Sweeping new emergency laws to counter UK terror.
By Andy McSmith, Political Editor
23 November 2003
Sweeping measures to deal with terrorist attacks and other emergencies are to be announced this week, giving the Government power to over-ride civil liberties in times of crisis, and evacuate threatened areas, restrict people's movements and confiscate property. [...]
Once an emergency has been proclaimed by the Queen, the Government can order the destruction of property, order people to evacuate an area or ban them from travelling, and "prohibit assemblies of specified kinds" and "other specified activities".
If these rules had been in force during the Iraq war, critics say, they could have been used to to ban street demonstrations, making anyone who travelled to protest guilty of a criminal offence. After a major terrorist attack, forums made up of local councils, the emergency services and utility companies would be put in charge of trying to get shattered communities back together. [...]
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=466424
None of these things of course, will ever PREVENT an outrage from being committed. This is said over and over again, by everyone. No one is listening.
"I told you TWICE that I dont want dressing on my salad!"
I dont care what you want. Eat it.
"what did you say to me? not only am I never coming here again, I am telling all my friends not to come here either. Take this salad back to the kitchen and remove this item from my bill. I am finished".
Clear?
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal
Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington
Thursday November 20, 2003
The Guardian International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law. [...]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
It should be obvious to anyone that the "anti war campaigners" are completely out of touch with reality. They play their part in this scenario perfectly, with thier scripted and dull as dishwater responses; outrage always follow this sort of annouuncement, again and again.
It is clear that all the rules have changed; they have been thrown out of the window. General Tommy Franks says that the US Consitution will not survive a WMD attack, threfore, in order to delete the constitution, all the Richard Perles of this world need to do is
engineer one, and in the future he will proclaim without any guilt, "The US Constitution was in the way of our goal of bringing in the American Millenium. We had to release the lindane over New York to get the job done".
The liberals, alternative media, civil rights campaigners $good_guys will squeal like pigs with fake outrage, and the sheeple will quietly accept it all yet again.
Or maybe not.
No rights destroying law can be enforced without the co-operation of the public. The constitution will survive if the population of the USA refuse to obey the military government BEFORE the attack takes place.
If you dont want salad dressing, and keep getting it served to you, Dont Eat There®. If you keep going back to the same place, get the same bad service, then you only have yourself to blame. I am not even talking about removing the built in tip from your bill. I mean:
Dont Eat There®
big enough?