Terrorism and the terrorised

Baroness Deech

The Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill received its second reading on 5th October in a debate that lasted five hours.  The Bill introduces a new version of control orders with broad judicial oversight. It is intended that they will be used in relation to suspects who for various reasons cannot be prosecuted or deported.  The House of Lords and the judiciary can be counted on to defend human rights, whether those of suspected terrorists or anybody else, with vigour and determination. It is important that the government defends the security of the public, for without security no other human rights can exist at all. At the same time, our security and liberty might not be worth having if the price of defence is denial of human and constitutional rights.  A difficult balance to achieve, and one that various governments have been working on for years. Our judges have applied the highest human rights standards in reviewing measure after measure and have caused the legislative branch to think again about designing effective but rights-compliant measures to deal with suspected terrorists.

Just one comment from me on this difficult issue.  It was not until half way through this rather depressing debate that the measures were set in context and respect paid to those victims whose plight should be at the heart of the government’s thinking.  Lord Carlile is the former government independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, and a distinguished QC and LibDem. He said: “What does the threat [level] mean to the public whom the Government have a first duty to represent and protect? It means that there is a strong possibility . . of a single or multiple suicide bombing attack occurring entirely unpredictably, with consequent death and injury on at least the scale of the events in London in 2005.  I remind your Lordships that in the 7/7 attacks, not only were 52 people murdered by terrorists, but more than 770 people were injured, some extremely seriously.  Further, it is worrying that violent jihadist terrorism techniques have become more varied since 2005, including the technique . . of massacre by the use of automatic weapons, as in Mumbai on 26 November 2008 . .”  Lord Carlile also drew attention to the increased threat of terrorism associated with next year’s Olympics.

I was upset that Parliament did not take this opportunity to pay respect and tribute to the victims of the 7/7 attacks, especially the injured of whom we now hear little.  Attention paid to their situation would then have enabled us to assess the scale of the anxieties expressed elsewhere in the debate about the effect of the Bill on the rights of suspects, e.g. the possible denial of their ability to see the GP of their choice or meet old friends (Baroness Hamwee.)

17 comments for “Terrorism and the terrorised

  1. Context?
    08/10/2011 at 10:13 pm

    “It was not until halfway through this rather depressing debate that the measures were set in context…”

    56 people killed in terrorist attacks in the last ten years in the UK. Why is draconian legislation that violates basic rights, and leads to incarceration without trial worthwhile in the context of saving six lives a year? If I was killed in a terrorist attack I’d hate to think of what was being done in my name.

  2. Lord Blagger
    08/10/2011 at 10:20 pm

    Why are you concerned about 7/7?

    What about the thousands killed by the armed forces?

    Ah yes, brown people in other countries.

  3. MilesJSD
    milesjsd
    09/10/2011 at 8:38 am

    It has to be suggested, since the ‘safety’ of “Human Rights” is highly questionable (e.g. that nowhere in the world are they up-and-running-and-totally-effective)
    that highest Governance applies not only “the highest human rights standards” but from lists and gradings of basic-versus-‘less-necessary’ Needs & Hows selects or composes adequate-for-purpose lifesupportive-packages.

  4. Twm O'r Nant
    09/10/2011 at 9:06 am

    I find it more or less impossible to comment on security issues, although I do know a little about the practices of M15, and minister/members safety.

    How can I possibly be informed by the press about 5 men who are locked up for long spells for conspiring to do evil deeds which we cannot be informed about?

    I HAVE to take the press report prima facie as true.

    It is important that the government defends the security of the public, for without security no other human rights can exist at all. At the same time, our security and liberty might not be worth having if the price of defence is denial of human and constitutional rights. A difficult balance to achieve,

    Whilst I would be prepared to campaign, for example, and like so many others, on behalf of somebody like Amanda Knox,if I knew enough about the family and way of life,I would certainly not do the same for a dozen men and women, from a foreign place with a foreign religion, planning to murder and maim people, and damage property.

    The criteria for my decision are rather easier, as a private individual than they were 25 years ago. One of the few blessings of globalism is that such things do not affect my own soul in the same way at all.

    On a completely different subject, the Irish will be cheering for Wales next Saturday, but
    I am not so sure about the English!

  5. DanFilson
    09/10/2011 at 7:35 pm

    There are many tests of a civilised society – the care of the elderly, for example, and the comprehensive coverage of education for all. But one good measure is whether we sacrifice civil liberties under the banner of greater security for all.

