately.

Such policies are evident in countries who have an appalling history for violating even basic human rights therefore I think you are showing sympathy with ideas that potentially threaten the saftey of the public and therefore you should be imprisoned for all our sakes!

I don't see how the inprisonment of extremist sympathisers is dangerous to the public?

[Purple Wabbit]

I don't see how the inprisonment of extremist sympathisers is dangerous to the public?

Maldirth, have you not read any of the other posts? First off, we are supposed to live in a country in which no one is imprisoned without being proved guilty of a criminal offence in a court of law. Imprisonment of terrorist suspects without trial is a blatant disregard of this.

Secondly, right now it is only terrorists and terrorist sympathisers who are being imprisoned in this manner. But would you still think it a good idea if people started being imprisoned for publicly insulting the political party in power, on the grounds that it was a possible incitement of civil unrest and therefore threatened public safety?

This kind of thing runs dangerously close to denying people their freedom of opinion and freedom of speech, both of which are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 (brought in by THIS government) and the European Convention of Human Rights. When freedom of speech and opinion is threatened, that IS a threat to public safety.

[Twatybollocks]

I don't see how the inprisonment of extremist sympathisers is dangerous to the public?

It's extremely dangerous. Lets forget the argument about these powers being abused and innocents jailed for a second as you seem to have completely ignored that.

Every time you imprison someone for their views you are making the situation far worse. Imagine, just try to imagine for a second if you were imprisoned for your opinion. Even if that opinion was deemed extremist. Would it make you angry? Would it make your family and friends angry? Would it make your community angry? Could people who are trying to find people sympathetic to their cause use what has happened to you and people like you as an example? Could they use it to stir up more hatred and fear? Might it nudge people who are undecided on the issue over to the extremists?

The people they are recruiting as suicide bombers have their mind filled with tales of the West wanting to destroy Islam and destroy the Middle East. To them the Crusades are happening all over again. Stories of people being jailed for what they say or write or what their opinion is helps to fuel such opinions. Detaining people for weeks or indefinitely helps fuel that opinion. Denying people their basic human rights because we THINK they might be a problem fuels such opinions.

Bombing the crap out of them does not deter them , it makes them more determined. Jailing people for activities which has never been a jailing offence before, jailing people without following the due process we've had for hundreds of years isn't going to deter terrorism or people having opinions. It's just going to make them more angry, more determined and they'll simply be more discrete. At least if they are out in the open we can keep an eye on them and stand more of a chance of finding terrorists and genuine terrorist activity.

[maldirth]

we are supposed to live in a country in which no one is imprisoned without being proved guilty of a criminal offence in a court of law. .


Had you forgotten that people charged with very serious offences are remanded in custody until they're tried?

[bobfrey the great]

yes but the point that locking someone up who is speaking out could be seen as the government being totalitarianistic causing more support for the person speaking out (look at Nelson Mandela for proof)