George Galloway blasts the Senate

McTag wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:
Again, forgive me for not digging through the volumes of bitchslappings that came before, but I was interested in a brief exchange (I don't remember the exact bitch or slapper) in which a Brit and a Yank disagreed here over whose country currently enjoyed the greatest degree of freedom of speech. There was a brief flexing of muscle by each and a couple of yo-mama's may have been traded, but the encounter did spark a question in my mind that some of you "over there" might care to answer.

In all the years of the IRA's terrorism against Britain, was there never a defensive reaction comparable to (or approaching) our Patriot Act? Were none of your liberties compromised in the interest of national security?

I'm sincerely curious about this.

For terrorist-related offences, internment without trial and trials without jury were adopted. These measures were found to be ineffective and indeed counter-productive, and were then abandoned.

No tighter border controls, more stringent identification requirements, nothing in a defensive posture?

0 Replies

Whooda your condescending tone is beginning to annoy me. The brief exchange on free speech was between Georgeob1 and myself, and I can assure you neither one of us is a bitch or a slapper, and if you say well that's just American humour, then I'm no fan.

Not having a written constitution (the arguments for and against I am not going to go into) means that no one here can point to a "constitutional right" to free speech. On the other hand we are spared the abuses of such "constitutional rights" c.f. Larry Flint.

I would say the reality of "free speech" is probably about the same in Britain and the US. There are somethings you may not say, or rather you can say it but it might be considered grounds for prosecution e.g. under laws banning incitement to racial hatred. The govt. here is about to introduce similar measures regarding religious hatred. I think they have gone too far. There is a real difference between hatred of a person because of their race and hating the ideas they have in their head.

However to answer your question specifically on the curtailment of free speech during the IRA campaign, yes most assuredly the British govt. tried to block them speaking out. Margaret Thatcher even boasted about denying them the "oxygen of publicity" and we had the ludicrous situation of Gerry Adams being interviewed with his voice taken by an actor, as he was not allowed to speak on the public broadcast media.

Much more seriously after the Birminghman pub bombings in 1974 the government rushed through the "Prevention of Terrorism Act". This allowed detention for up to (I think) 14 days for interrogation...with limited access to a lawyer and other draconian measures. But it was only temporary, so parliament had to vote on it every year, which they duly did. Finally it lapsed but the "useful" bits have been incorporated into the 2001 Terrorism Act. I'm not a lawyer so dont quiz me on the details.

Even more draconian, but only applying to N Ireland, the govt. introduced internment in the early 70s. People were lifted in the middle of the night and put in detention centres. You could say that infringed their right to free speech somewhat. But internment didn't work. Much to their surprise they found young men and their families who were so detained tended to be reinforced in their Irish republican sympathies. [However it did give the security forces all sorts of opportunities for experimenting in behaviour control through drugs physical abuse and psychological torture- something American military forces have made use of...but that's another story].

Interestingly the only offence Gerry Adams has ever been convicted of is escaping from internment. There is some irony here in that having been illegally detained you can be prosecuted for escaping.

But we are all friends now. Mr Adams hirsute visage is regularly on our tv screens. And we all agree that the people of Northern Ireland can join the Republic anytime they want provided a majority vote for it. So far, after thousands of deaths and many hundreds of bombings, (by the IRA, Loyalist Paramilitaries and British agents) that majority is not there.

You know it never ceases to amaze me that with all our experience for good and bad, of empire, terrorism, imperialism, colonialism, you name it we've been there bought the t shirt etc...you guys blunder into a country like Iraq, a place we drew up to suit the needs of empire for Gods sake...and expect to be welcomed with flowers and kisses. There WAS an opportunity of building a better place in Iraq, and you have imo blown it through a mixture of naivety and incompetence. [Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]. Anyway its a fact that for many reasons, people round the world find American foreign policy totally objectionable and quite bewildering and rejoiced when Galloway took the opportunity of putting the boot into the Senate.

0 Replies

Steve: Thanks for the info.

And the lecture.

I shall try harder to approach the level of civility you have modeled for me.

0 Replies

sumac wrote:

Also, it was me (I? - am being dense here in remembering which is correct) who first brought up Anderson's ...

Both "it was me" and it was I" are correct, Sumac. Smile

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

[Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]

I believe this did approach bitchslapping fervor, Steve.

Beware.

Condescension looms.

I believe the phrase du jour is: "Pot/kettle"

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
[Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]

I believe this did approach bitchslapping fervor, Steve.

Beware.

Condescension looms.

I believe the phrase du jour is: "Pot/kettle"

When you look at the facts, objectively and rationally, Whoda, how could Steve arrive at any other conclusion. Remember this is a country that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, and said nothing when they were used on the Iranians.

"No problems, they were our enemies", says Whoda.

Then after turning their backs on the Kurds, who they had promised to support, turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of those same chemical weapons on these people.

"Oooops, small contradiction here", says Whoda, "but REMEMBER, it wasn't politically expedient to help them then".

