http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4673398.stm
Let's look at the first statement made in this article:
Lord Carlile, who has access to sensitive intelligence reports, says there is a "real and present danger of shocking terrorism acts".
The first question has to be; 'How is it that he has access to 'sensitive intelligence reports'?
The next question has to be; 'What are these S. I. reports, and by whom are they authored'? You see, it is an automatic reaction to believe these reports would be prepared by MI5, or some other reliable (?) British source, but that is not stated. Do you understand this? Nearly all readers will make a basic presumption, but is there any basis for that presumption. In this statement there is none. Now then, can we ask a question here? Did these 'Sensitive Intelligence Reports' emanate from an Intelligence Agency or a Terrorist Network?
Let's considert the second part of this statement; 'there is a real and present danger of shocking terrorism acts'.
I didn't realise that somebody was going to pick their nose in front of the Queen.
How can this statement,'there is a real and present danger' be made? It can only be made on actual knowledge that somebody is planning such an event. It cannot be made on a presumption. If there is a presumption then moves have to be made to determine the possibility, and then to act. On a presumption though, there cannot be the assertiveness, that emanates from Lord Carlile. So what we have, is a statement from Carlile telling us that he knows something or someone who is involved with planning a 'shocking terrorism act or acts'. Enough said, let's analyse another comment.
From Lord Carlile; He warns: "Further suicide bombings in the UK must be expected, and the targets are unpredictable."
This is not quite correct. In a previous statement issued by Lord Carlile, he stated, "This was the use of suicide bombers to kill members of the public in places of mass aggregation."
The targets of these unknown terrorists are in fact, members of the public in places of mass aggregation. Please note here that the targets are not the parliament as per Guy Fawkes, not the government, not the military or police or the intelligence agencies, but the unprotected terrorised public, the very people all these other bodies have been created to protect.
The tool used by these terrorists to kill only members of the public are 'suicide bombers'. Let us look at what Lord Carlile QC and former High Court judge considers as 'Suicide Bombers'.
"The events of the 21st July 2005 provided further evidence of the preparedness of some young males to act as suicide bombers. Nobody now can doubt the reality of the threat."
The fact that the 'young males' referred to in this statement are still alive and never at any stage considered 'Suicide' or the fact that the acts carried out by these men on the 21st July 2005 did not kill any person, let alone a 'Member of the Public' nor were they intended to kill any person, completely debunks Lord Carlile's statement.
And then Lord Carlile has the audacity to make the ludicrous demand; "Nobody can now doubt the reality of the threat." Why was it that Lord Carlile based his argument on the actions carried out on the 21st July 2005, and not on the far more deadly attacks of the 7th July 2005? You know, the so-called 'Terrorist Attack' where the Israeli Minister, Benjamin Neyanyahu received prior warning from the Israeli Embassy, supposedly courtesy of Scotland yard. That would appear to have been far more pertinent, but the fact is Lord Carlile asserted his claims based on an incompetent and stupid act carried out by four morons.
However, consider what those stupid and moronic acts did accomplish. Those acts permitted the various British Police and Intelligent Services to demonstrate a level of competence and skill that was totally absent on the 7th July 2005. Those moronic acts of the 21st July 2005 gave the government bureaucracies and police farces the right to believe in themselves again. Many Members of the Public though are not that naive.
Now let us consider in Lord Carlile's words another event which occurred on the 22nd July 2005. It is the terrorist's agenda "to kill members of the public in places of mass aggregation" Are there any problems here? So when considering the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes on a train at a sub-way station we have: killed a member of the public, in a place of mass aggregation, which terrorised all the members of the public within the vicinity, and caused major concerns for the majority of the public using the public transport at that time.
In Lord Carlile's own terminology, the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes was a "Terrorist Act". To the victims, the fact that this act was carried out by a British bureaucracy is irrelevant. So what does Lord Carlile say in regard to this Terrorist Act? Lord Carlile stated, "It would not be right for me to make any comment on the merits of what was a tragedy for all concerned. I observe merely that it demonstrates the unintended consequences of terrorist crime and of the changed perceptions and alerts that may ensue."
A Terrorist Act now becomes simply a Tragedy.
I'd like to be brief for the last two points raised. To quote Lord Carlile; "Police chiefs should give clear reasons why there is not enough evidence to put the suspects on trial in court rather than using the orders - something Lord Carlile says does not currently happen."
What Lord Carlile is referring to here is that he wishes the constabulary to come under the powers of the Parliament. It is a draconian and totalitarian concept. Britain would be again under an Oliver Cromwell type dictatorship.
The last point, Lord Carlile points to is the detention of persons suspected of being associated with 'Terrorist Activities'. What is paramount here is that to Lord Carlile, 'Security' is not an issue. There is no mention of any proper trial, it is merely total control and deportation. The problem is just how and where does Lord Carlile deport a 200 generation Englishman?
Andrew
