July 27, 2007
Stripping Civil Rights
So today the released the man they had accused of being a "conspirator".
Prosecutors told the court a mobile phone SIM card that had belonged to Haneef ( the man who was arrested) was found in the burned-out vehicle used to "attack" the international airport in Glasgow.
How charming. What the law is saying is that if I buy my cousin a phone for his birthday or something I can be arrested without charge for 25 days if he is later involved in some crime?
I knew from day one they had nothing on this man. This was so because they did not immediately declare their reason for the arrest. Knowing these officials they usually want to gloat in their efficiency and detective work.
Here they only went on about how he was a suspect without any further details. That sounds like they just wanted to arrest someone, anyone to quell public anxiety. Is this right, should this be done at the expense of liberty?
This man is well within his rights to sue these officials for gross violations of human rights ( which ironically these same officials claim to defend but they incarcerate individuals without trial)
Today sky news was bloated with excerpts of the interview with the "wife of the 7/7 bomber". They did not even display her name. They interviewer kept asking leading questions . It was obvious what the interviewer wanted. She wanted the wife to deny her husbands actions.
At one point she even challenged why the wife ( Hasina Patel) still prayed for her husband after what he had done. Well excuse me. That he was a bomber does not change the fact he was her husband and the father of her children.
One is compelled to feel sad for the wife as she was continuously prodded with leading questions. It appeared she was giving them what they wanted to here and when she told her ordeal during and after the situation it was simply brushed aside by more leading questions.
What is more they even arrested her in May. EIGHT officers came to arrest a woman in her house. What does that say. It's not like she had a history of maniac violence or had any such tendencies. If that is not prejudice then what is.
She was arrested for nearly a week without charge. Oh yeah, she was busy being involved in the bombing whilst she was having a miscarriage, or before when she could read her husbands mind whilst juggling pregnancy on the other side, yeah that is very reasonable! Is this the democracy the gun totting British and American army are going around the world spreading.
One would think they would relent. But there plans by the new prime minister to extend the detension to 56 days without charge. Oh yeah, why don't we just do away with the constitution while they are at it and go back to medieval law and just seize people on 'suspicion.
More and more civil liberties are being stripped in the name of "war against terrorism"
What is terrorism anyway?
The definition of terrorism is subjective. subjective to who is dominating. American say that they want to stop terror? terror is a war tactic not an idea. Just like guerrilla . You can't fight a war against guerrilla tactics or eliminate, it is a tactic used usually by a smaller force when fighting a larger force they cannot confront directly.
Anyway, all the coalition forces are the biggest hypocrytes. America used terrorism on Japan. The nukes wree directed at civilian cities and was meant to instill fear in them and push them to surrender. Statistics allege that as much as 505 of people killed by coalition weapons are non combatants. The shelling and raiding of homes at gun point and over night air raids. Is that not terror
"Just as long as we do it, its ok."
Ok, so many young Muslims have taken the extreme road and have gone all out on uncle Sam and Goergey. Well the coalition forces can TRY to kill tem all but I guarantee you that it will accomplish nothing.
This is because no one is addressing the root cause f WHY they decided to go extreme.
"You can trim the bush all you want but it will grow again, even thicker than before"
The more they invade and kill and intimidate the more extreme the next generation will be. Hatfel aggression only breads more hateful aggression. So unless the coalition plans to nuke the whole middle east the invasion and open aggression is futile
Or is it. Unless the real reason to invade was not to fight terror but to further other intentions. Say some black sticky stuff and construction deals? Just a an educated guess.
The main reason brought to popular attention is the encroaching of western culture . As much as westerners are proud of their culture it leaves a lot to be begged in as far as desirability to other cultures. It is highly distructive and encourages behavior that is unnatural and untoward. All the other cultures would prefer that Americans keep their culture to themselves and indulge all they want and not try to force it on others.
Another reason, more potent I think, is the exploitation of resources by western corporations, mainly in the oil industry.
Thirdly the occupation of their motherland by hostile forces who they want out ( who won't go out because they are busy protecting the looting of oil fields, what with oil being sold at ridiculous prices).
At the worst there were less than 10 000 casualties on 9/11, less than 300 on 7/7....all isolated incidents with severe overtones of government involvement but over 1 000 000 people have been killed, and any intelligent man knows that over half them were not combatants and at the end of whose guns they fell.
Extremist organistions are of course undesirable, everyone wants then to go away, but GI-Joe mentality is unlikely to solve but compound the matter by producing more desperate extremists, the think tanks at the pentagon surely must knock their heads some more to address the root problems. Can't or won't?
Who is really terrorizing who?