Monday, March 14, 2005

Fascism by proxy

OK so there was compromise over the terrorism bill Aptly named as it allows the state to terrorise the population. Tony blinked first and agreed to the 'sunset clause by another name'. Or so we are to believe. We are also supposed to believe that we need this legislation because (according to Blair) The intelligence and security services want it.

This is the exact same line that Tony used to get support for an invasion of Iraq. "We don't want to do this, but Saddam is forcing us to, the security services said so!"

What utter utter lies! The security services are NOT asking for this legislation. they have said that legislation is for parliament to decide.


I still have a problem with the standard of proof. The government can now ask a judge to detain anybody they wish, under house arrest, without charge or trial, based on zero direct evidence, supposition and suspicion are all that is required. The fact that a judge has to approve makes little difference. After all it was judges that twice exonerated Tony Blair of any wrong doing over Iraq Intelligence or Dr. David Kelly, in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is fascist control by proxy.

OK, Tony Bliar was not personally responsible for the murder of Dr David Kelly, however he is responsible for the the foriegn policy of the UK and the policy towards Iraq and the twisted half truths and the blatant lies that lead to the situation arising in which Dr David Kelly was murdered.

Are we to believe that the home office cannot find a sympathetic judge? If Blair (or whomever may be pulling his strings) wanted a genuine political opponent out of the way, the rule of law and natural justice will be sacrificed, for political expediency.

I don't care whether a Judge, a politician, or Mother Theresa's ghost was to make the call for house arrest. That call should be made (a) on genuine evidence that a crime has been commited, (b) that evidence must be placed before a jury. Neither will happen now.

We currently have a crime of assisting in, or organising a terrorist attack. (that is not the correct legal terminology, but it's close enough) If the intelligence services or the police believe that a suspect has been involved in organising terrorist attacks, try them in a court under that law. This law is there to prevent people form commiting the terrorist attack in the first place.

Note, It is rarely ever the case that international terrorists turn out to be who we are lead to believe they are. They are usually the intelligence operatives or 'special ops' of some Government's security service operating 'with plausable deniability'. These intelligence services do not only gather intelligence, but perform 'psy-ops' and 'wet-ops' and other buzz-words so beloved of the playstation generation. Watch the History Channel to see where we have been lied to in the past. Where psy-ops lead to revolutions and and military coups to oust democratic leaders and install pro-corporate puppets. Will we have to wait to watch the History Channel in 25 years to see how we have been lied to now? To see who really were terrorists and who were government operatives manipulating the people through a fake war on terror?

With the introduction of this immoral, repulsive and unjust bill into law and with the imposition of the trackable ID card with it's turbo charged big brother on steroids database. It is unlikely that we will be able to access that information in 25 years time. At least not without being considered a threat to the state and therfore being 'disapeared'.

./ Later.

No comments: