A Grave Reminder and Much Gratitude

[VintageJess]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

I know that for many of us, the Lounge is a wonderful place to escape from some of the ugly things that exist in our everyday reality. But, I just wanted to thank this opportunity to express my gratitude for all of those men and women behind the scenes who work so hard to keep us safe everyday--the police, detectives, intelligence analysts and agents, airport and other security agents, first responders, etc. I am sure that there are many others that I am forgetting, but I salute them all. They remain vigilant so that the rest of us are free to move on and become involved in our own everyday problems.

Good work to all of you. I would hate to think what this day or many others would have looked like without your efforts.

Jessica

 

[Daisy Buchanan]

Very well said. I couldn't agree more. Today's news is incredibly frightening, but it could have been much worse.

 

[scotrace]

The system worked today.

Thanks to all who made that happen.

 

[Paisley]

Three cheers to Scotland Yard, MI5 and all the others who foiled the plan!

 

[Dietrich]

I am sad to say that I will reserve my praise until more information is available. The British police and government have something of a history of violently crying wolf when it comes to terrorism. Today's raids may have been the heroic aversion of a terrible disaster or it may have been the wrongful arrest of 22 men and needless disruption to tens of thousands of journeys. While the police and security services do a vital job, we grant them powers unavailable to the ordinary man on the understanding that they use those powers fairly and responsibly. When the very highest echelons of these agencies have brought themselves into disrepute through opacity and negligence we cannot blindly trust them with these powers.

If the evidence shows that a disaster has been averted then I will congratulate our security services without hesitation, but I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to remain skeptical where skepticism is due. The 'rules of the game' do indeed appear to have changed and I simply cannot trust our increasingly more secretive and less accountable security services.

Sincerely,
Jack Dietrich

 

[Etienne]

Due to their very nature, most security operations SHOULD be secretive.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Along with VintageJess, I salute and thank those who are doing their best to keep us safe. Scotland Yard may be right or wrong; I don't know yet. This doesn't prevent me from saying "thank you" to whichever anonymous individuals are trying hard to do good, and to do it as humanely as they can. :eusa_clap

.

 

[Dietrich]

Due to their very nature, most security operations SHOULD be secretive.

Detection and evidence-gathering may need to be done covertly but justice should never be. Secrecy is a useful tool, but to my eyes it is being abused. It is one thing to keep the name of an undercover detective secret during an operation, but it is another thing entirely to deny someone their right to a fair trial in the interests of security. In the case of Jean Charles, it is entirely improper for the police to deliberately deceive the public and an independent inquiry after killing an innocent man. It is entirely improper to detain people without charge and without informing anyone of the evidence by which they were detained. It is entirely improper to secretly kidnap 'suspects' and transport them to secret facilities in countries known to use torture.

I do not object to secrecy when it is absolutely vital to the task as long as it is an exception to a culture of transparency. There is a world of difference between allowing an organisation to do some things secretly and allowing an organisation to maintain complete secrecy without any checks or balances. If we grant people the right to do as they please without holding them to account for what they do, abuses and injustices are inevitable. We need secrecy sometimes, but we need accountability always.

Protecting innocent lives is a vital and honourable thing, but not at the cost of liberty and justice.

 

[Andykev]

You sometimes err on the side of caution, and loose some convenience, no?

I am sad to say that I will reserve my praise until more information is available. ....Today's raids may have been the heroic aversion of a terrible disaster or it may have been the wrongful arrest of 22 men and needless disruption to tens of thousands of journeys. While the police and security services do a vital job, we grant them powers unavailable to the ordinary man on the understanding that they use those powers fairly and responsibly.....we cannot blindly trust them with these powers.

If the evidence shows that a disaster has been averted then I will congratulate our security services without hesitation, but I feel that it is my duty as a citizen to remain skeptical where skepticism is due. The 'rules of the game' do indeed appear to have changed and I simply cannot trust our increasingly more secretive and less accountable security services.

Sincerely,
Jack Dietrich

American Founding Father Benjamin Franklin once said, "A people willing to exchange freedom for security deserves neither."

Yes you have to be mindful and watch those who have power. But, secrecy and some ruthless tatics have to be taken in this day and age. We are faced with a "hidden enemy", the terrorist. Where, when, how will they attack? A simple explosion on a crowded train, a random sniper, a travelling arsonist...all can wreck havoc in our society and Nation.

What steps are to be taken until the threat is eliminated? When suicide bombers begin random attacks in the USA, what will the public demand? This is a changing world, and some of the old values and safeguards need to be secured, yet at the same time our law enforcement, fire, and military need to be unfettered (not unlimited) in their ability to be ruthless against those in the world who HATE us, and want to see our total way of life destroyed.

 

[Pilgrim]

Isn't it interesting how we all chafe and complain about some of the silly things imposed on us by security (prhoibiting nail clippers from going on board?? Give me a break)....

