Privacy and the State

[amateur51]

Amateur, in hiw wierd topsy-turvy world where black is white, thinks the recent London terror arrests were all part of a PR offensive by MI5, something to do with justifying their existence in the hope of getting more funding from central government and making their new boss look good, or some such guff. So I dare say he thinks this is all part of the same exercise.

And I know the BBC don't mention MI5, but Sky News said the security services were involved, and it would, anyway, be rather odd if they weren't.

The two events are different because of their timing. The London arrests occurred at a time when MI5 and the Government were keen to turn the Guardian/Snowden tide of revelations about British/USA government agency snooping, just as the UK government's 'snooping' legislation is going through parliament.

The Scottish arrests were not made in that immediate context. It may or may not be part of the same strategy. I don't know. I haven't commented about it until now, and then in response to PeeMeister's misrepresentation.

[Richard Barrett]

the term 'terrorists' demands' (whatever these might be)

You said yourself: "terrorism might cease if the terrorists' demands were immediately granted". But now you say you don't know what these demands are. Don't you think it's worth finding out?

What do the terrorists themselves say? From what I've seen, statements by people associated with al-Qaeda tend to concentrate on demanding that the American government ceases to prop up the House of Saud, which of course the US does in order to safeguard cheap oil supplies and because its defence contractors make a lot of money out of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (about a fifth of US arms sales in the last half-century have gone to Saudi Arabia). And as we know the oil and "defence" lobbies are extremely powerful in US politics. So to a very great extent it could be said that it's they, and a political system where influence can be bought, which are responsible for the continuing "terrorist threat". And then even more money needs to be spent countering this threat. Where does this money go? To the NSA and, once more, the US "defence" industry. In other words the US administration is ultimately dependent on terrorism. Don't you think there's something very seriously and tragically wrong with that?

[scottycelt]

You said yourself: "terrorism might cease if the terrorists' demands were immediately granted". But now you say you don't know what these demands are. Don't you think it's worth finding out?

What do the terrorists themselves say? From what I've seen, statements by people associated with al-Qaeda tend to concentrate on demanding that the American government ceases to prop up the House of Saud, which of course the US does in order to safeguard cheap oil supplies and because its defence contractors make a lot of money out of selling weapons to Saudi Arabia (about a fifth of US arms sales in the last half-century have gone to Saudi Arabia). And as we know the oil and "defence" lobbies are extremely powerful in US politics. So to a very great extent it could be said that it's they, and a political system where influence can be bought, which are responsible for the continuing "terrorist threat". And then even more money needs to be spent countering this threat. Where does this money go? To the NSA and, once more, the US "defence" industry. In other words the US administration is ultimately dependent on terrorism. Don't you think there's something very seriously and tragically wrong with that?

Terrorists' demands will depend on the terrorists and their stated goals so obviously these will vary from group to group. Giving in to the demands of one group of terrorists may well cease terrorism from there but greatly encourage it elsewhere. So back to square one!

My question to you is quite simple. If a group of terrorists issue demands and say if these are not met they will continue to murder and maim innocent people, would you give into their demands (which might well halt the terrorism of that group but greatly encourage it elsewhere) or would you try and defeat them or at least hurt them so badly that they are forced to come to the negotiating table?

We are talking about naked blackmail with life and property at stake here. Nothing else.

[amateur51]

Terrorists' demands will depend on the terrorists and their stated goals so obviously these will vary from group to group. Giving in to the demands of one group of terrorists may well cease terrorism from there but greatly encourage it elsewhere. So back to square one!

My question to you is quite simple. If a group of terrorists issue demands and say if these are not met they will continue to murder and maim innocent people, would you give into their demands (which might well halt the terrorism of that group but greatly encourage it elsewhere) or would you try and defeat them or at least hurt them so badly that they are forced to come to the negotiating table?

We are talking about naked blackmail with life and property at stake here. Nothing else.

Blackmail it may be but every British Prime Minister in my experience has found it necessary to negotiate with terrorists/freedom fighters in the end. Why don't we learn the lessons of history and act on them a little more quickly, I wonder? - fewer brave service personnel and brave citizens would be hurt or killed as a result.

[Richard Barrett]

Blackmail it may be but every British Prime Minister in my experience has found it necessary to negotiate with terrorists/freedom fighters in the end. Why don't we learn the lessons of history and act on them a little more quickly, I wonder? - fewer brave service personnel and brave citizens would be hurt or killed as a result.

That of course would compromise the good/evil dichotomy which governments use to legitimise their own military exploits... I know I've said this so many times before but probably the best way to stop terrorism is to stop doing it. Terrorism and blackmail are practised by both sides - one side hijacks planes and plants bombs in buses, the other fires missiles from drones and starves whole populations of basic necessities (Iraq in the 90s). Which is morally superior?

[ahinton]

One

Which "one"? Oh, the one to whose post I'm now replying; I see.

hardly knows whether to laugh or cry at your first remark but I've plumped for the former

Well, that would be for you alone to decide, of course but, since you did openly admit to such a possibility, it is less than obvious that you'd need to do either, actually (laugh or cry, that is).

at least you appear to have understood what the term 'terrorists' demands' (whatever these might be) actually means.

Do I? What, in terms of a scotty-approved definition thereof (whatever that might be)? I cannot share your certainty, I'm afraid.

