Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
How Should We Defend Ourselves?
16 Answers
Answers
1 to 16 of 16
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Of course we should. We should be wary of everyone. We pay the security services to find the bad guys from amongst all the good ones.
This new chap is saying everything a new security chief is supposed to say. It is totally unremarkable.
If he said "we are not bothered about losing secrests" and "you are all safe" then we should worry.
This new chap is saying everything a new security chief is supposed to say. It is totally unremarkable.
If he said "we are not bothered about losing secrests" and "you are all safe" then we should worry.
Once again the security services are throwing up a smokescreen and avoiding the real issue
The issue is whether they were breaking the law
The regulation of investagatory powers act permits GCHQ to intercept communications but it requires a warrant from the home secretary
The scale that this was happening on makes it look very unlikely that they had such warrants
Yes it's important that they get access to these communication channels
It's even more important that they are governed by and obey the law
Do you want to live in a country where we have a secret service that operates outside the law?
I don't
The issue is whether they were breaking the law
The regulation of investagatory powers act permits GCHQ to intercept communications but it requires a warrant from the home secretary
The scale that this was happening on makes it look very unlikely that they had such warrants
Yes it's important that they get access to these communication channels
It's even more important that they are governed by and obey the law
Do you want to live in a country where we have a secret service that operates outside the law?
I don't
And equally Jake we should see the full force of the law thrown at those that leak secrets. Or is that bit OK in your book?
If the security forces do feel the need to break the law on a scale implied then perhaps there is something wrong with the law. One of the biggest problems these days, as I am sure you are very aware, is that technology moves much faster than outdated plodding lawmakers.
If the security forces do feel the need to break the law on a scale implied then perhaps there is something wrong with the law. One of the biggest problems these days, as I am sure you are very aware, is that technology moves much faster than outdated plodding lawmakers.
YMB
There is an existing principal that it's OK to break the law if it is necessary to prevent a greater crime
You can steal a bike to stop an armed robbery
You can assault someone to stop a murder
In such instances you have to weigh the offences
Bradley Manning exposed what were in effect war crimes, the murder of civillians
The press have concentrated on some of the trivial things he exposed in order to portray him as some silly little boy obsessed with his own self-importance
A story I think you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker
There is an existing principal that it's OK to break the law if it is necessary to prevent a greater crime
You can steal a bike to stop an armed robbery
You can assault someone to stop a murder
In such instances you have to weigh the offences
Bradley Manning exposed what were in effect war crimes, the murder of civillians
The press have concentrated on some of the trivial things he exposed in order to portray him as some silly little boy obsessed with his own self-importance
A story I think you seem to have swallowed hook line and sinker
// If the security forces do feel the need to break the law on a scale implied then perhaps there is something wrong with the law. //
Or pehaps the law is perfectly fine and there is something wrong with the security services?
Snowden revealled the extent to which the NSA (and by implication GCHQ) were breaking the law. They did not tell anyone they were breaking the law, that was the secret.
Now they have been found out they are trying to claim:
- their law breaking was acceptable - it wasn't.
- that revealing their law breaking has put us all at risk - it hasn't.
- they need powers - not when they have been abusing their existing power.
Or pehaps the law is perfectly fine and there is something wrong with the security services?
Snowden revealled the extent to which the NSA (and by implication GCHQ) were breaking the law. They did not tell anyone they were breaking the law, that was the secret.
Now they have been found out they are trying to claim:
- their law breaking was acceptable - it wasn't.
- that revealing their law breaking has put us all at risk - it hasn't.
- they need powers - not when they have been abusing their existing power.
/// Mr Parker said 330 people had been convicted of terrorism-related offences in Britain between 11 September 2001 and 31 March 2013. ///
Interesting to note that the ABer who is the first to respond to this thread is the same person who on an earlier post stated that there were 'no terrorists in the UK', and I quote.
*** There are no terrorists in the UK. Not any that have made their presence know - yet. ***
Interesting to note that the ABer who is the first to respond to this thread is the same person who on an earlier post stated that there were 'no terrorists in the UK', and I quote.
*** There are no terrorists in the UK. Not any that have made their presence know - yet. ***
A very timely speech the day Tommy Robinson and co see the error of their ways and pack in the EDL.
It reminds us that when there is a particular threat from eg religious extremists then the thing to do is help the proper authorities to deal with it and not march around the country promoting your own brand of hatred and attracting the attentions of the people who could be devoting more resources to the thing you are 'protesting' against.
The MI5 guy is quite right to single out Snowden for criticism. Mr S has contributed zero to the cause of freedom but had merely done huge damage to the people trying to protect us. I find it odd that some who shout the loudest about the iniquities of Islam are the first to scream about the idea that the government might be reading their emails.
The problem is that secrecy breeds distrust and I'm not sure how that can best be addressed: ie how can the security services continue to work effectively and retain the confidence of most of the population.
