[OllytheBrit]

Leaving aside the failings, a question if you please: if one of the security services had discovered via bugging devices that a terrorist or terrorists had the declared intent to publicly kill someone, what could they do to prevent it? Bearing in mind that we are at war, should they pre-empt the deed by killing the terrorist/s? And a supplemental question - in the same way as the crime is to be perpetrated, ie beheading?

"Lee Rigby report: the missed opportunities - MI5 was cleared of being able to prevent the murder of Lee Rigby but a report finds a litany of delays, errors and blunders in its handling of the two killers"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ities.html

[Heisenberg]

Leaving aside the failings, a question if you please: if one of the security services had discovered via bugging devices that a terrorist or terrorists had the declared intent to publicly kill someone, what could they do to prevent it?

Arrest the perpetrators for conspiracy to commit murder.

Bearing in mind that we are at war

We are not. No war has been declared.

should they pre-empt the deed by killing the terrorist/s?

If necessary, yes.

And a supplemental question - in the same way as the crime was planned, ie beheading?

This is completely unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous.

[OllytheBrit]

Arrest the perpetrators for conspiracy to commit murder.

Then what?

We are not. No war has been declared.

We are in all but the declaration.

If necessary, yes.

How? And with how much publicity?

And a supplemental question - in the same way as the crime was planned, ie beheading?

This is completely unnecessary and, frankly, ridiculous.

Why is it 'ridiculous'?

[Angelamerkel]

Possibly because beheading isn't considered a humane punishment? Or because it will encourage more lone wolf retaliation ? Presumably the UK isn't prone to the government savagery in Israel.

[OllytheBrit]

Possibly because beheading isn't considered a humane punishment? Or because it will encourage more lone wolf retaliation ? Presumably the UK isn't prone to the government savagery in Israel.

So how then??

[Heisenberg]

Then what?

Then, try them for conspiracy to commit murder. If you need more detail: convict and imprison them.

We are in all but the declaration.

With whom are we at war? "The terrorists"?

How? And with how much publicity?

Probably by being shot by firearms police if they resist arrest. "Publicity" is irrelevant. Unless by "pre-empting the deed" you mean carry out a public execution without trial, in which case I must change my first answer to "No, absolutely not".

Why is it 'ridiculous'?

Because it flies in the face of the law, is barbaric, and as mentioned before, is completely unnecessary. It's the type of punishment I'd expect to see in a mediaeval absolute monarchy, rather than a constitutionally governed country. Justice is supposed to be about upholding the law, not fetishising violence and "governing by fear".

[OllytheBrit]

Then, try them for conspiracy to commit murder. If you need more detail: convict and imprison them. et seq

That post in its entirety exquisitely sums up my assertion back in a similar thread that we don't have, nor ever will have the stomach for the fight; whilst we're fucking about for weeks on end in courts with evidence, then the inevitable countless appeals by defendants who are exploiting the 'But it just isn't cricket, old chap!' legal system for all they're worth while laughing at us, atrocities across the UK will continue until the courts become overwhelmed. So I'm 'ridiculous'? Well you're unbelievably naïve.

[Angelamerkel]

The obvious solution is a conspiracy trial. The root cause is Zionism and UK poodle like-behaviour, when it serves as the USA sidekick, in a continuous meddling exercise in the Middle East. This causes blowback. Therefore there's a need to implement diplomatic measures to have Israel correct its inhumane behaviour.

[OllytheBrit]

The obvious solution is a conspiracy trial. The root cause is Zionism and UK poodle like-behaviour, when it serves as the USA sidekick, in a continuous meddling exercise in the Middle East. This causes blowback. Therefore there's a need to implement diplomatic measures to have Israel correct its inhumane behaviour.

WTF has Israel and Zionism got to do with this?

[Heisenberg]

That post in its entirety exquisitely sums up my assertion back in a similar thread that we don't have, nor ever will have the stomach for the fight; whilst we're fucking about for weeks on end in courts with evidence, then the inevitable countless appeals by defendants who are exploiting the 'But it just isn't cricket, old chap!'

I can't believe I need to keep explaining this to you: you cannot simply suspend the rule of law for brown people. There is no "war". The Lee Rigby murder was perpetrated a couple of deranged killers, not a marauding army of Saracens banging at the gates of Vienna. The Islamic State is not going to bring about the end of western civilisation. There is no existential threat to worry about.

So I'm 'ridiculous'? Well you're unbelievably naïve.

How is it "naive" to say that arbitrarily suspending the rule of law is unacceptable? If anyone is being "naive", it's you - believing that we can just start arbitrarily beheading people in the streets without trial because they're suspected "terrorists", and that this will somehow not inevitably lead to a dystopian police state! For someone who is apparently so skeptical of our government, you're very willing to give the Home Office arbitrary emergency powers based on an exaggerated threat from "extremists".

