This is why we should be suspicious of anti-terror laws

[zulu9812]

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4960332.stm

Egypt has extended controversial emergency laws giving the security forces broad powers to arrest and detain people without charge.
Parliament agreed another two years of the legislation on Sunday. It had been in place since President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981.

Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif said the law was vital after recent bomb attacks.

But opposition groups said the law failed to combat terrorism and was used to violate the rights of Egyptians.

"They use (the legislation) to silence and oppress the opposition," deputy of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Habib, said.

Many opposition MPs came to the parliament session wearing white and black sashes saying "No to the emergency law".

President Hosni Mubarak had promised to abolish the law during his campaign for re-election last year.

The government is drafting anti-terror laws to replace the emergency law, which had been due to lapse at the beginning of January.

Mr Nazif said the government would not use the legislation other than to protect "the citizen and the security of the nation and to combat terrorism".

That's 25 years

 

[blackheart]

What's that have to do with being suspicious of anti-terror laws? It was put in place during a time of crisis, which is often needed. This sounds more like a case of government ineptness more than anything.

 

[zulu9812]

What's that have to do with being suspicious of anti-terror laws? It was put in place during a time of crisis, which is often needed. This sounds more like a case of government ineptness more than anything.

the point being that what was officially supposed to be a temporary measure became a permanent fixture of oppression - as was always intended

 

[ChrTh]

I'm suspicious of all laws.

 

[blackheart]

the point being that what was officially supposed to be a temporary measure became a permanent fixture of oppression - as was always intended

I don't agree with your assumption that all emergency measures are meant for permanent oppression. You do realize they are sometimes needed in emergencies?

 

[El_Machinae]

Didn't Egypt have a bombing just last week?

 

[IglooDame]

I don't agree with your assumption that all emergency measures are meant for permanent oppression. You do realize they are sometimes needed in emergencies?

I don't agree with the assumption either, but history has certainly born out that most temporary measures do become permanent.

 

[eyrei]

I think Zulu makes a very good point here. We should all be wary of our governments' efforts to infringe on our liberties and not give in to fear of 'terrorists'. That is precisely what they are hoping for...

 

[blackheart]

I think Zulu makes a very good point here. We should all be wary of our governments' efforts to infringe on our liberties and not give in to fear of 'terrorists'. That is precisely what they are hoping for...

Who, the government or the terrorists?

 

[plarq]

Eyrei, FYI, I remembered an earlier discussion on CFC, where a forum user suggested we shouldn't judge what are the terrorists thinking of US society. Do they want US becoming a fascist country without political freedom and with secret police everywhere? Or do they want bleeding heart liberals protesting all day against Bush and Co? I think those majihadeens only want infidels out of Middle East, any other consequences are irrelevent to Al Qaeda or other jihad organizations.

Edit:I found this post Irish Caesar's comment helpful.

 

[Gelion]

What's that have to do with being suspicious of anti-terror laws? It was put in place during a time of crisis, which is often needed. This sounds more like a case of government ineptness more than anything.

The question is when they will be abolished.
For example:
Taking an axiome that war on terror cannot be won (i.e. until problems are solved, terror will remain) we get that Patriot Act = stays forever as Patriot Act is to prevent acts of terrorism in War on Terror.

 

[eyrei]

Eyrei, FYI, I remembered an earlier discussion on CFC, where a forum user suggested we shouldn't judge what are the terrorists thinking of US society. Do they want US becoming a fascist country without political freedom and with secret police everywhere? Or do they want bleeding heart liberals protesting all day against Bush and Co? I think those majihadeens only want infidels out of Middle East, any other consequences are irrelevent to Al Qaeda or other jihad organizations.

Edit:I found this post Irish Caesar's comment helpful.

That is possible, I suppose. Whether or not they want it, however, we should all strive to keep it from happening.

 

[Ayatollah So]

We should all be wary of our governments' efforts to infringe on our liberties and not give in to fear of 'terrorists'. That is precisely what they are hoping for...

Obviously you fail to grasp the brilliant logic of the Bush administration:
1. They hate our freedoms
2. Patriot Act reduces our freedoms
3. Now they won't hate us so much!


OK, seriously, plarq is right. To Al Qaeda and its sympathizers, it's about getting the infidels out of the Middle East. Or in the case of sympathizers, it's about whether and how America / the West throws its weight around in the Middle East. Domestic policy (within the limits of political possibility in the West) is beside the point.

 

[Alvaro da Luna]

Al Qaeda and other mujahideen want to kick the US out of the middle east - that is their final objective. To achieve that goal why wouldn't they mind using US domestic policy to further their interests? Ossama thanked the American people for electing a hawk in the last election, clearly because it would help with new recruits. As for the patriot act, he probably views it as another step in the militerization of the United States.

 

[VoodooAce]

the point being that what was officially supposed to be a temporary measure became a permanent fixture of oppression - as was always intended

I understood you point immediately, Zulu. It seems that some people just don't have the ability to look at something like this and understand the long term dangers and ramifications.

As Igloo said, history has shown that these 'temporary' measures are usually not 'temporary', at all. These laws are made for what sounds, to simple ears, to be a good, maybe even necessary step. But then these laws too often end up being used for purposes other than the stated original intentions.

Actually that's what we've been arguing for years. Problem is it takes years before people realize what they've lost....and the government doesn't want to give it back.