Subhuman is a harsh phrase, and I probably didn’t mean it. But bloody hell… if you really think the War on Terror-ness is worth sacrificing the rights that we’ve fought for, well, pretty much all the time since civilisation emerged, then I’m not going to shed any tears if you get blown up. Well, unless you’re related to me or something.
The problem is that we’ve never had to personally fight for those rights. We’re several generations removed from the last world war. So people have little concept of how valuable they are, especially if they’re removed slowly, and for the ‘greater good’
Regard
What rights have I "sacrificed"? You’ll have to cite an example, because I can’t think of a single one tied to the WOT. Now if want to talk about McCain-Feingold or the (finally sunsetted) AWB, then you actually have something.
Andrew, how can you square Japanese-American internment camps, closed military tribunals of german saboteurs, and explicit media censorship with "fighting" for these very rights FDR denied? The WWII national experience saw far more "sacrificed" rights than anything currently seen, which was certainly "for the greater good", yet somehow we’re worse off under our current leadership?
I’m trying to follow the logic of this post and thread, but it’s rather tortured. The rights that we have are an abberration of "civilization", not the norm of history by any means. Something to be jealously guarded, but there’s no reason to jump at shadows.
I’m trying to follow the logic of this post and thread, but it’s rather tortured. The rights that we have are an abberration of "civilization", not the norm of history by any means. Something to be jealously guarded
That was basically it for me. Whether we’re actually losing important rights or whether it’s just hyped, we should kick up a fuss about anything which sounds like it might be an infringement. If it actually isn’t, then we look shrill. If it was, and we didn’t protest, then we’d be fucked.
Incidentally, the US has been much better at protecting its citizens’ rights than the UK. The main catalyst for it was the discovery that because of changes made by the idiot Blunkett to extradition laws, if the US law allowing non-Americans to be sent abroad for torture were to pass, then the following chain of events could take place:
1) US government decides I’m a very bad man (I don’t foresee any plausible US government deciding this, but it may well happen to someone, somewhere) and requests my extradition from the UK.
2) Because of evil blind bastard Blunkett’s changes to the law, as long as the US promises not to execute me, I can’t contest this extradition request under any grounds other than not being me.
3) As soon as I arrive on US soil, as a non-citizen I can be taken into military custody.
4) I can then be sent to an unsavoury place abroad for limitless torture, forever.
("it" = the two point/counterpoint posts today)
I’m familiar with the "kick up a fuss" mindset, although I’m not with Blunkett’s legislation. It does have its proper uses, of course. However, I think sane people should also keep in mind the axiom about crying wolf too often. You can’t be effective at making a fuss if no one bothers to listen anymore, after many a shrill moment with no substance.
As to the US extraditing you so they can export you to a third-party Tower of London, that’s stretching so far I’m not sure where to start. You have far more to worry about from the ICC than from the FBI in this regard. The US does not place anyone into "military custody" who wasn’t actually arrested by the military themselves, for doing things in a declared military zone that the military takes exception to. I’d lay off the Guardianesque conspiracy theories for a while….
After reading a bit about the Civil Contingencies Bill just now (at Ian Murray’s), I’m not sure you don’t have a reason to raise Hell about your rights. More than a little scary. Reason enough to send quite a few MP’s packing.