Read what you've written again, and think about the logical consequences. I'm sorry, Olly, but it's utterly insane.

[OllytheBrit]

Heisenberg

There's no point in continuing this discussion when there is no agreement that 'we are at war'. At the risk of sounding like a smart-arse . . . we ain't seen nothin' yet - it has only just begun and they're already amongst us. And in case you think I'm some kind of neurotic scaremonger, Heisy, it's been on the cards for centuries. Actually their timing is perfect - ironically, because of its civilized values the West has become vulnerable to those with none. As a matter of fact, nothing but nothing would please me more than to be proved wrong.

[Heisenberg]

There's no point in continuing this discussion when there is no agreement that 'we are at war'.

This is incredibly frustrating.What's the point in creating a discussion thread if you don't want a discussion? At least make a case for your claim that "we are at war". It's a bold statement, and you can't expect someone to agree with you automatically. How are we at war? With whom are we at war?

At the risk of sounding like a smart-arse . . . we ain't seen nothin' yet - it has only just begun and they're already amongst us.

Who are "they"?

And in case you think I'm some kind of neurotic scaremonger, Heisy, it's been on the cards for centuries.

How so? This country has gone through two world wars in the last century, one of which presented a serious existential threat to us. We didn't respond then by publicly hacking people to bits on the slightest pretext, so I don't see why we should start now.

Actually their timing is perfect - ironically, because of its civilized values the West has become vulnerable to those with none.

I would say that we are not particularly vulnerable to a few desert-dwelling lunatics with blunt knives. Just because the Islamic State routed the Iraqi Army, it does not mean any potential "cells" of theirs pose a genuine threat to the survival of Europe or the US.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

At the risk of sounding like a smart-arse . . .

Don't worry, there's no danger of that.

Heisenberg has put the case for the basic rule of law well. It's bizarre that you didn't expect to get a reply like that. It's the position of all Western governments, and the people who vote for them.

in case you think I'm some kind of neurotic scaremonger

atrocities across the UK will continue until the courts become overwhelmed.

If you don't want to look like a neurotic scaremonger, then don't conjure up fantasies like that and pretend they are part of a rational argument.

[OllytheBrit]

This is incredibly frustrating.What's the point in creating a discussion thread if you don't want a discussion? At least make a case for your claim that "we are at war". It's a bold statement, and you can't expect someone to agree with you automatically. How are we at war? With whom are we at war?

We're at war with Islam - or to be more accurate Islam is at war with us; and it's a war against a determined and ruthless enemy with the declared aim of world domination. And not only is it determined and ruthless, it's 'invisible' too.

Who are "they"?

See above?

How so? This country has gone through two world wars in the last century, one of which presented a serious existential threat to us. We didn't respond then by hacking people to bits on the slightest pretext, so I don't see why we should start now.

This won't be a conventional war, it is doctrinal, and our enemy are fighting - not because they're under orders but would rather be at home with their families, but because they believe in what they're doing. I could go on to say what I think their next step will be (not so much in this country because they're more or less established here), but my thoughts might be construed as 'publicly causing alarm and despondency' so I'll have to keep this low-key, which of course is inhibiting for me to expand upon.

I would say that we are not particularly vulnerable to a few desert-dwelling lunatics with blunt knives. Just because the Islamic State routed the Iraqi Army, it does not mean any potential "cells" of theirs pose a genuine threat to the survival of Europe or the US.

All I can say to that is 'remember this?' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nster.html

And they're in no hurry, none whatsoever. And as if that isn't bad enough, they're a lot smarter than we are.

[Cartertonian]

This is incredibly frustrating.What's the point in creating a discussion thread if you don't want a discussion? At least make a case for your claim that "we are at war". It's a bold statement, and you can't expect someone to agree with you automatically. How are we at war? With whom are we at war?

Surely, jihad in the context used by IS, AQ et al, means holy war...and therefore we are at war - with the Jihadists. However...

We're at war with Islam

We are NOT at war with Islam, nor is Islam at war with us. Nevertheless, in the spirit of the thread I agree that if the Jihadists have declared a holy war against us, then we are at war.

I would say that we are not particularly vulnerable to a few desert-dwelling lunatics with blunt knives.

I would say that we are particularly vulnerable to a lot of desert-dwelling lunatics with fanatical belief, the internet and a significant body of sympathisers in Western countries, where the actions of a lone individual or small group can bring cities to a standstill and kill hundreds or thousands of people.