Your forum buddy

Who's that, then? Do I indeed have one?

appears to be struggling with the very concept so maybe you can help him out .... ?

I think that many of us here might be "struggling" with this as a "concept"!

(no, I'm not 'giving orders', ahinton, it's just a friendly suggestion!)

With friends like that...

[ahinton]

That of course would compromise the good/evil dichotomy which governments use to legitimise their own military exploits... I know I've said this so many times before but probably the best way to stop terrorism is to stop doing it. Terrorism and blackmail are practised by both sides - one side hijacks planes and plants bombs in buses, the other fires missiles from drones and starves whole populations of basic necessities (Iraq in the 90s). Which is morally superior?

Yes, you have indeed said this kind of thing before. Over and over again. You may as well carry on doing it until some people can hopefully accept at lasts that there's really no arguing with it. Why it's so hard for a few people to come to terms with, however, I simply have no idea; I'm hardly an intellectual heavyweight (even if I'm a tad overweight in a certain other respect), but this seems to me so elementary and fundamental that it is ever increasingly bizarre as well as profoundly disturbing that some people just cannot and/or will not grasp it, for whatever reason/s or none.

[ahinton]

Blackmail it may be but every British Prime Minister in my experience has found it necessary to negotiate with terrorists/freedom fighters in the end. Why don't we learn the lessons of history and act on them a little more quickly, I wonder? - fewer brave service personnel and brave citizens would be hurt or killed as a result.

Perhaps the reluctance on the part of the present one is down to the kind of sheer laziness that encourages him to assume that endorsing by implication (or at least declining to be drawn on) the kinds of international snooping now hopefully under review is an easier option than actually thinking about the actions concerned and their various consequences with a view to acting constructively.

[scottycelt]

Perhaps the reluctance on the part of the present one is down to the kind of sheer laziness that encourages him to assume that endorsing by implication (or at least declining to be drawn on) the kinds of international snooping now hopefully under review is an easier option than actually thinking about the actions concerned and their various consequences with a view to acting constructively.

I take it that means in practice that you would simply prefer not to seriously fight terrorism and instead would yield to any terrorist demands and then everyone would live happily ever after ... ?

If that is not correct how would you intend to fight terrorism, without some form of monitoring and gaining as much info about planned terrorist activities as possible?

[Richard Barrett]

how would you intend to fight terrorism

Again, by not committing it. Or had you perhaps not noticed that it tends to be nations involved in aggression in the Middle East which are targeted? Of course some attacks don't come from this quarter, like the slaughter committed by Breivik; but no amount of surveillance is going to stop that kind of thing from happening unless everyone is followed and assessed all the time, which presumably even you wouldn't endorse.

[scottycelt]

Yes, you have indeed said this kind of thing before. Over and over again ...

Ah-hah ... so it's not just me then, ahinton ... funny, I'd always rather suspected this might be the case.

You have shown rare and exceptional courage in chiding Mr Barrett publicly over the matter ... I salute you! :ok:

[scottycelt]

Again, by not committing it. Or had you perhaps not noticed that it tends to be nations involved in aggression in the Middle East which are targeted? Of course some attacks don't come from this quarter, like the slaughter committed by Breivik; but no amount of surveillance is going to stop that kind of thing from happening unless everyone is followed and assessed all the time, which presumably even you wouldn't endorse.

Quite obviously you see democratically-elected governments in the same light as self-appointed individuals acquiring weapons to kill and maim people without any mandate from anybody or anything. I don't.

Are you aware that terrorist groups are almost always fighting their own governments (democratically-elected or not) as well as those outside in the West? There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Africa and many eastern countries including Russia, India, Pakistan (and now almost certainly at least one in China) which as far as I'm aware have little to do with 'aggression' by any of these countries in the Middle East.

Terrorism is a global problem, and is far from being confined to the evil, capitalist West, as you appear to believe.

[french frank]

Are you aware that terrorist groups are almost always fighting their own governments (democratically-elected or not) as well as those outside in the West? There have been numerous terrorist attacks in Africa [...]

But if you take the recent Nairobi attack, it was their government (Kenya) interfering in the affairs of Somalia that was presumed to be the reason for the attack. And the attack was on Kenya.

[ahinton]

I take it that means in practice that you would simply prefer not to seriously fight terrorism and instead would yield to any terrorist demands and then everyone would live happily ever after ... ?

If that is not correct how would you intend to fight terrorism, without some form of monitoring and gaining as much info about planned terrorist activities as possible?

If the assumptions and the questions that appear to follow therefrom arise from your interpretation of what I wrote that you quote above, I really cannot help you, it would seem; I wrote nothing about my preferences for "fighting terrorism", yeilding to the demands of terrorists (first be sure who they are before considering their demands). What I repeat here is the question as to what information has been or could be gained about "terrorism" or "planned terrorist activities" from the activities of which NSA now stands accused?

[ahinton]

Ah-hah ... so it's not just me then, ahinton ... funny, I'd always rather suspected this might be the case.

You have shown rare and exceptional courage in chiding Mr Barrett publicly over the matter ... I salute you! :ok:

I have overtly chided no one here, as I'm sure you know if truth were told; if indeed I have chided anyone by implication, it is quite clearly those who continue to take no notice of the kind of things that Richard Barrett and others write on these issues.