These are the people that you're just absolutely certain the USA cares deeply about. Is this kinda what you mean?

0 Replies

I said

"Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?"

Although I asked this rhetorically, it does appear that YES is the answer.

0 Replies

I have been very occupied with the busy details of work for the past day and a half and have not checked in here for all that time. Just stopping in for a few moments now for a quick dose of invective before I resume a round of, at best, moderately interesting, but consuming business meetings.

Many pages have been added here since I last posted, unfortunately no time to review them all. However I will express agreement with the main points in Steve's post above. Many pages ago we were exchanging barbs about our dear friend Galloway and Steve (or perhaps someone else), brought up the successful Galloway libel suit against the Daily Telegraph, holding it up as some sort of proof that the man's perfidy and corruption were lies but his distracting charges against everyone else were, of course, all true. I made the point that libel laws in the UK offered public figures much more protection than exists here and that the result of the suit proves nothing except that the Daily Telegraph was not able to judicially prove the statements they made. I also added the wisecrack that in this country we have freedom of speech. That was merely rhetorical payment in kind for previous invective from Steve and others on this matter.

The happy fact is that the people of the UK do enjoy freedom of speech, and that their and our expressions of it have common historical origins. The fact that there are fairly large differences in the standards of our libel protections (or in our case, lack of them) for public figures, doesn't amount to much at all. I will add that Steve , while on the attack a few pages back added a lot of nonsense about restrictions to freedom here (including habeas corpus) under the current political administration - he was wrong in nearly every particular he offered. Things were flying fast and furious back then and Setanta was still expressing outrage over various points, so a bit of excess was no great fault.

I hope Steve recognizes the generous good spirit that animates my views. My parents were/are from Ireland (South & West) and I was raised on stories from them and the grandparents who brought them here about the evils of British rule. My father, then a serving member of the U.S. Congress, voted against Lend Lease in 1940, explaining to me long afterwards "One war in this century to help preserve the British Empire was enough".

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Many pages ago we were exchanging barbs about our dear friend Galloway and Steve (or perhaps someone else), brought up the successful Galloway libel suit against the Daily Telegraph, holding it up as some sort of proof that the man's perfidy and corruption were lies but his distracting charges against everyone else were, of course, all true.

I don't know Galloway or his past well at all, George, but this deceitfulness that runs thru your posts is really too much. I expect you refer to his "perfidy" because he criticized a war based on lies; but let me note so you note, that the facts show he was right.

Compare his honesty [in his actions wrt the Iraq War and his party] to your own admitted wilfull blindness. Let me note once again, so you can note, an illegal war that has killed thousands. Being faithless to the truth and the ideals you pretend to stand for, is a much greater treachery.

A good example of your deceitfulness is evident in "the man's ... corruption". Proof please.

AND, god almighty, the gall you show "his distracting charges"!

Let me quote Blatham, or at least paraphrase him; "I'm sick of all the bullshit that flies around here" when the facts so clearly show us you're shovelling as fast as you can.

You're just much more deceptive about it than a Lash or a McGentrix.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
[Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]

I believe this did approach bitchslapping fervor, Steve.

Beware.

Condescension looms.

I believe the phrase du jour is: "Pot/kettle"

When you look at the facts, objectively and rationally, Whoda, how could Steve arrive at any other conclusion. Remember this is a country that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, and said nothing when they were used on the Iranians.

"No problems, they were our enemies", says Whoda.

Then after turning their backs on the Kurds, who they had promised to support, turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of those same chemical weapons on these people.

"Oooops, small contradiction here", says Whoda, "but REMEMBER, it wasn't politically expedient to help them then".

These are the people that you're just absolutely certain the USA cares deeply about. Is this kinda what you mean?

Uhhh ... I believe I'll stick with the words I actually posted myself, JTT.

You post your words.

I post mine.

I think that's how it still works, even here at stepford.com.

0 Replies

Steve (as 41oo) wrote:

I said

"Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?"

Although I asked this rhetorically, it does appear that YES is the answer.

Steve:

Please refer to the previous reply to JTT.

My opinions seem to offend quite enough without you answering your own allegations and attributing those replies to me.

Tacky.

Condescending.

And annoying.

0 Replies

george

Here, or elsewhere perhaps, you made a claim regarding the leftist content (ubiquitous was implied) of PBS.

I inquired as to what PBS you have actually watched over the last five years and what content you actually saw that demonstrated what you claim.

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

JTT wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
[Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]

I believe this did approach bitchslapping fervor, Steve.

Beware.

Condescension looms.

I believe the phrase du jour is: "Pot/kettle"

When you look at the facts, objectively and rationally, Whoda, how could Steve arrive at any other conclusion. Remember this is a country that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, and said nothing when they were used on the Iranians.

"No problems, they were our enemies", says Whoda.

Then after turning their backs on the Kurds, who they had promised to support, turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of those same chemical weapons on these people.

"Oooops, small contradiction here", says Whoda, "but REMEMBER, it wasn't politically expedient to help them then".

