10 ms·

Good. I'm also glad they're investigating the criminality of the UK government - I had assumed they would get away with it, rather like extraordinary rendition

Good. I'm also glad they're investigating the criminality of the UK government - I had assumed they would get away with it, rather like extraordinary rendition, because they didn't take the data directly. A big fat fine for Westminster could be just what the doctor ordered here (and I say that as a UK taxpayer.) Now we just need similar investigations into the NSA under the 4th Amendment - I wonder what the US is waiting for...

arethuza 13y ago
On the subject of extraordinary rendition, I was glad to see an announcement earlier this year that Scottish police are investigating the use of airports in Scotland for CIA flights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22788443 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2278... I doubt if it will come to anything, but the idea that we had prisoners who were on their way to be tortured transported through our country and we did nothing about it make my blood boil.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  One of the few places where I support the death penalty is for "international crimes" - genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. I think official sanction of torture should be on that list too. This puts me in the odd position when the weirdos call "bring back hanging" of saying "yes, but only for politicians."
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    No. The death penalty is wrong, end of. I dont care who we are talking about, if it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill. That has to be n absolute or we just get mission creep in the application of the law. And you know what happens, juniors get to shoulder the blame while the people at the top get away with it. Ever seen a rich powerful person get the death penalty in a western democracy? Look at the US. Its pretty much all economically poor minorities on death row. No politicians, businessmen, bankers, senior military officers, just poor people. I understand your motivation, I "feel" the same way, but I have to disagree with any one who supports the death penalty, for any reason. It is wrong. And for me, that is an absolute. Put it this way, are you prepared for you, your partner, or children to die at the hands of a court in a miscarriage of justice? Are you prepared to even risk that? Do you trust the system enough top gamble your own life or that of your loved ones? Yeah, politicians and associated scum are humans as well.......... unfortunately.
    - tehwalrus 13y ago
      I am (by some definition) a politician. (approved parliamentary candidate, political blogger, what have you. never actually won, mind.) I am happy for anyone who seeks power over others as absolute as political power (and military power, since they can also commit war crimes which are international crimes) to be subject to the death penalty if they misuse that power. Including me. I am not gambling the life of my "loved ones" on such a system, nor am I defending the death penalty in 99.99% of the cases where it is used today (I am just as appalled as you at the way it, and the prison system in general, are used to subjugate ethnic minorities in America.) EDIT: some more clarifications. I hugely respect alan_cx's position, which was mine for many years. I also want to point out that I don't want to change UK law - I want to augment the powers of the ICC (international criminal court) to allow it to punish crimes by death, where the current maximum is life imprisonment. I actually thought they already used the death penalty, but I've just checked and I was wrong.
      - kybernetikos 13y ago
        I think the point that was being made is that when you make the rules you have to assume that there will occasionally be mistakes in the application of those rules and sometimes the whole purpose and intent will be corrupted given enough power and opportunity. Given that, even if you support the death penalty for certain crimes or kinds of individuals (crimes against civilians during war or prisoner abuses can test my own anti-death penalty stance) it can still make sense not to support the death penalty as an institution.
        narag 13y ago
        Death penalty is also a problem when seeking extradition. There are provisions in many national legislations to avoid extraditing persons if they could be imposed a penalty that doesn't exists in the country.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      "The death penalty is wrong" - that's all you need to say, not because of the possibility of someone innocent being executed, for me it's just plain wrong. [And yes, this applies to all the genocidal murderous maniacs of history - if it was my call I wouldn't execute anyone ever].
  - lucian1900 13y ago
