Internment: Could it help fight terrorism?

[SL-Dave]

Latest post of the previous page:

I fail to see what all this talk about a country halfway around the world from the UK has to do with the topic subject which is about the internment of terrorists in the UK and nowhere else. If there are no further comments on the said subject then I may as well lock the topic.

There is a link, although it does not appear to have been explained previously.
Australia is one of the few countries that intern refugees in refugee centres, which are basically internment centres. The Australian government is one the few countries that has a public commitment to not allow a single refugee into the country. I personally disagree with this policy as it fails to met international requirements to welcome someone in genuine need. It is also a different argument than the British have; we here are on an island that is rather full, whereas Australia is only 20% occupied.

I myself had negative views on the native Australians, the Aboriginals, due to having been mugged by some when I first visited in 1997. But I have since had my eyes opened, both by my girlfriend at the time and also by my cousin who lives there. Most Aboriginals are decent folk, and I have seen this first hand when visiting places such as Ularu and also those that work and live in the cities. Those that fail to assimilate are normally those that are fedup with continually unable to get work or even respect, and those are the people who turn to drink or drugs, which I have also seen. I would also like to point out that my cousin actually works in the Australian government for the Minister for Indigenous Affairs, and a few years ago was awarded the Australian Medal for her continued work in this area (as they do not have awards in Australia for Lords/Ladys/Baronship or MBE/OBE, the Australia Medal is actually the highest award possible).

Regarding the original post and issues:
In my view, internment is a bad idea. This idea was tried in the past, for example with Japanese or Germans living in the UK or USA during WWI and WWII, and after each war it was decided that internment was a bad idea. We really should learn from our lessons in the past. Better that 9 (presumed) guilty people are allowed to roam free than 1 innocent person be locked up.

[boatbuilder]

Well at least you brought the topic back to its original track.

[Cowper]

I fail to see what all this talk about a country halfway around the world from the UK has to do with the topic subject which is about the internment of terrorists in the UK and nowhere else. If there are no further comments on the said subject then I may as well lock the topic.

I've been down in London for a few days so am only just catching up on this thread. And although I honestly don't want to cross swords with Admin. are you really saying BB that we have to stick absolutely strictly to the topic subject, at all times, or else you'll lock it? Can it not be broadened out even a little to encompass people's wider views (always with the proviso that it's related)? If not, isn't that a tad restrictive? I know the subject is internment, but this leads on quite naturally to people's views on migrants generally. I raised the subject of Australia and their attitude there, since I was a migrant to that country myself, but I've found the comments posted since then, and which I've only now read, interesting and informative. If we have to stick absolutely strictly to the very letter of the subject, Internment: Could it help fight terrorism?, then it can really be answered with a yes, it could or no, it couldn't. End of discussion. If it's broadened out then you get all kinds of interesting and thought-provoking responses which, speaking for myself, I really enjoy reading and which I think people should be allowed to express.

[boatbuilder]

I think you will find that many of the topics tend to diversify from their subject from time to time, Cowper, but I thought some of the things entering the discussion, such as those to do with aboriginal issues, were taking it just a bit too far away from the topic subject and looked like changing the face of the discussion. It's very rare for us to lock a topic and from time to time we just have to take steps to try to get them back on topic, and after the weekend's atrocity all the more so in this case.

I trust you were well away from the trouble in London and it never spoilt your weekend away.

[nikkai]

I'm not sure if I am understanding the information being relayed in regard to the identity of the "known" persons and "their" associates connected with the cold bloodied heartless murders of the past few weeks.
IF the law enforcement system is aware of these "cells" and those who are in or connected to them then is it a case of leaving the door OPEN to see if they do something? but then in MY view that IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE TOO LATE, I think that IF a problem or its cause can be identified then it should be addressed.
As I have said I do not know any of the answers without *upsetting some one or other* though I apply my engineering experience to tasks,
I hear/see/feel or get told there is an issue within my realm I act, gathering all or as much knowledge I can then remove, stop, limit any and all events or issues which could be the result of waiting until the destruction time.
Yes I understand engines and machinery are far different to humans in that humans have the added, spontaneity and choice of mind (machinery does not) but IF there is knowledge surely it should be acted on in a way that shows the LAW has some control over law and order to which they are charged with and WE as citizens of the ISLAND should obey.
I have my beliefs and I have conducted MY life where I commit NO HARM to others regardless of their beliefs though I seem to be edging to the do unto others as they do unto you (only do it harder) side of the fence which is probably just what these murderer's want in the name of ?? resulting in an all out war between humans.
I also believe that if a person LEAVES this country to join murderer's in another country then they should NOT be permitted to return at any time for any reason. Those here who demand ways and laws which this country has never been know for should go or return to the country where that IS WHERE they are in use.
I'm getting off now before I loose any control over my fingers
Again this is MY OWN FEELINGS etc.