Maybe more general openness: Snowden's revelations should not have been so shocking to people who were more aware of the nature of the problem
It reminds us that when there is a particular threat from eg religious extremists then the thing to do is help the proper authorities to deal with it and not march around the country promoting your own brand of hatred and attracting the attentions of the people who could be devoting more resources to the thing you are 'protesting' against.
The MI5 guy is quite right to single out Snowden for criticism. Mr S has contributed zero to the cause of freedom but had merely done huge damage to the people trying to protect us. I find it odd that some who shout the loudest about the iniquities of Islam are the first to scream about the idea that the government might be reading their emails.
The problem is that secrecy breeds distrust and I'm not sure how that can best be addressed: ie how can the security services continue to work effectively and retain the confidence of most of the population.
Maybe more general openness: Snowden's revelations should not have been so shocking to people who were more aware of the nature of the problem
AOG
As usual you take quotes out of context and then twist them. I said that in relation to raids by the US to capture terrorist leaders in Libya and Somalia. Those terrorist were in plain view and thought themselves safe in those countries. You asked a rather stupid question about the Americans coming to capture our terrorists. My reply meant that our terrorists are not in plain view, they are undercover, in secret cells and not able to ve taken out by a foreign power.
You of course knew that. You also know that the 330 terrorists convicted refers to Irish terrorists, right wing terrorists as well as middle eastern ones. Over a 12 year period that averages just over 2 a month.
As usual you take quotes out of context and then twist them. I said that in relation to raids by the US to capture terrorist leaders in Libya and Somalia. Those terrorist were in plain view and thought themselves safe in those countries. You asked a rather stupid question about the Americans coming to capture our terrorists. My reply meant that our terrorists are not in plain view, they are undercover, in secret cells and not able to ve taken out by a foreign power.
You of course knew that. You also know that the 330 terrorists convicted refers to Irish terrorists, right wing terrorists as well as middle eastern ones. Over a 12 year period that averages just over 2 a month.
To get back to the question, how should we defend ourselves?
Stop the unrestricted travel to and from Pakistan.
Cease the employment in GCHQ of of those who could in the slightest way be suspected of leaking secrets, perhaps a start would be anyone who follows the Islamic religion.
All a little draconian maybe, but if that is what it takes.
Stop the unrestricted travel to and from Pakistan.
Cease the employment in GCHQ of of those who could in the slightest way be suspected of leaking secrets, perhaps a start would be anyone who follows the Islamic religion.
All a little draconian maybe, but if that is what it takes.
ichkeria
/// It reminds us that when there is a particular threat from eg religious extremists then the thing to do is help the proper authorities to deal with it and not march around the country promoting your own brand of hatred and attracting the attentions of the people who could be devoting more resources to the thing you are 'protesting' against. ///
So you would support the banning of all protests?
Surely if some citizens of this country have a real concern about certain things that are happening to their country, they have every right to protest.
Just because what they are protesting about doesn't fit in with some other's particular agenda, should not be a reason for preventing them from protesting.
/// It reminds us that when there is a particular threat from eg religious extremists then the thing to do is help the proper authorities to deal with it and not march around the country promoting your own brand of hatred and attracting the attentions of the people who could be devoting more resources to the thing you are 'protesting' against. ///
So you would support the banning of all protests?
Surely if some citizens of this country have a real concern about certain things that are happening to their country, they have every right to protest.
Just because what they are protesting about doesn't fit in with some other's particular agenda, should not be a reason for preventing them from protesting.
/Cease the employment in GCHQ of of those who could in the slightest way be suspected of leaking secrets, perhaps a start would be anyone who follows the Islamic religion. /
OMG
the only comfort is that MI5 are a lot brighter than the likes of aog
"ok Carruthers, we have the mosque bugged, you tell us what's going on - what do you mean you've got no idea?"
PMSL
OMG
the only comfort is that MI5 are a lot brighter than the likes of aog
"ok Carruthers, we have the mosque bugged, you tell us what's going on - what do you mean you've got no idea?"
PMSL
AOG just because I say something is not the best way to go about something does not mean I want to ban it.
The question was how should we defend ourselves. The 'D' in EDL stands for defence but my suggestion is that their idea of 'defence' is not a good or a sensible one. Furthermore that one of the best forms of defence is keeping ahead of the threat. And that consequently, while the Snowden case raises issues, this person's revelations do no favours who those who are trying to protect us
It would be a stain on the memory of Andrei Sakharov were he to win this award tomorrow and I hope that he does not
The question was how should we defend ourselves. The 'D' in EDL stands for defence but my suggestion is that their idea of 'defence' is not a good or a sensible one. Furthermore that one of the best forms of defence is keeping ahead of the threat. And that consequently, while the Snowden case raises issues, this person's revelations do no favours who those who are trying to protect us
It would be a stain on the memory of Andrei Sakharov were he to win this award tomorrow and I hope that he does not
1 to 16 of 16