    Regardless of whether one thinks it is (in some cases) justified or not, the risk of killing innocents is simply too high. It is certain that more than one innocent has been killed this way, which is entirely unacceptable.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Firstly, thanks, I didnt know that. Secondly, don't write the Scottish off just yet. They let that Lockerbie bomber go home, and that really annoyed both the UK and US. They did the humane decent thing, despite the pressure, which in the end came to nothing. Remember too the politics between Scotland and the UK. I am fairly sure that if they can prove anything, they will make a big deal out of it. BTW, makes my blood boil too. Rendition was, and still is, a disgusting abuse of human beings and national power. Kidnap and torture by a state is something that should be internationally outlawed and offenders properly punished. Yes, even former US presidents and UK MP's. I'd like to see both Bush and Blair rendered to an international court and face jail for this. Yeah, I can dream.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    The gossip in the Scottish legal community was that Megrahi was almost certain to win his appeal - letting him go early was arguably the best option for everyone directly involved.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      Yeah, I know. But.... Im not sure its even that simple. But to have this conversation, in this direction, it all begins to get a bit foil hat and black helicopter. I appreciate your point though, I wont contradict it.
      - arethuza 13y ago
        Not really, as far as I recall it was pretty obvious he was going to get out on appeal and that would make a lot of people look silly for spending vast amounts of money on his prosecution and for ignoring who might have actually done the bombing. The Scottish goverment took the least worst option - I imagine the UK government was delighted that they got to say it was the fault of the Scots to the US.
alan_cx 13y ago
Hmmm, all that will do is fuel the stupid debate we in the UK have over being in Europe at all. Personally I think the EU should haul us over the coals, not just a fine, but actual sanctions. However, I'm not sure the EU really has the balls to do that. And frankly I don't want to give that nasty UKIP bunch any fuel what so ever. An issue I see is that actually the UK is more in to this that even the US. Might not have the depth and scope, but certainly the intention, with out even the fig leaf of a constitution. American citizens have some rights to work with, we dont. When you get down to it, we are facilitating the US spying on the EU, as we seem to be some sort of gateway hub between the EU and the US, and we, for some reason I do not understand, favor the US over Europe. While much of the embarrassment is on the US, the Snowden lark puts the UK in a very exposed piggy in the middle position where we might get forced to pick sides. The US can take care of its self, but the UK could be left deservedly politically stranded. On the other hand, the EU has a lot of its own problems and Im not sure it has the motivation to pick a proper fight with the UK. All we'll probably get is some posturing to appease who ever is complaining, and normal BS will resume. I have to say, given all that, it rather amuses me that a few years ago Obama was telling the UK it should look more to Europe than the US. Heh, I suppose now we know why: We are the US agent in Europe. I have to wonder if long term the Snowden leaks are more damaging to the UK than the US. People will still deal with the US because of its economic and military power, neither of which apply to the UK.
- tehwalrus 13y ago
  If we're "forced to pick sides", I don't think we'll pick the US. The government might want us to, but all it takes is a list of the stuff we all hate about US foreign policy - Drones, Asymmetrical extradition (and Gary McKinnon), Guantanamo Bay, etc etc. That stuff has no mirror in the EU, all they're trying to do is get us to obey our own laws. I hope the EU has the guts to give us a short, sharp shock - or I fear your last hypothesis, about UK isolation, may be accurate.
  - junto 13y ago
    The UK media is owned by people who have a vested interest in keeping the UK on the European fringes. The US-UK relationship will remain 'special'. Only a large amount of negative public opinion could change that and the UK media controls public opinion. QED... Freedom to protest and demonstrate has been steadily eroded in the UK. The police have long term spies within pressure groups such as Occupy, green issues and animal well-fare. Remember that an estimated 1 million UK citizens marched in the Stop the War anti-war protest [1]. Worldwide on Feb 15th 2003, millions more. These protests had no effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_prot...
Nursie 13y ago
I hope we can also get some examination of the safe-harbour agreements that allow the shipping of data to the US, contravening the usual data protection laws, when certain guarantees are given. Clearly these guarantees are meaningless in today's world.
- MarcScott 13y ago
  This is particular interest to me as a teacher. Suspension of the safe-harbour agreements would mean schools having to shutdown any US based services they use such as Google Apps, where student data is stored.
DavidBradbury 13y ago
The problem we have right now is a complacent and ineffectual congress. Most of them don't use the internet and don't really care about it because it doesn't directly affect them. Unless their constituents start complaining (More than just people in their 20's and 30's), they don't have any reason to do anything either. A number of Democrats won't do anything unless Obama starts going against the NSA, and the Republicans that are against it are having trouble convincing others that it is a real issue. Add in a lack of news stations and journalists that are actually willing to investigate and push the Federal Government on the issues and you get a very, very frustrating situation.

