It goes further than this - what we have is totalitarianism pressed into service to defend a politically correct "moderate middle ground" in which everyone is equally nice, and in which Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.
When the line you are trying to push is so logically inconsistent then you cannot defend it by argument and you have to resort to this kind of totalitarian nonsense.
And by the way - the totalitarianism wasn't at all lacking - remember the Guildford 4 and the Birmingham 6.
Remember also the republican spokesmen having their words "voiced by an actor" to get round the ban on them speaking on the media - note that that particular limitation on speech has not been applied to muslims - although those who oppose them more honestly than the UK government dares to do have been prevented from speaking in the UK.
Re: Re: "I know, let's give them even /more/ reasons to hate us!"
I know what you mean and I think I know your good intentions in writing a comment like this, but I dislike this argument. For the would-be extremist, it seems pretty clear that little in the way of true terrestrial grievance or geopolitical factors need be applied. After all, there are oppressed peoples the world over, and not all of them react in identical fashions.
Very true, however, although it is unlikely that it will cause anyone to hate us more - it certainly gives their apologists excuses for anything bad they might do - and that is not a good idea.
I'm not denying that it 's done, I'm not even denying that it's quite common,I'm not even denying that has become standard practice in some places from time to time. However I am denying that it is the norm.
The problem with most of the examples that you give is that we know about them because they are newsworthy - and by definition that implies that they are unusual and therefore not the norm.
(I do however think that the US practice of plea bargaining is a terrible incentive for bad behaviour by interrogators and I'm happy that we don't have it here in the UK to anything like the same extent)
That this is common practice and is not just the methods of a few bad players has been the subject of a number of reports already.
Can you provide links for this?
Ahmed Muhammed (the clock kid) was isolated from parents and legal council for hours while his principal and local officers tried to wring from him a confession.
Again - a one off case - hence we know about it - and indicative of how things go wrong when people who are not properly trained for this type of work (although perhaps they should have been) go over the top on the basis of what they have seen on TV.
The incident is exemplary of how we regard people who look like terrorists (as we imagine them to be) as less than people
That is a spin that has been put on the incident by people who are tryng to reinforce a certain political line. The facts don't actually support that aspect of the incident in this case. Given the stupid, over the top, "zero tolerance" approach adopted by some schools I am pretty sure that exactly the same thing would have happened to any pupil, regardless of race, or religious implications of the sound of his name.
Having said that, I do agree with you about the "enemy combatants" thing - it was appalling - but this incident is completely unrelated to it.
fact that Law Enforcement's been beating people up to squeal for centuries now, Well actually, in general, in the real world as opposed to tv/film, they don't do that because it doesn't work - and even if it does it is unlikely that the evidence would be usable in court.
The possibility of secure encryption exists within mathematical logic and ways to achieve it are in the public domain.
Any terrorist organisation capable of being a serious threat has to be presumed to be capable of making use of secure encryption - regardless of whether it is in fact built in to commonly used systems.
Any terrorist or organisation that is not capable of creating its own version of well know secure encryption algorithms and hence only uses the most common public platforms will certainly make enough mistakes to be caught anyway - even if those platforms are secure - (or not be capable of any real threat),
It follows that these protestations from the FBI etc are not really about anything other than budget and feelings of importance/control. With the added bonus of being able to spy on your enemies (in the political sense of the word)
As if small commercially available drones (AKA rc model aircraft) which have no practical offensive purpose and where the worst typical accident is something like this is even remotely comparable to guns - the main purpose of which is to injure or kill, where over 10,000 are killed one way or another each year in the US - including typically 100 children under the age of 15.
Droneys, please resist the urge to act like a spazz. Go visit your local EAA chapter, or flight school. Bring donuts, introduce yourself, and get enlightened.
Better go to your local AMA affiliated club (if in the US - here in the UK it's BMFA). They know about RC model aircraft ("drone" just being a fashionable word used by those who have only become aware of these things recently). Fullsize pilots are often fairly ignorant of the ins and outs of RC operation.
Model aircraft have operated over the world with radio control for over 50 years without much in the way of problems with the fullsize. Negotiation over the years between FAA and AMA (BMFA and CAA in the UK) have resulted in sensible rules and conventions that avoid trouble.
Unfortunately recent low cost(Chinese) production and ill advised marketing has made the hobby (and some casual commercial applications) attractive/accessible to people who don't see the need to make contact with existing, experienced, users. Consequently there have been a few incidents - but really - looked at rationally- nothing that ought to be really worrying.
Add into the mix Amazon's downright ridiculous hyping of the "delivery drone" idea and a few politicians who think that some grandstanding in this space will help them and you get the current stupid storm in a teacup.