The death of the UK's democracy

[mr1303]

Today an opposition MP was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation for publicising leaked home office documents that the Government didn't want publicised.

 

In other words, for doing his job properly.

 

The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.

[Codo]

What a silly statement.

 

I don't know this case, but it is not the job of MPs to give secret documents to the public.

 

And if you forgot Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, Mugabe, Idi Amin and about tenthousand other dictators, your historical knowledge is qwuite limited.

Even to put a democratical voted prime minister who did not murdered somebody into a row with these real horrible guys who killed millions is sick.

[luke warm]

Today an opposition MP was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation for publicising leaked home office documents that the Government didn't want publicised.

 

In other words, for doing his job properly.

 

The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

[PassedOut]

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

Surely it depends upon what those documents contained: Cameron condemns Tory leak arrest

 

The leaks thought to be at the centre of the investigation include:

• 
   
  
• The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it.
   
  
• The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons.
   
  
• A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days.
   
  
• A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.
   
  

Governments always like to classify stuff as secret that should be public information. It is vital that people who discover such "secrets" reveal the classified documents to the public. That's why whistle-blower laws are important.

 

Suppose, for example, that the "Pentagon Papers" had not been released in the US during the Vietnam war. Clearly, that information helped to erode public support for the war, and properly so.

[Al_U_Card]

Today an opposition MP was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation for publicising leaked home office documents that the Government didn't want publicised.

 

In other words, for doing his job properly.

 

The 3 most evil dictators of the last 100 years: Hitler, Stalin & Gordon Brown.

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

Can you say "Valorie Plame?"

 

Our ministers leave the docs with their hooker girlfriends....how else can they make some money in a legit fashion?

[NickRW]

I don't know this case, but it is not the job of MPs to give secret documents to the public.

In a literal sense this is, of course, true - or at least it would be if the documents concerned were something genuinely to do with national security.

 

It appears that the documents were little to do with national security, and that use of "anti terrorism" law to justify the arrest was wholly inappropriate - therefore the title of the thread, though melodramatic, is not without some justification.

 

Frankly, I rather hope to be reincarnated on some south sea island a long way away from any western "democracy" and the attitudes that are becoming prevalent in society these days.

 

Nick

[Winstonm]

an opposition MP was arrested under anti-terrorism legislation for publicising leaked home office documents

 

When any country begins to equate opposition with terrorism there is significant risk that loss of freedom will follow.

[helene_t]

The list that PassedOut quotes looks like stuff that ought to be public. Even if the government has no obligation to publish such things, it is surely over the top to arrest someone for publishing it.

[hotShot]

Governments all over the world have used terrorism as argument to implement legislation that should not exist in a free democratic country.

 

All those people who agreed to these laws saying that they have noting to hide, should take a good look at this case. A lot of this legislation has to be corrected or simply removed.

[Winstonm]

The list that PassedOut quotes looks like stuff that ought to be public. Even if the government has no obligation to publish such things, it is surely over the top to arrest someone for publishing it.

The ultimate source of a government's power is in its ability to imprison.

 

The more chilling question is not about this particular case and its outcome but about how this arrest changes the likelihood of challenging the government's actions by the next whistleblower and the next and the next....

[Al_U_Card]

The ultimate source of a government's power is in its ability to imprison kill.

 

Eventually (hopefully) we will change that to benefit.

[luke warm]

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

[hrothgar]

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

[cherdano]

it was his job to make public secret gov't documents? that sounds like a criminal offense to me

Surely it depends upon what those documents contained:

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

Yeah works much better when the government in its infinite wisdom decides subjectively what is secret and what is terrorism...

[helene_t]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7756013.stm

 

Looks as if this was a case of some policemen getting hyperactive. There is no indication that the gov't had anything to do with it.

[NickRW]

Looks as if this was a case of some policemen getting hyperactive. There is no indication that the gov't had anything to do with it.

Yeah, I dare say.

 

But to suggest that the government had nothing to do with it is daft helene - they introduced the stupid legislation in the first place!

[Codo]

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

 

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

[Winstonm]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7756013.stm

 

Looks as if this was a case of some policemen getting hyperactive. There is no indication that the gov't had anything to do with it.

Most police are government employees who derive their power from the state - making it somewhat hard to differentiate stritctly police action from government sanctioned action.

[Trinidad]

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

 

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

That's why we call that time the stone age and the time after Nurenberg 'civilization'.

 

Rik

[Codo]

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

 

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

That's why we call that time the stone age and the time after Nurenberg 'civilization'.

 

Rik

Stupid me, I did not know that the beginning of civilization was 1945 in Germany.

[PassedOut]

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

 

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

Roland, you make quite a strong statement here, and I'm curious about your basis for writing it. In fact, it looks so wrong to me that I think I may not be understanding you correctly.

 

It seems to me that outside of the military, following orders has long been a discretionary matter in civilized society. And the Nuremberg trials established that blindly following orders is not acceptable in the military either.

 

While it's generally useful to follow orders to maintain a well-functioning society, we've always (in my opinion) relied upon people to subvert authority, when necessary, by refusing to follow unjust or oppressive or just plain stupid orders. On a major level in modern history, we've had people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. And on a minor level we've had millions of normal people who stand against the excesses of those in authority.

 

The Green case we are discussing here looks to me like it fits squarely within the latter group.

[gwnn]

what did the milgram experiments prove, if they proved anything?

[Codo]

well i guess we could have a system where all our legislators privy to secret gov't documents get to decide subjectively what to publicize and what not to... maybe that would work

 

"Just following orders" has been discredited since Nuremberg, if not before

"Not following orders" has been discredited since the stoneage, if not before.

Roland, you make quite a strong statement here, and I'm curious about your basis for writing it. In fact, it looks so wrong to me that I think I may not be understanding you correctly.

 

It seems to me that outside of the military, following orders has long been a discretionary matter in civilized society. And the Nuremberg trials established that blindly following orders is not acceptable in the military either.

 

While it's generally useful to follow orders to maintain a well-functioning society, we've always (in my opinion) relied upon people to subvert authority, when necessary, by refusing to follow unjust or oppressive or just plain stupid orders. On a major level in modern history, we've had people like Ghandi and Martin Luther King. And on a minor level we've had millions of normal people who stand against the excesses of those in authority.

 

The Green case we are discussing here looks to me like it fits squarely within the latter group.

Richard made a quite short statement. I guess it is not his opinion that to follow rules and orders is always wrong, because this would be plain stupid and not workable in any society.

 

Nor did I meant that blindly following rules and orders is the right way. Of course this is not.

But I guess that most of us do follow more orders in their life then breaking them and they do not even realize how many orders these are.

F.E. You cannot play any game if you do not follow the order how to play it. However, our form of bridge had never been developed if anybody had always followed the rules of Whist.

 

And I guess that Ghandi, to take your example had been less successful when his fellowers had not followed his orders where and when to demonstrate but had choosen the time and place for their own.

 

So following the rules makes a society/company/any group of people work. But you are responsable for what you are doing and which rules and orders you follow.

 

This is what Nuremberg and the milgram experiment showed.

[PassedOut]

So following the rules makes a society/company/any group of people work. But you are responsable for what you are doing and which rules and orders you follow.

 

This is what Nuremberg and the milgram experiment showed.

Thanks, Roland. I agree.

[blackshoe]

Stupid me, I did not know that the beginning of civilization was 1945 in Germany.

Neither did I. Ya ask me, "civilization" hasn't happened yet. :)