It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Blair Defends UK Terror Law Changes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 06:38 AM
link   
The UK Government is preparing to debate the passage of the new "Prevention of Terrorism Bill". At the heart of the public and opposition government's concerns, is the "control orders" which could be issued to detain suspects without the approval of a judge.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
The prime minister has defended measures to allow house arrest without trial, saying "several hundred" people in the UK are plotting terror attacks.

The government is facing opposition from Tory and Lib Dem MPs and its own backbenchers as it prepares for the final Commons debate on the changes. But Tony Blair said there could be no concession on the "basic principle".

"These will be restrictions on... liberty that we will use only in the most limited circumstances" Tony Blair.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The real victims of the war on terror are freedom and liberty, the things that we fought wars for in the past and citizens of the "free world" have come to hold as our inalienable rights. These laws don't errode our civil liberties, they wipe them out in one fell swoop. When these laws are passed, they will never be repealed because there can never be an end to a war like this.


Related News Links:

Angry Clashes Over Terror Plans news.bbc.co.uk

Full Text of the "Prevention of Terrorism Bill" www.publications.parliament.uk

Clarke Reveals Anti-Terror Plan news.bbc.co.uk

[edit on 28-2-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 2/28/2005 by mythatsabigprobe]

[edit on 28-2-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Thanks Tony Blair!

For showing yet again Patriot ACT-like legislation isn't solely an American "neo-con" thing.

As much as I hate "draconian" terror laws being passed in the US - I just sit back and chuckle when I see it happening in other countries now.

The English speaking world has no room to gloat about civil liberties being stripped in the US.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Ahem....Are you sure you don't have Bush clone in the UK with the name of Tony Blair.


It looks to me that they may be one and the same.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Ahem....Are you sure you don't have Bush clone in the UK with the name of Tony Blair.


It looks to me that they may be one and the same.


Nah Marg, Blair actually sounds intelligent when he talks.

This is a worrying step, I am hoping it does not lead to what is happening in the US.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kriz_4
Nah Marg, Blair actually sounds intelligent when he talks.

This is a worrying step, I am hoping it does not lead to what is happening in the US.


I guess you are right he does sounds intelligent, but I wonder what he has in mind, following Bush agenda steps?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
I guess you are right he does sounds intelligent, but I wonder what he has in mind, following Bush agenda steps?


He sounds intelligent but he still talks utter rubbish.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
In trade, this is called "harmonization."

No doubt it's all part of a plan to make the world a better, safer place.






posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
What I find disturbing is the way new "laws" seem to get passed more and more without the public, we the people, even knowing much about their content and impact. It's like we are all being treated as suspects.
The idea that people can be placed under "house arrest" or imprisoned without trial, with hearings held behind closed doors and evidence denied to even defence lawyers is quite ludicrous.
It reminds me a bit of the film, Minority Report" where people are imprisoned without even having committed an offence, only without the high tech gear and pre-cognitive beings, whose role seems to have been assumed by the state.
Who is to say who is a threat? Is a person deemed to be a threat to national security who merely campaigns for the truth or investigates ministerial shenanigans?

Our privacy is rapidly being stripped away by the state while those in government become more and more blameless and untouchable.
Black boxes in cars, photo and biometric ID's, tracked everywhere we go, at what times, what routes and how fast etc.....etc..... I don't ever remember agreeing to vote in any political party and giving them such powers over us. These are the actions of a dictatorial state where we must obey or be labelled criminals. What if we all said no



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Any bets to placed as to wether any (god forbid) terrorist "strikes"occur in britain to influence any of the major parties such as conservatives or libdems, to change the minds of the people and parties to actually endorse this affront to human rights? This bill is being slunk through with not many peole realising what a measure actually means with respsect to civil liberties, and the fact that it goes against them!!!



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 06:28 PM
link   


The real victims of the war on terror are freedom and liberty, the things that we fought wars for in the past and citizens of the "free world" have come to hold as our inalienable rights. These laws don't errode our civil liberties, they wipe them out in one fell swoop. When these laws are passed, they will never be repealed because there can never be an end to a war like this.


Although i am fearful of such laws being passed her in the UK, what alot of people don't realise is, that in the UK, we don't have any rights, just what we are allowed to do.

Whereas in the US people are guaranteed certain things by the constitution, here in the UK it is the opposite.

Everything is illegal unless allowed by law. We already need government permission to do most things anyway, so its not as if we are losing any freedom or liberty, as we never had it in the first place.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Why now ?

Why not when the IRA were blowing people up right, left and centre in the 70's and 80's ?

What's the difference now ?

Two words ... George Bush



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky
Why now ?

Why not when the IRA were blowing people up right, left and centre in the 70's and 80's ?

What's the difference now ?

Two words ... George Bush



Exactly


We've finally got a leader who understands what we're up against, and is willing to actually DO SOMETHING about it


Diplomacy is the preferred tool - unfortunately, it only works when BOTH sides engage in the process. Militant terrorists do not. The time for talk is OVER.





.



posted on Mar, 5 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Partyof1
Exactly


We've finally got a leader who understands what we're up against, and is willing to actually DO SOMETHING about it


Actually, I think you misunderstood me there.

Britain was willing to negotiate with the IRA and eventually it worked. Diplomacy to Bush and his cronies is a dirty word - and Blair is following his lead.

Not good at all.






.

[edit on 5-3-2005 by Pisky]



posted on Mar, 7 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pisky

We've finally got a leader who understands what we're up against, and is willing to actually DO SOMETHING about it



That is a contradiction in terms. If you are saying it is leadership qualities Blair possesses, you would be in a very rare minority. Most of us Brits know that Blair represents the butt-licking side-kick of Bush, not really aware that his support won't win USA's backing in the UK's crusades. Terrorism is a wholly abhorrent justification for previous victimisation, but nevertheless the USA (bin ladin, israel-jewish economic interference for thed domestic political gain,) and partly the UK(ww2 borders of israel) are the contributory cause. To destroy Iraq was just plainly wrong- if it was based on moral justification of saddams brutality at the peak of the atrocities (mass graves) then the outcome could have said to justified the means. However, we went to war to detract attn from the terror attacks on the usa and the subsequent failure to capture bin laddin. If Blair was committed to the destruction of terrorism, he wouldn't force through legislation which in effect has the potential to inflict terror to its own citizens through making the uk a police state, with no regulatory body in the domestic or EU courts and fundamentally depriving us of our human rights as set out by 1998 charter. The act allows them to keep track of our private thoughts and communications- emails, websites visited, mobile bills etc. They can stop and search individuals/premises with no reason. They can pretty much pass us off as a threat and enact any measure to imprison us without walls. it takes away our rights to protest for anything through instilling fear that we could be locked up without trial or justification for detention. Arbitary powers were what they claimed to be fighting against, yet the UK government has effectively become one.




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
hear hear brokenwings!
couldnt agree with you more! What i dont get is the fact that a large percentage of the population thinks that this act will stop terrorists? No law will stop a terrorist, take a look at france when occupied by Germany in the second world war, the resistance, and that really was a total police state, an the french still carried out "resistance work" vis a vis terrorist activieties because it was politically motivated.

Pure government controll! But hey what can an individual do about it?




new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join