    A relative of mine worked for a national security body in the 1930s, and did relatively useless work enabling the monitoring left-wingers whilst the government itself was appeasing the most obvious menace to national security. In the same way, we are holding people without trial whose guilt is far from certain.

    It worries me that yet another measure is being put to Parliament without any obvious consensus on the balance struck between civil liberties and the need for security. Should it be left to the judiciary to protect our human rights, or should legislation be more concise?

  6. maude elwes
    09/10/2011 at 8:25 pm

    Most terrorists are imported. So, why not export them immediately? it is clear they are not happy here. the best possible move for them would be to return them to their state of allegiance.

    And those who claim to be home grown, should be sent to the native land they are ready to die for. As it certainly isn’t ours. Is it?

    That way, everyone will be happy. And if their family are worried about their right to family life, then they should join their terrorist kin wherever they educated them to have a duty toward.

    Want to see how quick ‘terrorists’ would cut the crap? Never allow them back into Europe. Give them a life sentence of exile.

    • DanFilson
      10/10/2011 at 1:55 pm

      ‘Most terrorists are imported.’ If only that were true. Some, though born abroad, are well settled in the UK as UK citizens. It cannot be seriously suggested they be deported before conviction, and after conviction is it realistic to deport a UK citizen to a country they left at the age of 3? Robert Reid, the shoe bomber, was born a British citizen in Bromley, South London. Mohammad Sidique Khan was the oldest of the four homegrown 7/7 suicide bombers was born in Leeds. His colleague Shehzad Tanweer was born in Bradford, West Yorkshire U.K. Germaine Maurice Lindsay, also known as Abdullah Shaheed Jamal, their colleague, was born in Jamaica but entered junior school here at age 5. Hasib Mir Hussain, the youngest of the four at age 18, was born in Leeds. Yasin Hassan Omar (sometimes spelt Yassin), one of the unsuccessful 21 July 2005 would-be bombers, was originally from Somalia and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers, in 1992, and was granted indefinite leave to remain in 2000 at age 17. Muktar Said Ibrahim, also known as Muktar Mohammed Said, was originally from Somalia and arrived in the UK as a child dependent of asylum seekers in 1990, and was granted residency in 1992. It has been reported – apparently in ‘Hemel Hempstead Today’ which I am sure is authorative! – that he applied for naturalisation as a British citizen in November 2003 and was issued with a British passport in September 2004. Osman Hussain (also Hussain Osman or Hamdi Isaac) was born in Ethiopia, and is a naturalised British citizen married to Yeshshiemebet Girma. I don’t know how or whether he acquired British citizenship. His wife and her sister were also convicted of and jailed for offences connected to the 21/7 terrorism. Ramzi Mohammed the fourth of the would-be 21/7 bombers was a Somali national; I don’t know on what basis he lived in the UK. Incidentally perhaps I could pay tribute to a very brave man who stood up to this terrorist: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6291943.stm.

      I could go on, but the point is clear. The characteristic of these terrorists is that they are neither of another country nor this, but alienated residents of this country, for whatever reason. You might think that being granted asylum from a war zone would make a person grateful to the UK but it is not so simple. I recall, in my days as a school governor of a primary school, seeing paintings by school children aged 8 or younger in which every character was carrying a machine gun. These children were scarred by their earlier live experiences. Hopefully they did not grow into terrorists, but who knows.

      Deportation should be part of our weaponry of defence but it is not of itself in any way a solution to terrorism.

      • maude elwes
        10/10/2011 at 4:38 pm

        @Dan Filson:

        I have read your list of so called natives of this country. However, you miss the point of my previous post.

        No matter the age they turn up here, no matter their reason for wanting to kill our citizens, they are quite clearly not happy with this country and their lifestyle within it. The social backdrop is an anathema to them. Or, what they have received via its ethos leaves them in killing mode. And they are more than willing to die to eliminate it. Perhaps, if they concentrated their objectives to kill on those in politics, who are the rulers of this state, that you are suggesting has made them discontent, perhaps that would concentrate the mind more toward the welfare of us all.

        The point here is, they are unhappy with this life here. Their torment then, would be relieved by returning them, in the case of those born abroad, or, sending those not, to countries or societies they feel connected to. Connected enough to kill and die for. This would give them the opportunity to live out their dream within that nation they feel an allegiance to. Possibly as heralded martyrs. Now what can be so dreadful in that?