But when there is a real threat, and people undergo much WORSE inconveniences (hours of delay, leaving posessions behind) they tend not to complain, but to do their part?

I'm proud of the way people are evidently handling the security problems announced today. I hope they maintain this positive attitude.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

... secrecy and some ruthless tactics have to be taken in this day and age.

This one little word is a flashing red light.


RUTHLESS: , a. Without mercy; cruel; pitiless.


I don't want my country to be without mercy, cruel and pitiless. Not even to its enemies.

I don't want my country to fend off its enemies by committing treason against its own core values.


.

 

[Paisley]

Detection and evidence-gathering may need to be done covertly but justice should never be. Secrecy is a useful tool, but to my eyes it is being abused. It is one thing to keep the name of an undercover detective secret during an operation, but it is another thing entirely to deny someone their right to a fair trial in the interests of security. In the case of Jean Charles, it is entirely improper for the police to deliberately deceive the public and an independent inquiry after killing an innocent man. It is entirely improper to detain people without charge and without informing anyone of the evidence by which they were detained. It is entirely improper to secretly kidnap 'suspects' and transport them to secret facilities in countries known to use torture.

I do not object to secrecy when it is absolutely vital to the task as long as it is an exception to a culture of transparency. There is a world of difference between allowing an organisation to do some things secretly and allowing an organisation to maintain complete secrecy without any checks or balances. If we grant people the right to do as they please without holding them to account for what they do, abuses and injustices are inevitable. We need secrecy sometimes, but we need accountability always.

Protecting innocent lives is a vital and honourable thing, but not at the cost of liberty and justice.

If we were speaking of ordinary alleged criminals, I would agree with you. But the criminal justice system isn't set up to deal with terrorists. Time was when spies were simply shot. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it's fair to say that the Islamofascists cannot be handled with kid gloves.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Time was when spies were simply shot. I don't necessarily agree with that, ...

"Don't necessarily agree": a red flag phrase. In what cases do you agree with the above, and in what cases do you not?

.

 

[Lincsong]

Say no to political correctness

Let's see;

I'm glad that money was spent on this type of terrorist fighting; inflitrating subversive organizations and flushing out the rats.:eusa_clap

I'm not too pleased that today every person stepping into a airport is seen as a potential terrorist and now shaving cream, toothpaste, shampoo etc. must be left on the curb.

fftopic: Just as a side note; up here in Alameda County California the inept Sheriff, Charlie Plummer spends $500,000 on two navy gunboats with machine guns that have a shooting range of 2 miles to "fight terrorism":rage::rage:

So it seems that there are some in law enforcement that are taking this threat of terrorism seriously as evident by the arrests made today. And for those I give a big thank-you.

 

[Paisley]

"Don't necessarily agree": a red flag phrase. In what cases do you agree with the above, and in what cases do you not?

.

I say "necessarily" because I am not an expert in military tactics. In fact, it is far out of my areas of expertise. There may have been good reasons for shooting spies that I don't know about.

 

[Dietrich]

What steps are to be taken until the threat is eliminated? When suicide bombers begin random attacks in the USA, what will the public demand? This is a changing world, and some of the old values and safeguards need to be secured, yet at the same time our law enforcement, fire, and military need to be unfettered (not unlimited) in their ability to be ruthless against those in the world who HATE us, and want to see our total way of life destroyed.

'The threat' can never be eliminated. A terrorist attack of the type that happened on 7/7 required four determined men, a few thousand pounds and some household chemicals. 9/11 took two dozen men, some boxcutters and a few plane tickets. Both were carried out in a largely autonomous manner without any real command-and-control links with an organisational structure (Al-Qaeda: The True Story of Radical Islam, Burke 2004). The security services can detect and prevent some attacks some of the time, but the idea that there is this organisation with a membership list that we can simply destroy is utterly bogus. During The Troubles in Northern Ireland, the British army came to be known as 'the IRA's recruiting sergeant'. The brutality and ruthlessness of the army in combatting the IRA drove tens of thousands of young men to join the republican cause. The violence of the IRA and the British army polarised the community into republican and loyalist, with even peaceful catholics percieving the IRA as being on 'their side'. Today most military analysts (even those working within the Ministry of Defence) acknowledge that the reaction of Britain to republican terrorism prolonged and intensified republican violence.

The same applies today to Guantanamo. We can react when terrorism (the symptom) occurs, but our only way to attack the disease of anti-western radicalism is to take the moral high ground and demonstrate our values of liberty and justice for all. If we stoop to the level of these terrorists and give up our basic values to try and secure ourselves a little temporary security then they will defeat us. Not only will we be living under an autocratic, authoritarian regime like them but every day their arguments will gain more and more traction amongst muslims as they see themselves as being repressed by the west. Just like us, muslims band together when they believe they are under attack and slowly but surely lose the ability to see nuance and polarise the world into 'us' and 'them'. The real war is not with the tactic of terrorism but with the ideology of radical islam and as we have seen so many times before, the worst possible way to combat an ideology is with violence and injustice.

