MI5 head warns on civil liberties

mkpdavies · 10-09-2005, 10:13 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4232012.stm

Quote:

The head of Britain's security service, MI5, has warned that hard won civil liberties may have to be "eroded" to protect people from terrorist attacks.

Stopping giving people reaosns to commit terror might be a start. Once people want to attack you, especially if they are willing to put down their own lives; There is NOTHING you can do to stop them.

Quote:

She said civil liberties were valued and there was no wish to damage those "hard-fought for" rights.

"But the world has changed and there needs to be a debate on whether some erosion of what we all value may be necessary to improve the chances of our citizens not being blown apart as they go about their daily lives," she said.

Doublethink at it's worst. We don't want to erode you HARD-FOUGHT FOR, BUT we are going to anyway.

The "Liberal"

Democrats

are again weak and ineffective on the issue.

The police state commeth. What are you going to do about it?

John Carter · 10-09-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

The police state commeth. What are you going to do about it?

arden forester · 11-09-2005, 09:03 AM

She was speaking to the Dutch security service, AIVD. The Dutch have gone back to having ID cards. During World War 2 the Nazis had no trouble picking up Dutch Jews because all their details were on ID records. Today, with computerized records "immigrants" that don't fit the profile can be picked up that much easier and all of us, regardless of background, can be tracked, traduced, and treated as objects! :shock:

British Dissident · 12-09-2005, 09:53 AM

This is really just attacking the symptoms, not addressing the root cause. It should make people angry that their freedoms and rights are being taken away by the very politicians that are responsible for creating the mess in the first place! Apart from continuing crisis management and resulting in an ever-increasing slide INTO phpbb_a police state, what do they propose to actually resolve the situation as opposed to contain it?

And all this power the state is accruing – how many people really think it won’t be abused at some future date?

C_steam · 12-09-2005, 10:34 AM

the way of this government is precisely as you have said - it reacts to every occurence with a new kneejerk law and never considers effective root cause analysis, let alone actual countermeasures to the problem.

Bandaid follows bandaid.

Paul Birch · 12-09-2005, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by C_steam

the way of this government is precisely as you have said - it reacts to every occurence with a new kneejerk law and never considers effective root cause analysis, let alone actual countermeasures to the problem.
Bandaid follows bandaid.

I don't think I agree. You're not being paranoid enough. I believe that the government involved us in Iraq, Bush's "War on Terror" and so forth deliberately in order to foster hatred and terrorism against and among us - to give them the excuse to introduce all those Nazi measures they would otherwise have had difficulty with. These new laws aren't "kneejerk"; they've been planned for years. Where people go wrong is in falsely assuming that they are actually intended as the counter-measures they are claimed to be; whereas their real purpose is to bully and control. Destroying civil liberties isn't an unfortunate side effect - it's the whole point.

progcon.org · 12-09-2005, 11:35 AM

I agree. It is about control and with the added "benefit" of being another stealth tax.

It's like the new EU rule to introduce a black box in news cars from 2009 that will "call out" in the case of emergency, whilst obviously keeping a track of vehicles at all times.

It's all about control. It is carefully planned. The reasons given for needing them appear kneejerk as the government is simply trying to use any new headlines to help "sell" a scheme that they have no intention of dropping.

Tom Wilde · 12-09-2005, 01:44 PM

The security services already have all the powers they need - some would say more than they need - to protect us from terrorist attacks. When an attack takes place anyway, there are several possible reasons:

1) The security services (and the rest of us) have been unlucky. Some attacks will always get through, regardless of anything that can be done. The point is to keep the number of successful attacks to a minimum without destroying our way of life.

2) The security services have been incompetent. I believe they do their best and have some very talented people, but everyone makes mistakes and the buck stops at the top. We need parliamentary supervision of MI5 and the swift removal of security chiefs who underperform.

3) The security services need more money. Having more agents tracking terrorism presumably means fewer attacks. Compared with the astronomical cost of invading Middle Eastern countries, this is a very cheap way of improving the safety of British citizens.