        Or, are you suggesting we accept the way of life and the ethos of the society they aspire to, and live a way we would detest, so they can be happy enough to leave their killing psyche behind.

        I don’t think so.

        People who feel a Western lifestyle is more than they can take, should be deprived of it. For, if they are not, the potential of mass murder and possibly civil war, grows ever closer by the day.

        You may want to live with this total lunacy, but, the majority of this nation does not.

        I did not suggest no hearing. I also suggested some time ago, that those who feel they do want to live in this, as they see it, horrendous environment, could apply from the country of origin. Then the privilege of acceptance may make it clear that if you want to be in a free society, you have to be ready and able to accept the freedom of others to do all those things you abhor.

        I have to accept it and you have to accept it. And any person within it, born here or not, has to accept it as well.

        Otherwise the penalty of not doing so is permanent exile. Which is a great deal more civilized and lenient than execution. Which is what they do. And what some Western countries, like the USA, who put an end to their native for the taking of only one life. Which I do not support.

        I do, therefore, feel terrorists would be very fortunate indeed, simply to be refused residence or entry into Europe or the UK. With a foolproof way of making sure they couldn’t return.

        After all, we did this to our King in the 1930’s didn’t we? Didn’t do him any harm did it?

        • DanFilson
          10/10/2011 at 7:31 pm

          One characteristic of Nazi Germany was it expelled people born in its territory or nationalised as its citizens on the pretext they were not proper Germans. By all means expel convicted terrorists to their country of origin if that can be readily identified and if they have a genuine connection with it (I don’t count leaving it at age 3 as sufficient connection). It would be very sensible to refuse terrorists residence or entry into Europe or the UK. But the real problem is what to do with those within our borders whose mindset is moving towards terrorism. Until they commit an offence, for example plotting, we cannot detain or expel them, unless that is being proposed. Internment without trial in Northern Ireland was an abject failure not least as the wrong people were interned, and I remain deeply uncomfortable with Guantanamo Bay.

          You do no credit to your argument by putting up straw man arguments like “are you suggesting we accept the way of life and the ethos of the society they aspire to, and live a way we would detest” or “You may want to live with this total lunacy, but, the majority of this nation does not.”

          As to Edward VIII, he abdicated under some political pressure, but it was his choice to join his mistress abroad, to our great relief.

          • maude elwes
            11/10/2011 at 7:14 pm

            @Dan Filson:

            And we expelled traitors to our country at the time, didn’t we? Shot men at dawn in Hitler’s day we did. Perhaps you missed that.

            However, at very least, our home grown Cambridge intellectuals, Burgess, Philby, Maclean, who also hated this country, left it to live in their home of heart and ethos, Russia. Except the ghastly Blunt of course, who begged for pardon when an old man, after living off tax payers money for years, as some kind of art dealer to the Royals.

            So, I see no difference between those born here of English heritage and those born here of foreign heritage, when hate of country is concerned. Leave it if you don’t like it. Don’t kill its people.

            Now, as you are so incensed by the idea of traitors being exiled, what is it you would like to do with them? For you never seem to have any thought on how to take action. No ideas on how to protect our people from this import our governments imposed on us, without consent or discussion.

            You never seem to propose ways of eliminating this source of infection within our boarders. Your answer is to condemn those who want to discuss it, or, who feel its time those in the seat of power should do their job to defend the people and end this threat. After all it is they who brought it to our shores and therefore, they, should be held personally responsible as a result.

            So tell us, what action would you support? And how would you go about it?

            Or, is leaving it to fester and grow seem the best solution to you?

  7. Twm O'r Nant
    10/10/2011 at 7:25 pm

    I always think of those crucial years in the mid 19thC when the death penalty for theft was abolished. Insurance companies were in business!

    The cause of theft being punishable in such a way, was that it destabilized and undermined people’s sense of being safe and secure, not knowing whether they would have their pocket picked or their house broken in to and robbed with absolutely no recompense whatsoever. You could not insure against loss of any sort.

    Murder could be repaid, if the murderer was
    sufficiently well off, without life being forfeited in return.

    The murder of a large number of people at the same time, in the modern age, a regrettable possibility, has the same effect as theft had in former times.

    A wage earner taken from his loved one; a young professional man/woman with a fine future ahead of him/her; a family man.
    They might be well insured, but they might not. It destabilizes, and makes us feel very uneasy indeed that such a thing could happen.
    It undermines our sense of safety and security, and the total of a life earnings even of one man, would be difficult, if not impossible, for any one individual to repay.