Unlike the terrorists, our security services should have nothing to hide because they should be acting justly and fairly. The cover-up that followed the De Menezes shooting is exactly why I no longer trust the security services. Had they admitted their mistake and openly discussed what they would do to make sure that it didn't happen again I would have accepted it, but instead they lied and used 'protecting national security' to conceal their incompetence. I could accept that sometimes the police need secrecy and can't tell us why if it wasn't clear that they were perfectly willing to abuse that power to cover up for their mistakes. Trust is hard to earn and very easy to destroy.

Paisley, the issue is that terrorists do not carry al-qaeda membership cards. The obvious visible differences between a devout but peaceful muslim and a terrorist conspirator are paper thin. We cannot deal with terrorists outside of the law without also dealing with innocent muslims outside of the law, something which will only harm us in the long term as more and more muslims see us as an opressive force. If we have evidence that someone is planning a serious violent crime then we must of cause deal with them in the harshest possible manner, but to abandon fair trials and proper investigation to deal with those threats would not only be immoral but a massive tactical error on our part.

We must combat terrorists, but we must do it with dignity.

 

[Lincsong]

....the issue is that terrorists do not carry al-qaeda membership cards. The obvious visible differences between a devout but peaceful muslim and a terrorist conspirator are paper thin. We cannot deal with terrorists outside of the law without also dealing with innocent muslims outside of the law, something which will only harm us in the long term as more and more muslims see us as an opressive force. If we have evidence that someone is planning a serious violent crime then we must of cause deal with them in the harshest possible manner, but to abandon fair trials and proper investigation to deal with those threats would not only be immoral but a massive tactical error on our part.

We must combat terrorists, but we must do it with dignity.

Not all Moslems are terrorists but most terrorists are Moslems. There is no reason why we must have a blanket policy of seeing everyone as a potential terrorists threat. Are innocent Moslems going to be more inconveniet than the actual terrorists? Yes! I see nothing wrong with putting our resources into going after the actual threat than spend wasted time and money going after elderly people, Japanese tourists, and non-Middle Eastern and Pakistani men between the ages of 16 and 32. It's not racism, sexism, nationalism or any other perceived "injustice", it is common sense police work. When dealing with an ideology the only way to do it is with swift and absolute violent justice. It took two nuclear bombs to knock sense into the Japanese, who during WWII were just as fanatical and genocidal as any Moslem terrorist.
To simply ban everyone from having shampoo, toothpaste, hair gel etc, to place soldiers at the airports is unnecessary overkill. Go after the Moslems, knock on doors and ask who knows what. If the moderate Moslems object, so what! let them prove their loyalty to civilization.

 

[Solid Citizen]

Airport Security

Still question their security regarding airport & ground personel at airports across USA :eusa_doh:

SC :rage:

PS Just wait till the attackers DON'T fit the nationality, sex or age profiles then were going to get cooked!!!!!

 

[Pilgrim]

Considering that a 1995 bombing used nitro-impregnated cotton, a watch and a couple of batteries, I can see why carry-ons are being restricted. I don't have a problem with gels, liquids, toothpaste and hair goo being kept out of carry-ons. Any of those could be used to carry an inner container of explosive, or could be set up to mix with another fluid.

Who NEEDS to carry their toothpaste or hair goo on a plane? No one.

IMO carry-on baggage has been out of hand for a long time. No one is willing to wait 15 minutes for their luggage, so the overheads are full of overnight bags - which (again IMO) is not what they're designed for.

I do agree that it's time we admitted that 80-year-old ladies and similar folks aren't good candidates for terrorism. The best candidates are males, probably age 20-45, and based on history, those of middle eastern ancestry are simply the most common offenders. Females in that age group are probably the #2 candidates. However, our gummint is so determined not to discriminate that it won't acknowledge this fact.

The real problem is that terrorism isn't a political movement or an idology, it's a technique. It can be used by one person, three people, or any other individual or small group.

THERE IS NO WAY TO WIN A WAR ON TERRORISM. You can't win a war against a technique, because as long as there's one person willing to use it, the "war" continues. You can't have a war against one person.

However, we can do our best to eliminate the groups that are most energetic in espousing and training extremists in this techique; therefore, it makes sense to focus on the groups that tend to agitate and advocate this technique.

 

[scotrace]

In this respect, modern terrorism can be compared to the maritime piracy of the 1600-1700's. It was an extreme international problem causing great loss of life and coin.
The fledgling USA contributed greatly to the end of piracy on the high seas as we were in no position to pay the bribery needed to maintain safe shipping as did England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc. It was cheaper to fight it.
It was thought among the major powers that waging war on international piracy on the high seas was a fool's pursuit, as it could not be won.

Of course, maritime piracy is at an all-time high point right now, and there seems to be little anyone can do about it. Fewer than 5% are ever caught.