[Cowper]

I trust you were well away from the trouble in London and it never spoilt your weekend away.

Yes, we were well away, thank you, and had a really good weekend. But we were in crowded places, St Pancras Station being one of them, and we also walked through King's Cross Station to see the new constructions there. Armed police very much in evidence. And on a train, going down to Margate for the day (a nostalgia trip) there were railway police officers onboard. So nowhere near London Bridge although we were there last Feb. and walked around Borough Market. It's sheer chance these days as to whether or not you're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It can happen absolutely anywhere now.

I don't know if it was just coincidence or not, but driving back yesterday up the A12 we passed ten army vehicles driving south, certainly in the direction of London, although whether they were actually heading there, I don't know. It's not that often you see army vehicles on the road, least of all ten of them.

[Cowper]

I also believe that if a person LEAVES this country to join murderer's in another country then they should NOT be permitted to return at any time for any reason. Those here who demand ways and laws which this country has never been know for should go or return to the country where that IS WHERE they are in use.

I couldn't agree more.

[SL-Dave]

There is of course an issue with doing the above. If a person is not permitted to return to this country, where do they go? Are we talking about stripping someone of their British citizenship? And if so, does this mean they are left stateless, without anywhere to call home? Where would they go? We all have a duty of care towards others, that should go without saying, and despite what people may or may not do everybody has a right to call somewhere 'home'. This isn't just a moral view, albeit that is a very strong motive, it is also a legal point of view as enshrined within the United Nations founding rules. This is why, despite many efforts by countries such as Australia, it is illegal (against international law) to make someone 'stateless'.

[boatbuilder]

.....it is illegal (against international law) to make someone 'stateless'.

Maybe it's time it wasn't, so they should go and try and live in that so-called 'State' most of this recent terrorism is connected with - if it exists. I don't think any respectable citizen, whatever their beliefs, should be sympathising with them. They have no sympathy when they carry out their atrocious acts.

Just think of 8-year-old Saffie Rose Roussos and the many others.

Saffie Rose Roussos.jpg (113.53 KiB) Viewed 2074 times

[SL-Dave]

Three points to make here, points which are rather controversial.

1) There has already been an attempt to make people stateless in the past. Several countries tried it, and history has dictated that it was 'wrong' to do so. Countries that did this, from memory, include Russia and Germany. The people they did this to? Terrorists, who were spouting extremist information on the public streets and were generally considered by others to be of lower class than the average person. Of course, they were also know as the Jews, and the attempt to make them stateless had the direct result of the creation of the State of Israel, in order to give them a state to live in elsewhere. After the Great War, otherwise known as World War 1, in order to stop this happening again the League of Nations was created - a forerunner to the United Nations. It didn't of course stop WW2, but negotiations between the Allies afterwards meant the creation of Israel so that Russia could get rid of its 'terrorist' problem.

2) The photo above of course pulls at the heartstrings, as it is meant to do. It invokes emotions in all of us - well, most, anyway - and helps us to make decisions that are without forethought and meaning. This is precisely why the law is debated without emotion; indeed, the courts within the past 5 years have blocked defendants from making any comments directly to the courts before sentencing, precisely to avoid bringing in emotion to a factual and legal framework. Instead of simply reacting, we should take time to consider the moral view. No matter what happens to us, we do not have the moral right to 'make' someone homeless.

3) As mentioned in a previous post, one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Emily Pankhurst was considered a terrorist for fighting for equal right's for women. Martin Luthor King (junior) was considered a terrorist for fighting for equal rights, as was Nelson Mandela. Should they have been kicked out of their respective countries, made 'stateless' and therefore homeless??

[boatbuilder]

... we do not have the moral right to 'make' someone homeless.

Nor do the terrorists have the moral right to take lives. In fact they have no morals whatsoever.

[funkychick]

I agree with your post SL Dave what state do we send the 'home grown' terrorists to
Manybe it would help if the Tory government wasn't looking to do trade deals with the countries that promote Wahhabism the branch that promotes the 'death is glorious' etc and has little to do with the .Muslim religion

[SL-Dave]

... we do not have the moral right to 'make' someone homeless.