These are the people that you're just absolutely certain the USA cares deeply about. Is this kinda what you mean?

Uhhh ... I believe I'll stick with the words I actually posted myself, JTT.

You post your words.

I post mine.

I think that's how it still works, even here at stepford.com.

I see, Whoda, that you're not only incapable of addressing the issues that I've raised, you can even answer the simple question Steve asked. Whodaeverthunk such a thing!

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

WhoodaThunk wrote:
JTT wrote:
WhoodaThunk wrote:
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
[Or maybe you just dont care, you have control of the bits of Iraq you are interested in, the rest of the country can go to hell, is that it?]

I believe this did approach bitchslapping fervor, Steve.

Beware.

Condescension looms.

I believe the phrase du jour is: "Pot/kettle"

When you look at the facts, objectively and rationally, Whoda, how could Steve arrive at any other conclusion. Remember this is a country that supplied Iraq with chemical weapons, and said nothing when they were used on the Iranians.

"No problems, they were our enemies", says Whoda.

Then after turning their backs on the Kurds, who they had promised to support, turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of those same chemical weapons on these people.

"Oooops, small contradiction here", says Whoda, "but REMEMBER, it wasn't politically expedient to help them then".

These are the people that you're just absolutely certain the USA cares deeply about. Is this kinda what you mean?

Uhhh ... I believe I'll stick with the words I actually posted myself, JTT.

You post your words.

I post mine.

I think that's how it still works, even here at stepford.com.

I see, Whoda, that you're not only incapable of addressing the issues that I've raised, you can even answer the simple question Steve asked. Whodaeverthunk such a thing!

If that leaves you feeling warmly smug, then good for you, JTT.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I hope Steve recognizes the generous good spirit that animates my views. My parents were/are from Ireland (South & West) and I was raised on stories from them and the grandparents who brought them here about the evils of British rule. My father, then a serving member of the U.S. Congress, voted against Lend Lease in 1940, explaining to me long afterwards "One war in this century to help preserve the British Empire was enough".

Thank God your Father wasnt the one to sway the balance with that vote, because without lendlease, chances are Britain would have been overrun, the whole of western Europe taken over for a short period of time by the Nazis, the Russians coming across and liberating us all, then refusing to go home, and America not gaining any rocket technology from German Scientists, therefore being miles behind in the race to get ICBM.
Germany was on the verge of developing the Nuclear Bomb, so it would not have taken long for Russia to become very much the major power in the world.
Just goes to show you how acting with one's heart, instead of one's head, could have led to catastrophe.
That is exactly what George W has done, IMO, with the whole Iraq thing (was there even a vote over there?...I dont remember).
He has opened up a major can of worms, and has caused over 100,000 deaths, just as Galloway stated.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus - the aid sent to Stalin over the Pacific route dwarfs "lend-lease"; e.g. 9 out of 10 trucks in the Russian army were in fact ours and so was the gasoline powering them. That assistance would have stopped long before Russians got anywhere near the Atlantic.

Since there's no reason for you to have read Washington's farewell address, earlier quoted by Whooda, I'm posting another excerpt:

_____________________________________________________________

"So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation. "

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm
_____________________________________________________________

In the interest of full disclosure I support GeorgeOB grandfather's vote against "lend-lease", first in the spirit of Washington, second because I think it was monstrous to tar the German Navy with the allegation that the Lusitania was a "passenger" ship - any ship carrying guns and ammunition to a war zone is by definition a warship.

Churchill was first lord of the Admiralty at the time, so he must have known the nature of her cargo; don't bother refuting this, btw, since the ship has been located in the Irish Sea and her contents inventoried Smile

0 Replies

Excuse me - GeorgeOB's father, not grandfather, was meant in the above post.

0 Replies

HofT wrote:

Lord Ellpus - the aid sent to Stalin over the Pacific route dwarfs "lend-lease"; e.g. 9 out of 10 trucks in the Russian army were in fact ours and so was the gasoline powering them. That assistance would have stopped long before Russians got anywhere near the Atlantic.

_____________________________________________________________

In the interest of full disclosure I support GeorgeOB grandfather's vote against "lend-lease", first in the spirit of Washington, second because I think it was monstrous to tar the German Navy with the allegation that the Lusitania was a "passenger" ship - any ship carrying guns and ammunition to a war zone is by definition a warship.

Churchill was first lord of the Admiralty at the time, so he must have known the nature of her cargo; don't bother refuting this, btw, since the ship has been located in the Irish Sea and her contents inventoried

Eh? Lusitania?....Are we discussing the same war?

0 Replies

WhoodaThunk wrote:

If that leaves you feeling warmly smug, then good for you, JTT.

Not smug, Whoda, just mildly disappointed but not at all surprized.

0 Replies

Lord Ellpus wrote:

Eh? Lusitania?....Are we discussing the same war?

You wont start a dispute just because of dinky 30 years, don't you? :wink:

0 Replies

George Galloway blasts the Senate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know