[Heisenberg]

I would say that we are particularly vulnerable to a lot of desert-dwelling lunatics with fanatical belief, the internet and a significant body of sympathisers in Western countries, where the actions of a lone individual or small group can bring cities to a standstill and kill hundreds or thousands of people.

"Vulnerable" to the occasional terrorist attack, perhaps. It's the price to pay for a free society. Besides, even totalitarian dictatorships have their terrorists, so suggesting that relying on Big Brother to keep us all safe is misguided. "Vulnerable" in the sense that our very survival and way of life is threatened? Come off it. The only situation that would justify Olly's absurd idea of "pre-emptive justice" - in which people are summarily executed for displaying any sort of intent to carry out an attack - would be a war of annihilation that was going particularly badly. If we made it through two world wars without resorting to this paranoid, barbaric nonsense, I'd say we can probably carry on as we are.

My position is very simple: I think there is probably a happy medium between "letting ISIS do as it pleases" and "behead shifty-looking brown people on sight". It's a crazy thought, admittedly, but perhaps turning Britain into a mirror image of Saudi Arabia or North Korea is not the best way to deal with Islamism.

All I can say to that is 'remember this?' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... nster.html

And they're in no hurry, none whatsoever. And as if that isn't bad enough, they're a lot smarter than we are.

The Bombay attack was a failure of the Indian security services to identify a specific threat. It is not evidence that we should throw out the rule of law "just in case".

I could go on to say what I think their next step will be (not so much in this country because they're more or less established here), but my thoughts might be construed as 'publicly causing alarm and despondency' so I'll have to keep this low-key, which of course is inhibiting for me to expand upon.

Oh, of course. Invoke a non-existent fear of being arrested for thought crime so that you don't have to explain why you're advocating pre-emptive beheading for those suspected of conspiracy to commit murder. That makes a hell of a lot of sense.

EDIT: grammar

[Rich]

It's the price to pay for a free society.

Its the price we pay for flooding our countries with Muslims. No Muslims! No terrorists! OK you no what I mean, we can live with a few dissident Republican Basques, American right wing nut jobs etc. Is suppose the lefties will argue that Muslims bring such other wonderful benefits to our societies that tearing up the hundreds of years old liberties is a small price to pay.

[OllytheBrit]

Even though the writing's on the wall some just do not get it. They're the ones who are in for a shock when the balloon goes up (as my old grand-pappy used to say as he dandled me on his knee! )

you're advocating pre-emptive beheading for those suspected of conspiracy to commit murder

I said 'those who the security services, by means of surveillance, have proof - have proof?? - that the murder/atrocity is going to take place', not that they only suspect it will! Jesus H!!

Its the price we pay for flooding our countries with Muslims. No Muslims! No terrorists! OK you no what I mean, we can live with a few dissident Republican Basques, American right wing nut jobs etc. Is suppose the lefties will argue that Muslims bring such other wonderful benefits to our societies that tearing up the hundreds of years old liberties is a small price to pay.

'The enemy inside'?

[OllytheBrit]

Heisenberg, change back to your previous avatar will you please? You seem to have become a bit flaky since you adopted the current one. Actually the avatar itself looks a bit flaky!

[Heisenberg]

Proof is established in a court of law. The security services, by definition, cannot have "proof" that something will happen. Until they have been charged, tried and convicted, they are still suspects. This is incredibly basic, so forgive me if I have nothing but contempt for your awful understanding of how the law works.

Perhaps instead of throwing your toys out of the pram and telling me repeatedly that I "just do not get it", actually try to persuade me. What about our situation is so desperate, so catastrophic, so fundamentally terrifying that we have to overthrow law and order? Why are "the Muslims" so much more dangerous than, say, Napoleon's Empire, Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union? Lee Rigby was one man who was killed. ONE. People are murdered every day. It's not enough of a basis to turn a typical MI5 officer into Judge Dredd. The fact that the perpetrators of this particular murder were black Muslims, does not mean that the Apocalypse is nigh. All this talk of a "war with Islam" is just rubbish. This supposedly united "jihadist" enemy is constantly splintering, with hundreds of terror groups fighting among themselves. Various Islamist groups in Syria and Iraq have probably killed more of their "fellow believers" than westerners.

You're exhibiting textbook confirmation bias: a freak attack happens, therefore everything about our security services must be broken. You ignore the fact that at least 34 7/7 style attacks have been foiled by the police since 2005, and assume that the beheading of a soldier by a couple of drug-addled lunatics is a sign that we're involved in a of total war of annihilation. The security services have proved that it is possible to thwart terrorist plots within the "soft", "flaky" confines of a law-governed society. No matter how much neurotic, fearmongering crap you come out with, it will not mean that a totalitarian police state is a worthwhile price to pay. The effects - as ever - will be felt much more obviously by the law-abiding majority.