  8. DanFilson
    11/10/2011 at 10:16 pm

    Maude Elwes puts up more straw man arguments in her post of 11/10/2011 AT 7:14 PM. Of course I am aware we shot traitors during wartime, not least because my mother gave evidence in a treason trial in which the defendant was indeed executed (hanged, I believe, that being the British method).

    I’ve no idea whether the then Professor Sir Anthony Blunt was paid from the privy purse for being Surveyor of the King’s Pictures to HM King George VI and then Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures to HM the Queen, but I suspect it was an honorary position. He was however from 1947 both Professor of the History of Art at the University of London, and the Director of the Courtauld Institute of Art, University of London, where he had been lecturing since the spring of 1933. His tenure in office as Director lasted until 1974. During his 27 years at the Courtauld Institute, Blunt was held in high regard as a teacher and a manager of staff. His legacy at the Courtauld left it increased funding and more space, and he was central in the acquisition of outstanding collections for the Courtauld’s Galleries, and often credited for making the Courtauld what it is today. (Acknowledgements to Wikipedia for this information). Far from begging for pardon when Mrs Thatcher scored a cheap publicity stunt in revealing in 1979 to the public what the security services had already known since the 1960s if not the 1950s, he stoically took the abuse thrown at him and died soon after at the age of 75. You have to recall that in 1941-44 the Soviet Union was sustaining huge casualties as our ally but being denied information, in the interests of preserving the secrecy of the Enigma code being broken, which would have saved countless lives. I dislike Stalin’s regime and his methods, but am at least sufficiently human to recognise the motives that lef him to his wartime treason. There’s little evidence he was doing spying or betraying secrets after the war. But Blunt is not relevant to this subject, which is terrorism and the terrorised.

    Yes I too would like those who do not like living in the UK or the way we operate to leave the country and find somewhere of their choosing. But voluntary departure is also not relevant to this debate, as they’ll go if they want to or not if they don’t. The problem is the latter.

    You say I have no idea what to do with terrorists, though you use the word traitors, but you never asked. I would imprison them. The prisons may be overflowing but there is certainly room for terrorists. For long sentences. I have no qualms with 10, 15 or 20 year sentences, and that is net of any good behaviour reductions, not gross before.

    At no stage have I opposed discussing sentencing for terrorists. And it is wrong to equate rubbishing the suggestion of exiling terrorists born in this country or here since early childhood with opposing discussion of the subject. I just don’t think it is a solution of any value.

    What I am not hearing from you is whether you favour the reduction of detention without charge of possible terrorists down to 14 days from the level at which the last government set it. Good idea or bad? Or is this coalition always right on everything?

    Baroness Deech regrets no mention was made of those who survived 7/7 but with injuries. With all respect to her, however much we deplore those bombings (I was half a mile from the nearest and very aware of the consequences), we cannot go on expressing condolences etc at every discussion of the issue of terrorism; what we do need to be aware of is what happened, what motivated it and what we can do to reduce the extent of anomie amongst those, living in our communities or able to come to these shores, who might be motivated to commit acts of terrorism. We have never defeated an enemy we have not understood, and never will.

    • maude elwes
      12/10/2011 at 3:24 pm

      @Dan Filson:

      I am not going to rehash the Anthony Blunt saga, except to say he should never have been in the position he was, as he ‘was’ a traitor. And who do you think foots the bill for the Privy Purse? As well as pays the pot annually of, ‘Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures.’ The Queen pays only for those taking care of her personal art.

      It is so convenient for people who like to hide behind the wall of concealment, never to support exposure of intellectual betrayers, when people like Thatcher reveal the squalor they writhe in. That is only for the intellectual poor. It may teach ‘them’ a lesson. As far as I am concerned, a traitor is a traitor, no matter how he has managed to convince those around him that he is other. And that ‘son of a bitch’ should have been sent packing to join his chums in the land he so clearly worshiped, rather than be reprieved. How fortunate to have friends in high places.

      You like the idea of voluntary departure of terrorists, but, if those who want to kill your fellow citizens don’t feel they should move off, you think it just fine for us to build a special prison for them to keep them fed, clothed and pandered to for ‘up to’ twenty years. Whilst they continue to recruit idiots to their cause and refuse to consort with the criminal inmates, as they are infidels and pigs in their eyes.

      P leee ease!

