I repeat my question,what do Libertarians think of 42 days?
Answers please from real Libertarians,as in LPUK.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Roland:
I think you've got the intelligence to see this. The reason we have limited detention time is to protect us from powerful people who would love nothing better than to stop public descent, protest or disagreement.

At the moment your view of a terrorist is some mad muslim with a bomb strapped to his back. You think these laws only apply to them. The fact is they don't. They apply to every one.

What happens if the government decided that you were a terrorist for peaceful protest. You may say that will never happen it's never happened before in this country. And you'd be right but only because there have been stringent laws to stop it ever happening in other countries where there have not been those laws it's common place.

Liberties our fought for in blood. More blood than any terrorist attack will ever shed.With the use of technology and suvilience such as bugging or phone tapping we will have an extraordinarily hard job regaining them if lost .

Don't think for one second we in Britain do not have our little Hitlers who would like to see what they view as undesirables rounded up and shot. You can go through many of the posts on here to see that.

What rubbish.

Anti-terrorism laws primarily apply to Islamic extremists. Personally I think they should be detained indefinitely. If the process by which this can happen needs to be incremental - 42 days, 60 days, 90 days, etc - then so be it. They shouldn't be in this country anyway.

You mentioned liberties fought for in blood - more blood than any terrorist attack will ever shed.' Sounds like an inane cliche to me, like saying people 'fought n' died for the vote'. Cr*p. Nobody died for the vote.

By the way, I wonder why no Asian Labour MPs rebelled against the 42 days - particularly when Muslims are the ones who chiefly feel their civil liberties are infringed. As usual it's just middle class white people making a fuss. Idiots.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze:
Twenty long hours you say,well arent you a pussy to even be bothered by that overnight stay.
Dont assume anything about anyone on here,especially me because you dont know me or what Ive done or were ive been.
Im against 42 days because it can and will be used for some to be completely removed for ever.

Well so what you don't know me or what i've done.

I'm glad to say thats the longest i've ever spent looking at 4 white tiled walls. I spent half of it asleep but had no real idea at the time how much trouble I was or weren't in. Long story.

I was trying to make make Jeff see how 42 days detention could send some one right over the top. It was not a testosterone competition.

I don't know what you've done and really don't care. However you've had certain rights even as some one arrested that society deems to have broken the law. Including limited detention time with out charge. The right to legal assistance. The right to inform some one of your choice that you are being held. That is assuming your not from northern Ireland where I think things our a bit different.

But yes your right in the right circumstances 42 days could go on a lot longer
and given the way this government has been acting you may well find your self in an orange boiler suit, a hood and shackles on a private jet to who knows where.

Paddy Ashdown was on question time about a month ago and made a firm accusation that the only real reason for the longer detention times was pressure on Gordon Brown from George Bush.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
What rubbish.

Anti-terrorism laws primarily apply to Islamic extremists. Personally I think they should be detained indefinitely. If the process by which this can happen needs to be incremental - 42 days, 60 days, 90 days, etc - then so be it. They shouldn't be in this country anyway.

No they apply to all of us. It's just fools think they only apply to Muslims.

Originally Posted by :
You mentioned liberties fought for in blood - more blood than any terrorist attack will ever shed.' Sounds like an inane cliche to me, like saying people 'fought n' died for the vote'. Cr*p. Nobody died for the vote.

So just for a quick example the second world war protecting us from the third Reich was not protecting our freedom. I think you'll find a few people shed blood on that occasion.

Originally Posted by :
By the way, I wonder why no Asian Labour MPs rebelled against the 42 days - particularly when Muslims are the ones who chiefly feel their civil liberties are infringed.

More than likely they did not want to be seen as bias.

Originally Posted by :
As usual it's just middle class white people making a fuss. Idiots.

Middle class "white" people. Just "white" people is it interesting. Can you provide me with a source or opinion poll that shows it's just middle class "white" people. Why just "white" people would you regard them as a lower race.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Keyser Soze:
I repeat my question,what do Libertarians think of 42 days?
Answers please from real Libertarians,as in LPUK.

What do you mean I repeat my question? It's strange as it was not a question you asked. It was a question that jeff asked.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Jeff:
How do libertarians feel about 42 days.Anyone now.

We are of course against it.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Roland:
No they apply to all of us. It's just fools think they only apply to Muslims.

I'm aware they apply to all of us. But they have been passed primarily because of the activities of a few Muslims and will - at least in the current climate - be mainly applied to Muslims.

Originally Posted by Roland:
So just for a quick example the second world war protecting us from the third Reich was not protecting our freedom. I think you'll find a few people shed blood on that occasion.

