"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[french frank]

FF: the section 7 issue pales into insignificance when we contrast the minor inconvenience that Miranda had to suffer with the damage and danger caused by Miranda, Greenwald, Snowden and the Guardian to our counter espionage (i.e. terrorism) activities.

But the 'Section 7 issue' is the law. Sir I Blair is now suggesting the law should be strengthened, for the reasons you also mention. But until the law is strengthened, the police must work within the law as it is. And that is 'the issue'.

[Welcome, btw, c_f - as I see that was your first post :-)

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I am not disputing any possible misuse of section 7. But that is only one of the issues in this incident.

[Mr Pee]

=

Did you view the Adam Curtis film about MI5/6 activities relating to Britain's KGB spies? The incompetence of the secret services was astonishing. They are now undoubtedly better kitted out in terms of surveillance but the incredibly low positive strike rate that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC has noted indicates that they are undertaking mass fishing exercises, something not conducive to freedom of movement.

The activities of MI5 and MI6 in the days of the KGB bear no relation to the current situation. Everything is different now, in terms of the nature of the threat, the structure and personnel within the security services, and the measures required to tackle home-grown terrorists.

And I have no problem with an incredibly low strike rate; it is inevitable that will be the case. It only needs a single terrorist with a bomb in his or her rucksack to cause untold carnage. How exactly do you think the security services should go about identifying such an individual, who may have no previous record of criminal activity? If "mass fishing", and extensive internet and telephone monitoring is the most effective way to do it, then those are the methods that need to be used.

Or would you rather wait until the bomb has gone off, just to be sure of a suspect's guilt?

[amateur51]

If "mass fishing", and extensive internet and telephone monitoring is the most effective way to do it, then those are the methods that need to be used.

Have you read the accounts that show that NSA staff are using the same techniques to 'spy' on innocent people? You'd be happy with that I guess.

[Frances_iom]

.. How exactly do you think the security services should go about identifying such an individual, who may have no previous record of criminal activity?

merely being Brazilian seems enough for the Met to operate - though the 2nd such was treated somewhat better than the first - at least he could walk away after 9 hours.
The somewhat misattributed Benjamin Franklin quote - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" applies here and is just as valid as when used in 1759.

[Richard Barrett]

NSA staff are using the same techniques to 'spy' on innocent people?

Yes, but if they've done nothing wrong they have nothing to worry about, except some creepy individuals prying into their private lives, which I'm sure every innocent person is completely relaxed about.

There seems to be an assumption in some quarters that the governments of the UK and US are committed to fighting terrorism. But how can this be? given that, as Prof Chomsky has often said, the first step to stopping terrorism is to stop doing it yourself. If there were any commitment to such a course of action, the protestations about Miranda's treatment being fair might carry a little more weight.

[Mr Pee]

merely being Brazilian seems enough for the Met to operate - though the 2nd such was treated somewhat better than the first - at least he could walk away after 9 hours.
The somewhat misattributed Benjamin Franklin quote - "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" applies here and is just as valid as when used in 1759.

The arguments over the rights and wrongs of the Menezes case have surely been exhausted; it was a tragic mistake, made in the heat of the moment by officers under extreme pressure, who had to make a split-second decision.

And Miranda was temporarily detained. It's hardly the end of the world; infact I would have thought such a detention is part of the job description if that job involves being party to attempts to expose the necessarily secret workings of our security services.

Have you given up your liberty? Have I? Has anybody you know, or anyone contributing to this discussion? Of course not. If I have nothing to hide, I am quite happy to give up a little of my privacy if it means I stay safe.

[Mr Pee]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23832492

[zoomy]

[QUOTE=Mr Pee;324889]The arguments over the rights and wrongs of the Menezes case have surely been exhausted; it was a tragic mistake, made in the heat of the moment by officers under extreme pressure, who had to make a split-second decision. [QUOTE]


Menezes was killed by police incompetence and leadership panic in the wake of the 7/7 bombings and then covered up by a whole load of lies.

They stated that Menezes was wearing a coat with wires sticking out of it LIE, He jumped over the ticket barrier LIE, He ran down the escalator pursued by police LIE, the police spoke to him before shooting him LIE, he made a movement towards the police officer, causing the officer to believe he would attack LIE. The police killing was witnessed by 17 other people who were in the tube carriage at the time and ALL of them contradicted the police version of events of how Menezes was shot.

Before the inquest into his death they also tried to discredit Menezes by saying that he had traces of cocaine in his body and he was working here an illegally (so that's alright then!). They also tried to doctor his image at the inquest to make him look like the suspect they were trying to catch that morning (ah, genuine mistake, well better luck next time !).

[amateur51]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23832492

French frank alerted us to this in msg # 271

[french frank]

French frank alerted us to this in msg # 271

And commented on it ...

[zoomy]

Have you given up your liberty? Have I? Has anybody you know, or anyone contributing to this discussion? Of course not. If I have nothing to hide, I am quite happy to give up a little of my privacy if it means I stay safe.

... but will you stay informed, Pee ? The effect of surveillance is that it infantilises us all with the agenda becoming increasingly sterile as more subjects are thought to be beyond discussion or we simply do not know enough to be able to argue them. I thank the Guardian for their efforts in this area.

[Mr Pee]

French frank alerted us to this in msg # 271

Sorry, I generally don't click on links on these boards since they nearly always seem to take me to the Guardian......

(Laugh emoticon....)

[zoomy]

Sorry, I generally don't click on links on these boards since they nearly always seem to take me to the Guardian......

Since this story concerns a Guardian journalist and his partner and the Guardian publishing this journalist's story, surely you cannot be surprised that many of the links will take you back to ... the Guardian !

[Mr Pee]

Since this story concerns a Guardian journalist and his partner and the Guardian publishing this journalist's story, surely you cannot be surprised that many of the links will take you back to ... the Guardian !

My only partly serious point was more intended to highlight the fact that there seem to be a much higher proportion of Guardian readers contributing to these boards than there is in the population at large. In fact, given the dwindling readership of that publication, it sometimes feels as though its ENTIRE readership contribute here.

http://cifwatch.com/2011/07/31/the-guardians-latest-precipitous-circulation-decline-their-increasing-reliance-on-the-bbc/

http://cifwatch.com/2011/06/22/will-the-guardian-soon-be-swept-away-by-its-own-unpopular-radicalism/