priorities

I'm just listening to the Guardian politics podcast and they went from talking to the economy to talking civil liberties. in all honesty, the economy is far more important. at the end of the day, i care about having a job and a decent standard of living far more than the civil rights of suspected terrorists. i would imagine most people are the same.
with growth stallling and inflation rising i'm worried about my job, i'm worried about my medium to long term prospects too and the idea of getting blown up doesn't help on that.
as someone who thinks terrorism is a terrible thing i'm not entirely sympathetic even though i'm a big believer in personal freedom and liberty

David Miliband

Damn it Miliband, D!
what am i to do now eh?
first cruddas comes out in support of him, then i listen to DM on the guardian podcast.
i've never liked David Miliband, and he's been in 4th place. but the faults and inexperience of the other 3 have always left the door a bit ajar for him.
whilst i didn't like much of what he said, the bit at the end when they got onto the really serious stuff impressed me. he was talking about balancing torture again human rights and i think he was very good. i personally am more on the side of security than human rights provided certain conditions are met, e.g. ticking bomb or certainty. if, for example, you are certain someone is a terrorist i have no problem with them being tortured as i believe someone who sets out to indiscriminately kill innocent people is a far greater risk to freedom than upholding freedom through torture, personally.
Miliband wasn't nearly so up front as that, but he certainly didn't rule it out and made the case for that sort of progmatism in light of the necessities.
the alternative is the risk that innocent people die and terrorists have their rights to do this upheld

Pro-torture, anti-civilisation | Henry Porter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

Firstly, it's a shame that an attempt at provoking debate has been attacked like this.
Secondly, if it does come down to the rights of the bloke trying to kill you, or the lives of innocent people, the innocent people live and the terrorist suffers.
Now this is all hypothetical because it's based on huge assumptions - that torture works, that the intelligence is right etc. etc. but removing those and just getting all philosophical, I saw fuck em. If X, Y and Z conditions are met, then those who advocate violence against innocent parties should loose the right to their liberty. If that means them being tortured so that those they seek to destroy may live, then so be it.
It is when there is doubt cast on any of the factual basises underlying this theory that problems arise. Then I think a pragmatic approach is right. Torture should be avoided as much as possible, but should not be ruled out when the lives of the innocent are on the line.
And if there is a case where the innocent children of a terrorist are facing torture then the utilitarian principle must come to the fore.
It's not a nice business, and justifying torture is not nice for a liberal Socialist like me, but if terrorists weren't trying to bomb people into submission in the first place, we'd be in a happier place.
I may be a liberal but I'm not a bleeding heart type.

A deliberately provocative article, but I think a brilliant one. I've said before that we need to decide as a country whether we are prepared to die free or live with torture on our conscience.
There are some very deep philosophical arguments in there, but they are not immediate. In the absence of the debate outlined above, the controlling forces (government) of the day will most likely choose the pragmatic option and choose to live. Survival at all costs in the face of a willing destroyer.
Torture should be used sparingly, only where the situation demands it and reliable results can be obtained from it. But it must remain an option. I agree that in the choice between the freedom of a willing terrorist and the lives of innocent people, the wife and child may be called upon to suffer. Sadly. But if the husband/father wasn't trying to kill innocent people, we wouldn't be in the situation in the first place

personally i think it's better to due free, but i'd damn sure want some agreement first

The Telegraph's toxic attack | Henry Porter | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

""Every time they are asked to choose between the defence of the realm, or upholding the rights of some Islamic militant who claims his human rights have been violated, the judges invariably find in favour of the latter.""
Pretty much a paint-by-numbers right-wing paper opinion piece. The same thing, in slightly different words, comes out again and again.

On torture. It comes down to how willing people are to die free or live under a government that may use torture. I think, as much as possible, the country should decide. If someone is willing to take the lives of others for their own ends, should not their life be considered expendable? Their liberty too.
Are we willing to have our family and friends cut down in their prime for the freedom of someone who would take advantage of freedoms they would not grant us? That's the decision this country needs to make, but must also always be careful to keep re-thinking.

Daily Mail bollocks story of the day

"Modern hairdressers? They're as bad as Guantanamo Bay"
No, they're not. End of.