      You harp on constantly about those who came here as children and that that makes them exempt from any responsibility for their actions, as, being here, in a free society, created their abhorrence of it. Which of course had nothing to do with it. Their culture and the education within that culture, whilst living here, instilled in them from infancy that to have a pure life, meant rejecting the society and culture they were surrounded by.

      The only way to deal with this threat is to remove it from the society it rejects and wishes to ‘snuff out.’ Opportunity to refuse to leave should not be tolerated. Have you no understanding of how full of disgust and hatred a person would have to be, to take the action to blow up the innocent, the way they do?

      And once again, you refuse to address the contentment factor. Why would you want to give them the option to remain where they are so obviously ‘dangerously’ discontent? When to offer them freedom to be within a society they are willing to murder and die for, appears a blessing. Do you feel they would offer you such a wonderful deal if the shoe was on the other foot? Could you imagine the utter relief of being given the option to be exiled to the UK if you had been caught plotting or carrying out a terrorist plan in the place they dream of being?

      You only have to look at Simon Mann who was released from Equatorial Guinea to understand that. Do you think he would have been happier staying in their jail for twenty years? Do you believe he would have lived?

      No. Civilized nations set them free to thrive where they will be content. As Equatorial Guinea did for Mann. And how very fortunate he was to have had such high up contacts under his belt.

      Your idea borders on incredulity. You want to allow killers of your fellow citizens to not only walk our streets with intent, but, after a period of comfy confinement, have us pay for them and, their extended families, to be financially supported whilst they begin to plot another eruption.

      No people should be asked to foot the bill of feeding those who wish them dead. That is totally inconsistent with any kind of rationale.

      And on the issue of being held. Fourteen days is ample. Don’t arrest until there is absolute knowledge that will be accepted by the hearing. However, I do feel the methods they use to offer this ‘proof’ should be available to those at review. That way there is no doubt of guilt.

      • DanFilson
        13/10/2011 at 1:05 am

        “You want to allow killers of your fellow citizens to not only walk our streets with intent” Straw man argument! Of course I don’t. I want killers arrested and put into custody. I’m not an idiot, but for you to suggest I am advocating this is insane.

        The Royal Collection is held by a charitable trust and not funded from the Privy Purse or taxpayer, likewise the Surveyor of the Queen’s Pictures. What the Queen does with her personal collection is her business.

        “It is so convenient for people who like to hide behind the wall of concealment, never to support exposure of intellectual betrayers” I post under my own name, unlike many others on this site. You attribute to me possibly, though your sentence is confusing and ambiguous, that I never support exposure of intellectual betrayers. There is no basis for a generalised allegation of this kind. It is not true. I don’t however see the benefit of hounding an old and frail man for a course of action he took in wartime over a third of a century previously in support of a wartime ally.

        Yes I do believe in prison for terrorists. You seem to want it both ways – condemning those imprisoned for not wanting to mix with others but also condemning them for continuing to recruit idiots to their cause, presumably by association.

        You ask rhetorically “Have you no understanding of how full of disgust and hatred a person would have to be, to take the action to blow up the innocent, the way they do”. Clearly I do as I advocate trying to understand this anomie with British society better in order to combat it. You on the other hand don’t seem to care about the underlying factors of the terrorists’ motivation. As I said in my preceding post, we have never defeated an enemy we have not understood, and never will.

        I’m not wanting to give terrorists the option to remain where they are (i.e. in the U.K., albeit in prison) so obviously ‘dangerously’ discontent? The purpose of prison is to punish, but also to attempt to rehabilitate. Clearly if they are in prison, they are less of a danger than out of it. Seriously long prison sentences should ensure, if implemented (I believe a prison sentence for 20 years should last that long, and not be whittled down to 6 years or some such), that there is no risk of them ever being released whilst still a danger to society. “When to offer them freedom to be within a society they are willing to murder and die for, appears a blessing.” Who suggested offering them freedom? – I didn’t. I don’t know why Simon Mann was released, and as far as I am concerned I believe he should have remained in prison in the country where he committed his offence(s).

        “No people should be asked to foot the bill of feeding those who wish them dead.” The logic of your argument is the death penalty as I am sure you do not countenance the idea of expulsion into freedom in another country, even one which they have not seen since the age of three. If you believe so, say so, and we can have that debate; I oppose the death penalty.