arethuza 13y ago

On the subject of extraordinary rendition, I was glad to see an announcement earlier this year that Scottish police are investigating the use of airports in Scotland for CIA flights: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22788443 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-2278... I doubt if it will come to anything, but the idea that we had prisoners who were on their way to be tortured transported through our country and we did nothing about it make my blood boil.

tehwalrus 13y ago
One of the few places where I support the death penalty is for "international crimes" - genocide, crimes against humanity, etc. I think official sanction of torture should be on that list too. This puts me in the odd position when the weirdos call "bring back hanging" of saying "yes, but only for politicians."
- alan_cx 13y ago
  No. The death penalty is wrong, end of. I dont care who we are talking about, if it is wrong to kill, then it is wrong to kill. That has to be n absolute or we just get mission creep in the application of the law. And you know what happens, juniors get to shoulder the blame while the people at the top get away with it. Ever seen a rich powerful person get the death penalty in a western democracy? Look at the US. Its pretty much all economically poor minorities on death row. No politicians, businessmen, bankers, senior military officers, just poor people. I understand your motivation, I "feel" the same way, but I have to disagree with any one who supports the death penalty, for any reason. It is wrong. And for me, that is an absolute. Put it this way, are you prepared for you, your partner, or children to die at the hands of a court in a miscarriage of justice? Are you prepared to even risk that? Do you trust the system enough top gamble your own life or that of your loved ones? Yeah, politicians and associated scum are humans as well.......... unfortunately.
  - tehwalrus 13y ago
    I am (by some definition) a politician. (approved parliamentary candidate, political blogger, what have you. never actually won, mind.) I am happy for anyone who seeks power over others as absolute as political power (and military power, since they can also commit war crimes which are international crimes) to be subject to the death penalty if they misuse that power. Including me. I am not gambling the life of my "loved ones" on such a system, nor am I defending the death penalty in 99.99% of the cases where it is used today (I am just as appalled as you at the way it, and the prison system in general, are used to subjugate ethnic minorities in America.) EDIT: some more clarifications. I hugely respect alan_cx's position, which was mine for many years. I also want to point out that I don't want to change UK law - I want to augment the powers of the ICC (international criminal court) to allow it to punish crimes by death, where the current maximum is life imprisonment. I actually thought they already used the death penalty, but I've just checked and I was wrong.
    - kybernetikos 13y ago
      I think the point that was being made is that when you make the rules you have to assume that there will occasionally be mistakes in the application of those rules and sometimes the whole purpose and intent will be corrupted given enough power and opportunity. Given that, even if you support the death penalty for certain crimes or kinds of individuals (crimes against civilians during war or prisoner abuses can test my own anti-death penalty stance) it can still make sense not to support the death penalty as an institution.
      - narag 13y ago
        Death penalty is also a problem when seeking extradition. There are provisions in many national legislations to avoid extraditing persons if they could be imposed a penalty that doesn't exists in the country.
  - arethuza 13y ago
    "The death penalty is wrong" - that's all you need to say, not because of the possibility of someone innocent being executed, for me it's just plain wrong. [And yes, this applies to all the genocidal murderous maniacs of history - if it was my call I wouldn't execute anyone ever].
- lucian1900 13y ago
  Regardless of whether one thinks it is (in some cases) justified or not, the risk of killing innocents is simply too high. It is certain that more than one innocent has been killed this way, which is entirely unacceptable.
alan_cx 13y ago
Firstly, thanks, I didnt know that. Secondly, don't write the Scottish off just yet. They let that Lockerbie bomber go home, and that really annoyed both the UK and US. They did the humane decent thing, despite the pressure, which in the end came to nothing. Remember too the politics between Scotland and the UK. I am fairly sure that if they can prove anything, they will make a big deal out of it. BTW, makes my blood boil too. Rendition was, and still is, a disgusting abuse of human beings and national power. Kidnap and torture by a state is something that should be internationally outlawed and offenders properly punished. Yes, even former US presidents and UK MP's. I'd like to see both Bush and Blair rendered to an international court and face jail for this. Yeah, I can dream.
- arethuza 13y ago
  The gossip in the Scottish legal community was that Megrahi was almost certain to win his appeal - letting him go early was arguably the best option for everyone directly involved.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Yeah, I know. But.... Im not sure its even that simple. But to have this conversation, in this direction, it all begins to get a bit foil hat and black helicopter. I appreciate your point though, I wont contradict it.
    - arethuza 13y ago
      Not really, as far as I recall it was pretty obvious he was going to get out on appeal and that would make a lot of people look silly for spending vast amounts of money on his prosecution and for ignoring who might have actually done the bombing. The Scottish goverment took the least worst option - I imagine the UK government was delighted that they got to say it was the fault of the Scots to the US.