However, when attacks take place, the head of MI5 knows that few people are going to accept reason (1), she is unlikely to propose reason (2) as that would mean she should be sacked and while behind closed doors she might press for more funds, she knows that Labour ministers are much readier to give her new powers than new agents. If she can't publicly give any of reasons 1-3, then of course she will ask for more powers over our lives. If she can't count on improved luck, doesn't intend to resign, and can't get more funds then that is pretty much the only other option she has. But it isn't necessary and it is our duty as citizens to defend the civil rights we have, for our own sakes and the sake of our children. Just as she says, those rights have been hard-fought for.

Roger Gough · 12-09-2005, 04:52 PM

Precisely which 'hard fought-for' rights and civil liberties may be eroded? - or is that an MI5 secret? :?

IceDragon · 13-09-2005, 09:47 PM

Isn't the reason we have bus bombings and tube suicide attacks down to a certain religion? It may be unpalatable to say this but if we didn't have the religion we would not have suicide bombings.

If you don't like the salt, don't keep adding it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

11-09-2005, 09:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
arden forester Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Solihull, in The Forest of Arden, Warwickshire! Posts: 2,699 Party: None	She was speaking to the Dutch security service, AIVD. The Dutch have gone back to having ID cards. During World War 2 the Nazis had no trouble picking up Dutch Jews because all their details were on ID records. Today, with computerized records "immigrants" that don't fit the profile can be picked up that much easier and all of us, regardless of background, can be tracked, traduced, and treated as objects! :shock:

12-09-2005, 09:53 AM	#4 (permalink)
British Dissident Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 33	This is really just attacking the symptoms, not addressing the root cause. It should make people angry that their freedoms and rights are being taken away by the very politicians that are responsible for creating the mess in the first place! Apart from continuing crisis management and resulting in an ever-increasing slide INTO phpbb_a police state, what do they propose to actually resolve the situation as opposed to contain it? And all this power the state is accruing – how many people really think it won’t be abused at some future date?

12-09-2005, 10:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
C_steam Super Moderator Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Paddling up 5hit creek..... Posts: 7,802	the way of this government is precisely as you have said - it reacts to every occurence with a new kneejerk law and never considers effective root cause analysis, let alone actual countermeasures to the problem. Bandaid follows bandaid.

12-09-2005, 11:35 AM	#7 (permalink)
progcon.org Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 934	I agree. It is about control and with the added "benefit" of being another stealth tax. It's like the new EU rule to introduce a black box in news cars from 2009 that will "call out" in the case of emergency, whilst obviously keeping a track of vehicles at all times. It's all about control. It is carefully planned. The reasons given for needing them appear kneejerk as the government is simply trying to use any new headlines to help "sell" a scheme that they have no intention of dropping.

12-09-2005, 01:44 PM	#8 (permalink)
Tom Wilde Moderator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: London. Posts: 2,914	The security services already have all the powers they need - some would say more than they need - to protect us from terrorist attacks. When an attack takes place anyway, there are several possible reasons: 1) The security services (and the rest of us) have been unlucky. Some attacks will always get through, regardless of anything that can be done. The point is to keep the number of successful attacks to a minimum without destroying our way of life. 2) The security services have been incompetent. I believe they do their best and have some very talented people, but everyone makes mistakes and the buck stops at the top. We need parliamentary supervision of MI5 and the swift removal of security chiefs who underperform. 3) The security services need more money. Having more agents tracking terrorism presumably means fewer attacks. Compared with the astronomical cost of invading Middle Eastern countries, this is a very cheap way of improving the safety of British citizens. However, when attacks take place, the head of MI5 knows that few people are going to accept reason (1), she is unlikely to propose reason (2) as that would mean she should be sacked and while behind closed doors she might press for more funds, she knows that Labour ministers are much readier to give her new powers than new agents. If she can't publicly give any of reasons 1-3, then of course she will ask for more powers over our lives. If she can't count on improved luck, doesn't intend to resign, and can't get more funds then that is pretty much the only other option she has. But it isn't necessary and it is our duty as citizens to defend the civil rights we have, for our own sakes and the sake of our children. Just as she says, those rights have been hard-fought for.

12-09-2005, 04:52 PM	#9 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	Precisely which 'hard fought-for' rights and civil liberties may be eroded? - or is that an MI5 secret? :?

13-09-2005, 09:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
IceDragon Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,048	Isn't the reason we have bus bombings and tube suicide attacks down to a certain religion? It may be unpalatable to say this but if we didn't have the religion we would not have suicide bombings. If you don't like the salt, don't keep adding it.