Characteristics of Fascism

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

14 Nov 2005, 5:22 pm

vetivert wrote:

yep.

personally, i'd like to see an extendable version, which would have to be overseen by the judiciary, and on a case by case basis.

Yes. If time beyond the 28 days is subject to court, then thats a different story alltogether.

_________________
Chronicles of the Universe: Sons of Earth Volume 1 - Bounty Hunter now at 98 pages! Ill update this sig when it gets published.

<a href=http://s13.invisionfree.com/the_project>Project Legacy, building the future</a>

Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

14 Nov 2005, 6:30 pm

Assassin wrote:

Klytus wrote:

I think a lot of people still can't accept the fact that terrorists are not just common criminals.

how true. terrorists arent just common criminals. to be a terrorist just means to actively oppose the goverment (a category i fit into, and i beleeve you do to, klytus), which is not a crime, nor will it be while theres a breth in my body.

now tell me how al qaeda arent just common criminals.

Oh please ...

Terrorism "is the deliberate killing or infliction of harm upon innocent people, in order to inflict terror upon wider populations to achieve through violence political ends which cannot be achieved by lawful means." In democracies there are plenty of ways you can lawfully oppose the government's actions, and every few years everyone has the chance to change the government by voting.
Groups in Britain like Hizb-ut-tahir want to overthrow democracy itself, and it's right and proper that they've been banned.
It's ridiculous to call Al Qaeda common criminals, as if they're like a bunch of jewel thieves or something.
But then, commies are often fond of terrorists.

Klytus
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 1 Jul 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 259

14 Nov 2005, 6:35 pm

Assassin wrote:

Klytus wrote:

So, RobertN and Vetivert, do you think we should stick to the 14-day confinement period that we had before?

The current 28 days is a more than adequate compromise.

vetivert wrote:

yep.

personally, i'd like to see an extendable version, which would have to be overseen by the judiciary, and on a case by case basis.

So you agree that it is necessary to hold terrorist suspects without charge for a certain period of time. So why not 90 days, seeing as it's what the police recommended?

It seems to me that what you really oppose is any affirmative action in the war on terror whatsoever.

And that Lord Carlile dude is a QC, not a policeman. I'd rather listen to the police.

vetivert
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Sep 2004
Gender: Female
Posts: 5,768

15 Nov 2005, 2:50 am

Klytus wrote:

It seems to me that what you really oppose is any affirmative action in the war on terror whatsoever.

what tosh - that is rather a ludicrous extrapolation of what i said, klytus. please don't put words in my mouth, eh?

Quote:

And that Lord Carlile dude is a QC, not a policeman. I'd rather listen to the police.

read the article - he's the "official" advisory bod.

Sean
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 3 Apr 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,505

15 Nov 2005, 3:23 am

Now you guys have double jeopardy to worry about in addition to being held without charges.
I can only wonder what the canidates that lost the election must have been like. :roll:

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

15 Nov 2005, 3:33 am

I think some people are forgetting what a serious threat we face:

here

If they can't be detained for long enough to gain evidence for a conviction, I'd be happy if the security forces identified these people and put a bullet in their heads. Which is preferable, do you think? To have things above board, with due legal process, or carried out summarily, in secrecy? Because with the stakes as they are, that's the stark choice we face.

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

15 Nov 2005, 5:20 am

Klytus wrote:

Assassin wrote:

Klytus wrote:

I think a lot of people still can't accept the fact that terrorists are not just common criminals.

You dont have to attack innocent peeple in order to be labelled as a terrorist. In fact you dont even have to set out to phisically harm anyone.

I wasnt calling Al Qaeda a bunch of common jewel theeves i was calling them a paticularly determined bunch of common mass murderers. They shoud be tried as such, and not have different rules.

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

15 Nov 2005, 5:26 am

Klytus wrote:

Assassin wrote:

Klytus wrote:

So, RobertN and Vetivert, do you think we should stick to the 14-day confinement period that we had before?

The current 28 days is a more than adequate compromise.

vetivert wrote:

yep.

personally, i'd like to see an extendable version, which would have to be overseen by the judiciary, and on a case by case basis.

So you agree that it is necessary to hold terrorist suspects without charge for a certain period of time. So why not 90 days, seeing as it's what the police recommended?

Becos its equivalent to a jail sentence. If this law is passed, then when peeple are suspected of small crimes, the police can just claim to suspect them of terrorism and get close enough to the same effect as a conviction, only without the trial. [sarcasm]Now THATS democracy in action[/sarcasm] :roll:

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

15 Nov 2005, 5:30 am

Sean wrote:

Now you guys have double jeopardy to worry about in addition to being held without charges.
I can only wonder what the canidates that lost the election must have been like. :roll:

True, Michal Howard wasnt much better than Tony Blair... In fact hes probably more your tipe sean...

Charles Kennedy was a perfectly adequate choice, and a grate improvement on Blair, Howard, or John Major (the last Prime Minister, before Blair took power), he just isnt as carismatic as Blair or Howard, and a lot of peeple voted on that rather than his policies.

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

15 Nov 2005, 5:32 am

ascan wrote:

I think some people are forgetting what a serious threat we face:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/11/14/unuclear.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/11/14/ixportaltop.html

If they can't be detained for long enough to gain evidence for a conviction, I'd be happy if the security forces identified these people and put a bullet in their heads. Which is preferable, do you think? To have things above board, with due legal process, or carried out summarily, in secrecy? Because with the stakes as they are, that's the stark choice we face.

Part of the argument here is that if there incarcerated, then there vunerable to police brutality - ie the second choice can come along anyway.

Assassin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,676
Location: Not here, Not there, not anywhere.....

16 Nov 2005, 4:50 pm

Klytus wrote:

It seems to me that what you really oppose is any affirmative action in the war on terror whatsoever.

Well seeing as every affirmative action in the war on terror so far has been another step in the direction of fascism (quite possibly becos the whole war on "terror" was actaully desined as a meens to wage war on democracy), yes.

Page 4 of 4 [ 59 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Characteristics of Fascism Post Reply New Topic

Characteristics of Fascism