Nor do the terrorists have the moral right to take lives. In fact they have no morals whatsoever.

There is a slight difference here. Looking at this from an objective view, the 'terrorists' actually believe they are doing the right moral thing. They themselves believe they are acting in a just and right manner, that they have the higher morality. It is well-known that a terrorist is no longer regarded a terrorist IF their beliefs are eventually taken as the right belief, for example Nelson Mandela who bombed many places in South Africa. Other examples of history being rewritten include America and allies invading/liberating Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Panama etc. Many times in history, the aggressors believe they are in the right, doing the right thing. If they are successful, they are considered righteous, if unsuccessful they are considered aggressors or terrorists. If one looks at the 'mentality' of these terrorists, they mostly believe they are doing the right thing, people such as the recent bombers in London, Manchester, Paris etc. Therefore, in my view, and that of many experts in the field, the best way forward to stop these attacks from happening is not to make them stateless, but to use psychology to try and understand their way of thinking and then 'deprogram' them.

Based on the above statements, I believe internment would have the opposite effect to that required. It would not deter further attacks, it would merely reinforce the held belief that the UK is against any form of free speech. It is basically saying to everyone, "Do what we say, think what we tell you to think, or we will inter you for your own good". Internment would lead to an increase in attacks, not a decrease. Of course, this line of thinking does not win votes, and so most politicians will not make such comments.

I agree with your post SL Dave what state do we send the 'home grown' terrorists to
Manybe it would help if the Tory government wasn't looking to do trade deals with the countries that promote Wahhabism the branch that promotes the 'death is glorious' etc and has little to do with the .Muslim religion

I actually had the same/similar argument with my father last night regarding the home-grown terrorists. He wants to deport all Islamic extremists. I pointed out to him that historically, most terrorist activity comes from British citizens/residents, such as the British shoe bomber, Reid. It is not Islam that is at fault, it is a tiny 'sect' within the Islamic group, one that helps recruit others by appealing to the frustration of the youth. Address this frustration - that nobody cares about them - and perhaps we can regain their trust.

[nikkai]

This next bit isn't going to be liked.
How do you or will you feel when your relative is murdered by a tiny 'sect' within the Islamic group, one that helps recruit others by appealing to the frustration of the youth? .. not to make them stateless, but to use psychology to try and understand their way of thinking and then 'deprogram' them.
Or do you want to ask the relatives for thier feelings of those who have lost loved ones in the recent acts of murder? or the mother of Fusilier Lee Rigby.

[SL-Dave]

From an emotional point of view I would want revenge. It is a basic human response, and completely understandable. However, we should try to do better, be better.

Attached is one of several images/memes doing the rounds on Facebook. Makes one think...

18767847_10156245395118012_8648471397092236771_n.jpg (142.43 KiB) Viewed 2050 times

[Cowper]

From an emotional point of view I would want revenge. It is a basic human response, and completely understandable. However, we should try to do better, be better

I'm trying to get my head around your views. You're obviously sincere in your beliefs, but would you put the same views if you were standing face to face with people who've had close family or friends blown to smithereens or who've been seriously maimed with life-changing injuries, over the course of the last three months in this country alone? If yes, I think we could safely assume that you'd be faced with furious anger and outrage. In that event, would you continue to put the case to them that we should try to understand these people, be kind to them, that WE should 'try to do better, be better'?

In an earlier post, and responding to the question as to whether radical extremists, having gone to Syria or wherever to learn the tricks of the trade from IS groups, should be let back into this (or any other) country, you asked 'where would they go?' and 'would we just make them stateless?'. I think the majority of people in this country at the moment, as well as France, Belgium, Germany, etc. would say, we don't give a damn where they go or whether or not they become stateless, we just don't want them back here. My view is that when people become radicalised, go abroad to be 'trained' then return to their 'home' countries (where they may even have been born and raised) then set about killing as many people as possible be they men, women or even young children, then they've totally forfeited all rights to any consideration, respect and definitely citizenship.

The vast majority of muslims are peaceful, law-abiding people who are a great asset to their adopted countries, who are as shocked and appalled as the rest of us, and often they express shame at the atrocities that are being perpetrated in their name. And yes, all peaceful efforts should be made to try to prevent future generations from becoming radicalised. But for the ones who already have been, who've become so indoctrinated by hatred and evil who may even now be planning the next atrocity, no excuses whatsoever can be made for them, and I think it's an insult to all the families who've suffered this year alone, and who are still red-raw with grief.