Fighting the second world war was a complete waste of time. Indirectly it is what brought this country into the mess it's in now.

Originally Posted by Roland:
More than likely they did not want to be seen as bias.

If 'bias' means defending the interests of people who share your own ethnicity & religion it might be a bias they may feel they should be excused for having.

Originally Posted by Roland:
Middle class "white" people. Just "white" people is it interesting. Can you provide me with a source or opinion poll that shows it's just middle class "white" people. Why just "white" people would you regard them as a lower race.

Looking down the list of Labour rebels my guess is they were all white people & probably middle class - there were no Asian names anyway.
Might have been a few blacks among them, I suppose, but how many are there in the 'Commons, after all? Oh yes, there was Diane Abbott, I forgot.

No, I wouldn't regard them as a lower race. Quite the opposite. However I believe they should be rather more interested in defending the rights of all people not to get blown up on public transport than in standing up for the rights of Muslims (who as a group will be mainly affected by the 42-day rule) especially when elected Muslim representatives in the 'Commons (i.e. Asian Labour MPs) appear unwilling to defend the interests of other Muslims.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
I'm aware they apply to all of us. But they have been passed primarily because of the activities of a few Muslims and will - at least in the current climate - be mainly applied to Muslims.

Firstly I'd dispute that (for example the provisions of the Terrorism Act have been abused, even against white people shock horror) but assuming you were correct - if you allow this through now, there'd be nothing to stop a future government using the power against the populace.

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
Looking down the list of Labour rebels my guess is they were all white people & probably middle class - there were no Asian names anyway.
Might have been a few blacks among them, I suppose, but how many are there in the 'Commons, after all? Oh yes, there was Diane Abbott, I forgot.

Why does someone's background matter when defending freedom and voting against tyranny?

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
No, I wouldn't regard them as a lower race. Quite the opposite. However I believe they should be rather more interested in defending the rights of all people not to get blown up on public transport than in standing up for the rights of Muslims (who as a group will be mainly affected by the 42-day rule) especially when elected Muslim representatives in the 'Commons (i.e. Asian Labour MPs) appear unwilling to defend the interests of other Muslims.

I consider the capability of the government to lock citizens up for 6 weeks at a time without giving any reason to be a much bigger threat to my freedom and way of life than the possibility of suffering at the hands of a terrorist attack. Does anyone truly believe that now we have 42 days detention that a) the threat of Terrorism will decrease and b) the government will now ever surrender such a power?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by London Orbital:
I'm aware they apply to all of us. But they have been passed primarily because of the activities of a few Muslims and will - at least in the current climate - be mainly applied to Muslims.

Thats exactly my point "at least in the current climate". Out of fear you've given up an important civil liberty. Who knows what the political climate may be in the future. It may be the EU will turn into the rise of communism it may be that we become the Israel of Europe if Europe and America ever went to war.

Originally Posted by :
Fighting the second world war was a complete waste of time. Indirectly it is what brought this country into the mess it's in now.

My god that is some comment. Your saying the situation we're in now is worse than if Hitler had had his way and won. You really should have a look at Hitlers plans for his ideal world.

Originally Posted by :
Looking down the list of Labour rebels my guess is they were all white people & probably middle class - there were no Asian names anyway.
Might have been a few blacks among them, I suppose, but how many are there in the 'Commons, after all? Oh yes, there was Diane Abbott, I forgot.

Parliament is made up with few exceptions of middle class white people.

Originally Posted by :
No, I wouldn't regard them as a lower race. Quite the opposite. However I believe they should be rather more interested in defending the rights of all people not to get blown up on public transport than in standing up for the rights of Muslims (who as a group will be mainly affected by the 42-day rule) especially when elected Muslim representatives in the 'Commons (i.e. Asian Labour MPs) appear unwilling to defend the interests of other Muslims.

I find it quite strange how we're all being made to fear terrorism
and told we must have ID cards and give up civil liberties but yet we have a pretty much open boarders where those we are being told to fear are invited into the country with open arms.

If it is the case that terrorism is the threat we're told it is then surly the first most obvious, practical, low cost thing to do would be close the boarders.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Roland:
I find it quite strange how we're all being made to fear terrorism
and told we must have ID cards and give up civil liberties but yet we have a pretty much open boarders where those we are being told to fear are invited into the country with open arms.

If it is the case that terrorism is the threat we're told it is then surly the first most obvious, practical, low cost thing to do would be close the boarders.

Why are you against people staying at guest houses?:-)

Otherwise i would agree, but with the proviso that the borders are closed AND we have the other measures, nearly all the terrorists nvolved in 7/7 21/7 etc have been home grown.
[Rep]