Quote

Though widening the list to extremists would be a direct attack on privacy (on top of ethical problems, like who's there to judge what's extreme or not, and what kind of extreme is judged dangerous or not).

 

Care to elaborate on how including extremists on a terror watch list is an invasion of privacy?

 

8 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

I'd say the fact that they're extremist is enough to either put them on watch or conduct a thorough investigation.

But what are the guidelines for labeling someone an extremist? And where is the line? Should we start loc

 

king up Christians who preach on the corner yelling about how soldiers are going to hell? Are they extremists?

 

You can't pool all these people together and throw them in jail for a "suspected extremism". You also can't have spies watching all these people all the time.

2 hours ago, TheDivineHustle said:

 

Care to elaborate on how including extremists on a terror watch list is an invasion of privacy?

 

Because they are suspected extremists. Imagine if the standard for being an extremist in any other religion was so low. How many Christians, Hassidic Jews, devout Buddhists, Hinduists would be placed on a list. All those groups (With maybe the exception of Buddhists) have killed people. 

 

The real problem is that once you just allow the government to pick and choose who is an extremist and who isn't, the second a new administration comes in they could easily target a religious or political group without evidence.

On 8/21/2017 at 2:17 PM, qwertyK said:

They are extremists. Not innocent. They have either returned from syria, planning to go, sympathising with isis, sharing isis beliefs, or planning an attack. 

And you know this how? Are you part of MI5 or MI6? Many of them aren't even under active investigation. They may have simply been suspected for opening an obscure twitter link and then been moved to the closed investigation category that the Manchester bomber was open. The criteria for extremist under MI5 is not public information so we really have no idea.

 

On 8/21/2017 at 10:40 AM, qwertyK said:

 

I think our one is, our one doesn't give justice to anyone, at least your one does. Hell, a prison just gave every cell a mobile phone and a computer. 

It isn't "justice" when a full 1%(2,200,000 in jail and over 4 million on probation and parole) of the adults in your country are locked up, and there is blatant racism in that system, with Latinos and Blacks being locked up for petty drug offenses even though white people are more likely to be carrying those drugs (politifact source).

 

 

General Address:

 

"On Friday security sources confirmed a further 20,000 individuals were said to have been considered “subjects of interest” in the past, although the period the figures cover is unclear." - The Independent.

 

Now, you might say, "Well the Manchester attacker was part of this 'past' list." This is true, but what many have failed to mention is that 13 attacks were foiled in the past year. It really comes down to the fact that you can't lock up people who you "think" are bad guys. Once you do that, democracy follows suit and goes down the tubes.

6 hours ago, Hystery said:

 

Isn't that already the case though? I'm pretty sure most intelligence services around the globe have a watch list with names of possible terrorists in them. Though widening the list to extremists would be a direct attack on privacy (on top of ethical problems, like who's there to judge what's extreme or not, and what kind of extreme is judged dangerous or not).

I believe so, hence why I think there are brighter minds already working on this. Issues like people slipping through the net, by my speculating is just due to the little manpower versus potentional criminal candidates.

15 hours ago, thegreathah said:

But what are the guidelines for labeling someone an extremist? And where is the line? Should we start loc

 

king up Christians who preach on the corner yelling about how soldiers are going to hell? Are they extremists?

 

You can't pool all these people together and throw them in jail for a "suspected extremism". You also can't have spies watching all these people all the time.

If they're preaching hatred, visiting terrorist camps, and traveling to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the like, then they should be placed on the watch list because they're probably an extremist. Those are just a handful of countries that produce and harbor terrorists. Visiting such a country is automatically suspicious, regardless of your intentions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a terrorist, but it would be asinine to let someone visit Iraq for a few months and then allow them back in as though there isn't an immense terror issue in Iraq. Terrorists want to strike right at our homes, and they can easily get in the same way some (foolish) tourist can. I also don't understand how someone can be suspected of extremism.

 

I feel like you either are an extremist, or you aren't an extremist. There's not really any middle ground because if you're possibly an extremist, that's enough to watch you.

 

Well, yelling about someone going to hell versus yelling about beheading, burning, and mutilating women's genitals aren't necessarily on the same level of "extreme". I can tell people that they're going to burn in hell, but that's not necessarily a threat on my part. I can also tell people that they'll be beheaded, burned, and mutilated. One is a repercussion of a religious ideology, the other is a terror-like threat. I can't make you burn in hell, but I can behead and burn you.

15 hours ago, thegreathah said:

Because they are suspected extremists. Imagine if the standard for being an extremist in any other religion was so low. How many Christians, Hassidic Jews, devout Buddhists, Hinduists would be placed on a list. All those groups (With maybe the exception of Buddhists) have killed people. 

 

The real problem is that once you just allow the government to pick and choose who is an extremist and who isn't, the second a new administration comes in they could easily target a religious or political group without evidence.

 

Killing someone, in my opinion, doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist. By definition, a terrorist is a person that uses terrorism in the pursuit of political gain. A thug or a gang member wouldn't be a terrorist, following this definition. They'd simply be criminals, that people may be afraid of. The KKK, by this definition, are terrorists. ISIS, by this definition, are terrorists. A murderer could be a terrorist depending on their motives.

 

The government doesn't pick who's an extremist, they make it clear by their actions, though I understand your point on that.

Edited August 23, 20178 yr by TheDivineHustle

1 hour ago, TheDivineHustle said:

If they're preaching hatred, visiting terrorist camps, and traveling to countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the like, then they should be placed on the watch list because they're probably an extremist. Those are just a handful of countries that produce and harbor terrorists. Visiting such a country is automatically suspicious, regardless of your intentions. It doesn't necessarily mean that they're a terrorist, but it would be asinine to let someone visit Iraq for a few months and then allow them back in as though there isn't an immense terror issue in Iraq. T

 

I feel like you either are an extremist, or you aren't an extremist. There's not really any middle ground because if you're possibly an extremist, that's enough to watch you.

Hmm, to be honest, I'd like to visit Iraq or Syria or Afghanistan. I'd also like to choke to death the bitch who orders killings of civilians on our streets. I distrust people who choose to belief a set of ideas that encourage murder. I do believe that many members of this forum would condemn me for my beliefs.

 

Am I an extremist?

 

'Extremist' is an awfully dangerous concept because it's sooooo vague. Does visiting a certain country make you one? Sharing a post on your page with anti-immigrants pic? Visiting an ISIS recruitment website (for any purpose)? Offending people on the internet?

 

That's why we need accurate and precise laws containing accurate and precise criteria what is a crime and how it shall be punished. Of course, government security has a right to watch people they don't trust... So let them watch and make all evidence obtained by such watch inadmissible.

 

I don't protect terrorists and criminals, but once you allow the state to circumvent the laws for any 'highest purpose', you'll have a problem.

 

On 8/20/2017 at 4:56 AM, qwertyK said:

Around this time last year, after the Russel Square stabbing, the Met launched Op Hercules which saw CT police deployed and checkpoints with armed officers. Are they still in place? Although it does give the impression the city is under siege, I think it could have really stopped many attacks ie, Westminster, if they had checkpoints on all main motorways and roads into London. Yes, they would cause congestion in some areas, but given the events in Barcelona, they could have been stopped. 

I was in London during the time period you posted this, the simple answer is no. The only armed officers I had seen (and I looked) were in front of Westminster, Downing Street, and Buckingham Palace.

15 hours ago, crkinnh said:

I was in London during the time period you posted this, the simple answer is no. The only armed officers I had seen (and I looked) were in front of Westminster, Downing Street, and Buckingham Palace.

like I said, I believe it was a short term op.