To those who support the new Australia/American anti-terror laws

Discussion in 'Politics' started by mountainhare, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    To those here who support the idea of the poilce being able to arrest suspected terrorists, and hold them without charge for up to 7 days, what do you think about the Guildford Four, and the Maguire Seven?

    And my second question is... Do you retards ever learn from history?
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2006
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    What's a "Guildford Four" and a "Maguire Seven"?

    As to learning from history, humans have been ignoring history since the beginning of time, why should we suddenly change the normal course of human endeavor?

    What's a "retard"?

    Baron Max
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    They are Innocent groups of people wrongly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    There have been lots of people wrongly imprisoned for crimes they didn't commit ...what makes those two so special? At issue is the fact that the justice system is utilized by humans, and humans make mistakes. It seems to me that anyone who thinks the justice system should be perfect, that no one should be wrongly convicted are just fooling themselves. No human endeavor is free of mistakes and to expect such god-like action/behavior is foolhardy and misguided.

    Baron Max
     
  8. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Memories are short-lived. That in combination with a blind faith in and dependence on their government makes people accept the unacceptable.
     
  9. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Their government??? What the hell are you talking about, Spurious?

    The justice system utilizes a jury made up of ordinary, plain ol' citizens ...those juries, those humans, are the ones who decided the fate of those "innocent" people. The "government" had almost nothing to do with it.

    Or is this just your way of trying to continue the argument on that other thread? You know, the one that tries to prove, "My country is better than your country!"? I.e., in your country, no innocent person has ever been convicted in the entrie history of the nation. ....LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  10. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    To remember this kind of stuff, people have to actually read about it.
     
  11. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    The government didn't pass the law?
     
  12. changa was far, is near Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    71
    But the jury system's not relevent since we are talking about the
    government's new authority to hold prisoners for up to 7 days
    without charges. There's no peer review in that system.
     
  13. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Actually my comment above pertained to the statement that I copied, didn't you read my comment??

    However, the government CAN enact a law, but it still has a review system ....the Supreme Court. Anyone can bring that law into question as to it's Constitutionality ...and the Supreme Court can overturn that law.

    Baron Max
     
  14. QuarkMoon I Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    773

    Yep, the Supreme Court can decide the law is unconstitutional and overturn it. However, you have to keep in mind who's favor those Supreme Court justices are in. There are no completely unbiased people, and SC justices are no exception. They are only "human".
     
  15. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States, and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate.

    http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/about.html

    It seems the supreme court itself is a political institute. Therefore there will be no objective review possible of any law as Quarkmoon indicated.
     
  16. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    You .
     
  17. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,624
    These laws are state of emergency laws , which are enacted during war time , and only for a limited period of time , generally the length of hostilities . In peacetime these laws are great for the corporate/goverment as it allows them complete access to everyones private affairs . The key to understanding the anti-democratic aspect to these laws is the fact that nowhere within these new codes of law do they actually give a legal description of who constitutes a terrorist and what constitutes a terrorist group .
    They were charged under the emergency act of Northern Ireland which meant those laws only extended within Northern Ireland . Later the emergency act was extended to include all of Great Britain which enabled the British authorities to apprehend these Irish persons . Under Thatcher the emergency act was exteneded to include all of Western Europe which enabled Britain to carry out the assasination of 3 IRA soldiers in Gibralter . These laws are just a cover to suppress a particular element of the population in this case the Irish today it is everyone .
    Absolutely NOT !!! They are SHEEPle they will always do what their shepherd says .
     
  18. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    Baron Max:
    *sighs* I was vague in the hopes that you would Google it, but never mind.

    From off the top of my head. There was a bombing in Britain in 1974, which was (obviously) committed by the IRA. The public were fearful and furious, and demanded that the police make arrests.

    Backing in 1974, the British had special 'anti-terror' laws. They could arrest a suspected terrorist and hold him without charge for seven days. He could also be denied a lawyer, and phone calls. Sound familiar?

    The police were desperate for a conviction, so they arrested 3 Irishmen and 1 Irishwoman living in Britain (ergo. The Guildford Four) and held them without charge for seven days. During this time, the 4 had confessions tortured out of them (or, more accurately, implanted in their brains by the police). The Guildford Four where accused of planting the bomb.

    The British police then arrested 7 of their family members, claiming that they made bombs for the IRA. Ergo, the Maguire Seven.

    Quite simply, the 11 accused went to court. Their 'confessions' were allowed to be used in court. They went to jail. The Maguire Seven served a little 13 years in jail (except the two children, who served 4-5 years in jail). The Guildford Four served 15 years in jail, until it was discovered that there had been a blatant miscarriage of justice. So, they were released, expect for the eldest who died in prison.

    I think it's quite obvious why I mentioned the Guildford Four, and the Maguire Seven, regarding the new anti-terror laws. The exact same laws operated in Britain in 1974, and look at how they were abused. Don't we ever learn from history? Holding someone without charge for 7 days, and denying them a lawyer/phone calls, gives the police a green flag to 'apply pressure' in order to extract confessions.

    But then, since when did the truth ever matter?
     

Share This Page