Theresa May: UK will change human rights laws if needed for terror fight

[jpak]

Source: CNN

(CNN)British Prime Minister Theresa May says human rights laws will be changed "if they get in the way" of the country's fight against terror.

Speaking in the wake of a terrorist attack in London that left seven dead, May said she would seek to introduce longer prison terms for those convicted of terrorist offenses and make it easier to "deport foreign terrorist suspects."

The UK goes to the polls Thursday to decide if May's Conservative government stays in power.

Security has become a major issue since the London attack, and May has faced intense criticism in recent days from opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn over her record as Home Secretary, during which she oversaw cuts to police officer numbers by over 20,000.

<more>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/europe/theresa-may-terrorism-human-rights/

[Solly Mack]

1. You can abuse human rights by changing the law, like Bush/Cheney, but you can't

ever change the standards of human rights. Human rights remain human rights, even when you give the abuse of those rights legal cover.

So what does even thinking about doing those things make you?

It makes you a piece of human detritus who thinks human rights are negotiable - and that makes you a danger to all humans.

An imminent danger. A clear and present danger. A danger no different than the one you claim you are against.


Going Bush/Cheney will never stop terrorism. America should have taught you that.

[orangecrush]

2. I couldn't say it better.

Rec your post!

[Solly Mack]

3. I think people who want to abuse human rights and want/get legal cover are worse

than those who make no bones about what they are doing.

Legal abuse, legal cruelty, legal torture - how sick is that concept?

May, like Bush/Cheney, wants legal cover to erode and abuse human rights so she can pretend the UK is still the good guys.

You know, because if waterboarding is legal, then how could it possibly be torture? (for example)

The U.S. government under Bush/Cheney did the exact same thing. Sadly, far too many Americans bought into it.


I'm not saying May wants to include torture in her proposed abuses but I will say that once governments are on that street, they will keep walking.

[Orrex]

4. So... More like "human rights guidelines," then

Or "human rights suggestions."

Or "human rights habits."

Or "human rights tendencies."


You know, like that..

[Denzil_DC]

5. It's been May's ambition to repeal the Human Rights Act

and replace with a UK Bill of Rights for quite some time. I really look forward to living in a country where Theresa May decides what those rights are.

Never let a crisis - of her own making since she was Home Secretary in charge of security before she became prime minister, and has presided over controversial cuts to police and security staffing - go to waste.

Here's Labour's response:

Keir Starmer: UK human rights law does not prevent capture of terrorists

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has said Britain’s human rights law does not prevent the successful capture and prosecution of terrorists, warning that hard-won freedoms should not be traded unnecessarily.

Starmer, a former director of public prosecutions who oversaw dozens of terror cases, said Theresa May was misguided to focus on human rights law rather than policing cuts.

“There is no incompatibility between protecting human rights and taking effective action against terrorists,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights in response to what has happened in the last three months, we are throwing away the values at the heart of the democracy, everything that we say we believe in.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists

[IronLionZion]

6. Why deport? If someone is a terrorist, arrest them.

While it sounds great to deport terror suspects. Who decides who is a terror suspect?

Conservative might decide the local brown liberals are terror suspects and must be deported.

Bloggers or journalists might be declared terror suspects if they're too brown and be deported to be tortured and killed in the Middle East.

Pretty much anyone who gets too uppity and forgets their place could be declared a terror suspect. They could bring back Irish oppression to prove they're not racist. Or pick on Eastern European immigrants.

[christx30]

7. Clip from Channel 4's 'Jihadis next door'

feature London bridge suspect Khuram Butt:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/khuram-shazad-butt-london-attacker-video-documentary-the-jihadists-next-door-channel-4-a7774306.html

He was being monitored by police. And while being monitored, he managed to plan and execute an attack that killed 9 people.
What the hell is the point of monitoring people if this is allowed to happen?
There has to be a line when it comes to speech. Some of the crap they say is vile hate speech. There is a line between expressing valid grievances about government foreign policy and hate speech that is actionable and turns you into a terror suspect under British law. Anjem Choudary could be out of prison next year. He was recruiting fighters for ISIS. The London bridge suspects and the murderers of Lee Rigby have been linked to him. Why should he get out of prison, like, ever? Why not dump him in ISIS controlled territory with nothing but the clothes on his back? If he wants to live in the caliphate so bad, let him.

[IronLionZion]

8. They have to make that line clear and use it

We don't have pre-crime predictive capabilities like in the movie Minority Report yet. Monitoring someone helps collect evidence if they are shown preparing for crime. It's a bit harder to predict they are going to commit the crime.

What planning goes into the London bridge attack? Having a truck and knives? If the police have evidence they were planning to attack people, then they should have been arrested.

I'm all in favor of known ISIS supporters being dropped off in the caliphate with the clothes on their back and be blacklisted from ever coming back. I'm not OK with that happening to someone who simply expresses disagreement with policy.

[Txbluedog]

9. Will change them in the future

because Terrorism is brand spanking new and not like she had the power to do anything as Home Secretary/PM for the last 7 years