The death of the UK's democracy
#1
Posted 2008-November-28, 02:49
In other words, for doing his job properly.
The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.
#2
Posted 2008-November-28, 04:20
I don't know this case, but it is not the job of MPs to give secret documents to the public.
And if you forgot Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe, Idi Amin and about tenthousand other dictators, your historical knowledge is qwuite limited.
Even to put a democratical voted prime minister who did not murdered somebody into a row with these real horrible guys who killed millions is sick.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#3
Posted 2008-November-28, 08:06
mr1303, on Nov 28 2008, 03:49 AM, said:
In other words, for doing his job properly.
The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.
it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me
#4
Posted 2008-November-28, 08:39
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 09:06 AM, said:
Surely it depends upon what those documents contained: Cameron condemns Tory leak arrest
Quote
- The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
- The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
- A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
- A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.
Governments always like to classify stuff as secret that should be public information. It is vital that people who discover such "secrets" reveal the classified documents to the public. That's why whistle-blower laws are important.
Suppose, for example, that the "Pentagon Papers" had not been released in the US during the Vietnam war. Clearly, that information helped to erode public support for the war, and properly so.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#5
Posted 2008-November-28, 08:45
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 09:06 AM, said:
mr1303, on Nov 28 2008, 03:49 AM, said:
In other words, for doing his job properly.
The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.
it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me
Can you say "Valorie Plame?"
Our ministers leave the docs with their hooker girlfriends....how else can they make some money in a legit fashion?
#6
Posted 2008-November-28, 11:00
Codo, on Nov 28 2008, 10:20 AM, said:
In a literal sense this is, of course, true - or at least it would be if the documents concerned were something genuinely to do with national security.
It appears that the documents were little to do with national security, and that use of "anti terrorism" law to justify the arrest was wholly inappropriate - therefore the title of the thread, though melodramatic, is not without some justification.
Frankly, I rather hope to be reincarnated on some south sea island a long way away from any western "democracy" and the attitudes that are becoming prevalent in society these days.
Nick
#7
Posted 2008-November-28, 11:06
Quote
When any country begins to equate opposition with terrorism there is significant risk that loss of freedom will follow.
#8
Posted 2008-November-28, 11:18
#9
Posted 2008-November-28, 11:39
All those people who agreed to these laws saying that they have noting to hide, should take a good look at this case. A lot of this legislation has to be corrected or simply removed.
#10
Posted 2008-November-28, 11:41
helene_t, on Nov 28 2008, 12:18 PM, said:
The ultimate source of a government's power is in its ability to imprison.
The more chilling question is not about this particular case and its outcome but about how this arrest changes the likelihood of challenging the government's actions by the next whistleblower and the next and the next....
#11
Posted 2008-November-28, 12:44
Eventually (hopefully) we will change that to benefit.
#12
Posted 2008-November-28, 19:06
PassedOut, on Nov 28 2008, 09:39 AM, said:
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 09:06 AM, said:
Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:
well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work
#13
Posted 2008-November-28, 19:43
luke warm, on Nov 29 2008, 04:06 AM, said:
PassedOut, on Nov 28 2008, 09:39 AM, said:
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 09:06 AM, said:
Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:
well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work
"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before
#14
Posted 2008-November-28, 21:42
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 07:06 PM, said:
PassedOut, on Nov 28 2008, 09:39 AM, said:
luke warm, on Nov 28 2008, 09:06 AM, said:
Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:
well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work
Yeah works much better when the government in its infinite wisdom decides subjectively what is secret and what is terrorism...
#15
Posted 2008-November-29, 15:31
Looks as if this was a case of some policemen getting hyperactive. There is no indication that the gov't had anything to do with it.
#16
Posted 2008-November-29, 15:48
helene_t, on Nov 29 2008, 09:31 PM, said:
Yeah, I dare say.
But to suggest that the government had nothing to do with it is daft helene - they introduced the stupid legislation in the first place!
#17
Posted 2008-November-29, 16:21
hrothgar, on Nov 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:
"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before
"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...
#18
Posted 2008-November-29, 16:53
helene_t, on Nov 29 2008, 04:31 PM, said:
Looks as if this was a case of some policemen getting hyperactive. There is no indication that the gov't had anything to do with it.
Most police are government employees who derive their power from the state - making it somewhat hard to differentiate stritctly police action from government sanctioned action.
#19
Posted 2008-November-30, 03:22
Codo, on Nov 29 2008, 05:21 PM, said:
hrothgar, on Nov 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:
"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before
"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.
That's why we call that time the stone age and the time after Nurenberg 'civilization'.
Rik
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the new discoveries, is not “Eureka!” (I found it!), but “That’s funny…” – Isaac Asimov
The only reason God did not put "Thou shalt mind thine own business" in the Ten Commandments was that He thought that it was too obvious to need stating. - Kenberg
#20
Posted 2008-November-30, 07:30
Trinidad, on Nov 30 2008, 06:22 PM, said:
Codo, on Nov 29 2008, 05:21 PM, said:
hrothgar, on Nov 29 2008, 10:43 AM, said:
"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before
"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.
That's why we call that time the stone age and the time after Nurenberg 'civilization'.
Rik
Stupid me, I did not know that the beginning of civilization was 1945 in Germany.
Roland
Sanity Check: Failure (Fluffy)
More system is not the answer...