330 - So, To avert a disruption…
Herewith a political diversion. We’ll see how it goes, shall we?
Fearing that terrorists might attack in an attempt to disrupt the US elections, we’re proposing to enshrine into law a mechanism that would automatically disrupt the US elections in the case of a terrorist attack?
I really think that the idea’s a crazy scheme for the precise reason mentioned. An entire tenet of anti-terrorist policy seems to be based on carrying on as we are, to the maximum extent possible whilst protecting our safety. So, here we’re promising to do just what the terrorists would like. Great idea guys!
We’re starting to get a little over the top in the UK as well, in my opinion. The Home Secretary, David Blunkett, seems to angling for a rather authoritarian regime with some of his latest pronouncements. To me, they include a rather over-emphasis on technology to solve crime. In many ways, many of the ideas being put out seem to be buzzword-ridden and attention-seeking: more DNA testing, electronic tagging and, the latest one I’ve heard, satellite tracking.
Some ideas, such as trying to increase the number of police on the streets I am supportive of. I firmly believe that a greater police presence would reduce drunken violence and other “opportunity” crime, one of our major, growing problems. I wholeheartedly agree with the premise of putting the victim’s rights first, the idea of placing emphasis on the “law-abiding majority”; some of the ideas, however, seem to be straying too far towards the guilty until proved innocent dis-ideal. It all boils down to: is it better to let a criminal go free, or to punish an innocent man? Is the slight benefit to many worth the injustice to the unlucky few?
It seems that many of the terrorist measures both here in the UK and in the States regard a few false positives as but par for the course. While false positives are a fact of life, they should be flagged up as soon as possible; not left for years in a prison camp that seems to be able to be a Great Part Of The US of A when it suits and Completely Separate when that jurisdictional idea appeals. The strange moral high-ground some people in the USA appear to believe they stand on is sometimes sickening in its hypocrisy.