That's why IMHO we need to actually enforce the laws we already have, all to often politicians are happy to make new laws trying to solve the latest's headline shock horror story, laws are nothing but words on paper if they are not enforced.
Corky42 is right. We already have the legal framework we need to deal with extremist preachers. Kneejerk reactions and compromising on our democratic ideals not required. We don't want to see another 7/7, but neither do we want to see another Jean-Charles Demenezes.
We had a legal framework that could only deal with Hamza thanks to the Americans. And barely made it then. The legal framework has nothing to do with Demenezes does it? That was a terrible mistake, not a legal issue. But more generally, are you happy we have it right at the moment? Or do you think the law is too harsh on terrorism suspects, or too soft?
One of the main reasons America managed to secure a conviction and we failed is because the intercepts of telephone conversations is not admissible as evidence in UK courts.
It was not a lawful killing, so yeah, it's a legal issue. Corners were cut, rules not followed because people panicked. The police was deemed to have failed in their duty of care towards him. I think it is inconsistent. Where the law can be applied it is not, and then new, highly questionable laws are drawn up in a panic when that comes back to haunt us (if the law is not outright ignored).
In response to the above I couldn't explain it better than Nexxo: This: Plus I will just add WW1 and WW2 to the collection.
But, other than the panic of those days, which I remember well, this is a matter in common with other police screwups. If you have people wanting to kill people, you will have some armed police and some day it will go tragicly wrong. Not really relevant to how we deal or have dealt with the likes of Hamza, Qutada, Choudury
We do have a great legal system here but, as others have noted, the European 'human rights' laws have led to many people being acquitted for crimes that would have seen them sentenced previously. It's a little like the mental health excuse used in defense of some criminals - the case becomes less about the crime that was committed and more about whether it is right for the accused to go to prison. Human rights are a fictional (but necessary) construct. It is wholly right that the courts should take potential infringements of a person's rights seriously. The issue comes when the umbrella of 'human rights' is expanded to cover a broad panoply of concepts of vaguer definition and tenuous significance; then the lawyers suddenly have a greatly expanded armoury of 'rights' which they can use to press their case, all of which supercede any other consideration.
Nope. Just highlighting two more wars which were fought but weren't in the name of Islam. Media has the power to change opinions and shape thinkings and attitudes towards things/people/nations/religions etc. I only hear Islam and Muslims potrayed negatively in media. I am sure there are mischivous Muslims but that does not mean a population of 1.6bn is terrorist....
I don't seek to portray the fight against al-Queda et al as a war between the west and Islam. Of course Al-Queda would see it that way and some on the extreme right also do. Is the same way little of the fighting done by there extemists is against the USA. Most of it involves killing other Muslims. So why on earth are we weighing up the US fighting in WW2 against trying to stop the likes of Abu Hamza etc gettign young Muslims or Muslim converts to kill themselves and others?
It is relevant to the point that existing laws are applied inconsistently and inadequately, which allows situations to develop that are then dealt with by actions or the creation of laws that violate the existing legal framework.
That case was a tragic mistake, rather than a legal problem. You could have chosen many other exaples no doubt.
Agree. Al-Queda/Taliban was created by USA and used against USSR when they invaded Afghanistan. The country was left to these people to rule but it turned out these fanatics turned against everyone (please refer to Nexxo's post). I think we need to ask some fundamental questions: How come CIA missed 9/11? With all sorts of technologies they couldn't see 4 planes changing their flight course and crashing? HATE. Why there is so much hate towards the west and USA in the Muslim countries?
I'm curious - Why did you single out the CIA, and what specific 'technologies' are you talking about? It was a random day, and 4 planes changed flight paths seemingly at random. Confusion was rampant, and the events unfolded so quickly that little could be done in real time. I will point out however that in the short time it took the military to figure out what was going on, there were fighter jets in route to intercept Flight 93. The passengers took care of things before the fighter pilots had to do the job. Let's be careful not to devolve into conspiracy theories. That is the realm of the ridiculous. Why do western countries hate the Middle East so much? Perhaps in reality the vast majority of people going about their daily lives don't really care either way, and would be just as happy to be left alone to do their grocery shopping in peace.
You er, you ever looked at a flight tracker? Try picking out which ones are deviating from live tracking info - There's a lot of planes in the air at any one time, why do you think airport traffic controllers are so stressed?
Well I used CIA as an example as it came to mind. Not sure how many other intelligence agencise are there in USA. I also used tech as a loose term. Maybe I am naive but one can track a mobile phone to a great deal of accuracy (maybe even pin point it) so I though similar concept can be applied to air planes. Nope!
You were assuming the CIA rutinely monitored airplanes off-course. That was air traffic control, and lets fact it they didn't have reason to expect this to happen, the worst-case was hijacking and hijackers would be expected to start making demands etc etc. And if you're trying for a conspiracy theory please bear in mind that when goverements and intellegence agencies prove themselves to be incompetent and leaky all the rest of the time, how unlikely is it that they could manage such a complex operation and keep the conspiracy secret until this day. And bear in mind that Al-Queda said they did it, and I don't think they were convering up for the CIA, somehow.
As the Malaysian flight has shown us, there is a bit of a disconnect between people's expectation of technological capabilities, and the harsh reality of what can and can't be done. Yes, today I can install an app on my phone which allows me to track its location to a varying degree of accuracy - presuming everything has been set up ahead of time, and presuming that I know exactly what to look for, and presuming that everything is working as expected. That's using current technology. Don't forget that the September 11 attack took place almost 13 years ago. As said before, this was a pretty random event, and there wasn't any apparent reason to be tracking these particular planes at that moment everything begin to unfold.