alan_cx 13y ago

Hmmm, all that will do is fuel the stupid debate we in the UK have over being in Europe at all. Personally I think the EU should haul us over the coals, not just a fine, but actual sanctions. However, I'm not sure the EU really has the balls to do that. And frankly I don't want to give that nasty UKIP bunch any fuel what so ever. An issue I see is that actually the UK is more in to this that even the US. Might not have the depth and scope, but certainly the intention, with out even the fig leaf of a constitution. American citizens have some rights to work with, we dont. When you get down to it, we are facilitating the US spying on the EU, as we seem to be some sort of gateway hub between the EU and the US, and we, for some reason I do not understand, favor the US over Europe. While much of the embarrassment is on the US, the Snowden lark puts the UK in a very exposed piggy in the middle position where we might get forced to pick sides. The US can take care of its self, but the UK could be left deservedly politically stranded. On the other hand, the EU has a lot of its own problems and Im not sure it has the motivation to pick a proper fight with the UK. All we'll probably get is some posturing to appease who ever is complaining, and normal BS will resume. I have to say, given all that, it rather amuses me that a few years ago Obama was telling the UK it should look more to Europe than the US. Heh, I suppose now we know why: We are the US agent in Europe. I have to wonder if long term the Snowden leaks are more damaging to the UK than the US. People will still deal with the US because of its economic and military power, neither of which apply to the UK.

tehwalrus 13y ago
If we're "forced to pick sides", I don't think we'll pick the US. The government might want us to, but all it takes is a list of the stuff we all hate about US foreign policy - Drones, Asymmetrical extradition (and Gary McKinnon), Guantanamo Bay, etc etc. That stuff has no mirror in the EU, all they're trying to do is get us to obey our own laws. I hope the EU has the guts to give us a short, sharp shock - or I fear your last hypothesis, about UK isolation, may be accurate.
- junto 13y ago
  The UK media is owned by people who have a vested interest in keeping the UK on the European fringes. The US-UK relationship will remain 'special'. Only a large amount of negative public opinion could change that and the UK media controls public opinion. QED... Freedom to protest and demonstrate has been steadily eroded in the UK. The police have long term spies within pressure groups such as Occupy, green issues and animal well-fare. Remember that an estimated 1 million UK citizens marched in the Stop the War anti-war protest [1]. Worldwide on Feb 15th 2003, millions more. These protests had no effect. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest#United_Kingdom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_prot...

Nursie 13y ago

I hope we can also get some examination of the safe-harbour agreements that allow the shipping of data to the US, contravening the usual data protection laws, when certain guarantees are given. Clearly these guarantees are meaningless in today's world.

MarcScott 13y ago
This is particular interest to me as a teacher. Suspension of the safe-harbour agreements would mean schools having to shutdown any US based services they use such as Google Apps, where student data is stored.

DavidBradbury 13y ago

The problem we have right now is a complacent and ineffectual congress. Most of them don't use the internet and don't really care about it because it doesn't directly affect them. Unless their constituents start complaining (More than just people in their 20's and 30's), they don't have any reason to do anything either. A number of Democrats won't do anything unless Obama starts going against the NSA, and the Republicans that are against it are having trouble convincing others that it is a real issue. Add in a lack of news stations and journalists that are actually willing to investigate and push the Federal Government on the issues and you get a very, very frustrating situation.