        Modern terrorism is often an area of complex conspiracies where the gathering of intelligence is a combination of media interception (wire-tapping of various media), human intelligence and forensic science etc. It is often clear that an individual is a very high risk possibility of being a potential terrorist or a person very likely to be giving aid and comfort to a terrorist or group of terrorists. However the evidence is often immensely complex and not readily assembled into a form where a magistrate’s court, even a special one, can be convinced the subject should be remanded in custody pending trial. The defence lawyer is entitled to know on what evidence their client is detained. That risks breaching the security of the infiltrators or betrayers of the plotters, sometime members of the plotter’s family. Or of breaching the methodology of our security services. I’m not sure what your last pair of sentences mean. Clearly if evidence has been obtained by torture or similar, whether waterboarding or worse, I would regard it as inadmissable in any court of law. It should be noted however that the fact that evidence has been obtained by illegal means does not necessarily mean it is untrue. I wish it were always possible to put before a court within 14 days of arrest enough of the facts to convince the court that the person arrested should be detained in custody. Much though it might go against my civil libertarian instincts, my judgement is that it is not always possible and therefore a longer period is wiser. Whether I would go to 42 days or 90 days, I cannot decide, but I would not abandon this power to detain lightly (but I would remain conscious how poorly internment served the cause of combatting terrorism in Northern Ireland).

        • maude elwes
          13/10/2011 at 4:13 pm

          @Dan Filson:

          The problem with you is, you over intellectualize the original motive and try to justify the action taken on the basis of that, often misinterpreted, premise, of why the action was taken in the first place. Additionally, you cling to the notion that once ‘rehabilitated’ in a British jail, these transgressors will relinquish the killing need forthwith.

          This is a weak basis for judgment when it comes to the protection of the country from those who have declared war on its people. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, to blow individuals up, for no other purpose than, they are participants of a certain way of life, is an act of war on that nation. And when this is done as a reaction to the lifestyle of that country, which is perceived as abhorrent to their belief system, whether it is instilled via indoctrination, or, by persuasion, is of no consequence. And it is certainly not an argument in favour of allowing such individuals to remain on the soil of and within the benefit of those, who are declared openly by the perpetrators, as ‘those who must be eradicated.’

          I am not a believer in the death penalty and well you know it. And I find it odd that you feel it acceptable to believe that twenty years incarcerated is preferable to exile into a culture they aspire to. Obviously to you that adds up to a fate worse than death. Yet, at the same time you feel we should ignore the imposition already being placed on us and our way of life, as a harmonious trade for allowing this here in in the first place. And age has nothing to do with it. As I wrote above, the flaw lies in an opposing culture being brought into the conflicting framework of the host society. And the population of the entering culture, once feeling strong enough to reject that of the host, becoming determined to rid themselves of what it finds in them, an unacceptable way of life.

          Therefore, rather than offering a way of fulfilling their life obligation, returning them to, or, making it an obligation to return to or emigrate to, the society they aspire to being, is a blessing. And should be welcomed with open arms by all concerned.

          All the rest of your post veers from the grist and therefore unnecessary to comment further on.

          Coincidentally, I saw this in the news this morning, hidden from us since May. And I wondered how you felt this would eventually pan out? And whether this society really has the will or the wit to address what our governments have imposed on us so vigorously and with such closed eyed and lack of responsibility, without first getting the public to consent to it. And worse, even to warn them of their intention to do so.

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048164/The-terrifying-moment-hundreds-Sikh-protesters-smashed-way-community-centre-protest-selling-meat-alcohol.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

          If the shoe was on the other foot, what do you believe the headline would have said?

          However, what is more important is, how are people like you and our chaotic government going to deal with the fury they have unleashed on our tolerant society. Which they did, without one thought as to the outcome of what their childish judgment would produce?

          • DanFilson
            13/10/2011 at 11:47 pm

            “I find it odd that you feel it acceptable to believe that twenty years incarcerated is preferable to exile into a culture they aspire to.”

            So there you have it. The defender of all of us from terrorism is advocating not sending the terrorists to prison for 20 years but instead expelling them to another country when they can continue plotting against us and possibly trying to re-enter the country illegally. I prefer jail to giving them freedom to re-offend, and rest my case.

            As for over-intellectualising, this is a tosh way of trying to insult my analysis of the series of straw man arguments put up. There’s nothing intellectual about that, just the application of logic and common sense to illogical arguments.

  9. Twm O'r Nant
    12/10/2011 at 3:38 pm

    Sir Anthony Blunt

    Oh! Him.

Comments are closed.