British

Anti-gun columnist calls for intervention…in the US

Somehow, I get the feeling that columnist Henry Porter isn’t a fan of the Second Amendment.  As he’s a British subject, it doesn’t really matter a whole lot.  After all, he doesn’t get to vote on American issues.  Porter seems to understand this.  That’s why he’s calling for the international community to intervene here in the United States:

That’s America, we say, as news of the latest massacre breaks – last week it was the slaughter of 12 people by Aaron Alexis at Washington DC’s navy yard – and move on. But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.

Maybe because these deaths aren’t even remotely related to one another except that the implement used is the same?:

The annual toll from firearms in the US is running at 32,000 deaths and climbing, even though the general crime rate is on a downward path (it is 40% lower than in 1980). If this perennial slaughter doesn’t qualify for intercession by the UN and all relevant NGOs, it is hard to know what does.

UK Hacking Home Computers Sans Warrants Likely to Increase

Though news of this sort cannot be considered unusual any longer, I still find it insufferable and mildly shocking.  The likelihood of a British citizen having their personal home computer hacked by government authorities, secretly and without a warrant, has increased.  Even more infuriating, this intrusion may be at the behest of a foreign nation, thanks to a recent plan adopted by the EU.

Since the hacking may proceed if an officer believes there is sufficient reason to believe it would help prevent or detect a serious crime, the obvious question is, who decides what is considered “sufficient reason” and what is to prevent abuse of these over-reaching powers?  If there is truly sufficient evidence, why wouldn’t a judge simply grant a warrant?  This would at least grant some oversight.

UK’s Cameron loses Syria vote, Obama to push forward anyway

David Cameron

President Barack Obama finds himself in a tough position on military action his administration is planning against the Syrian government. The White House had been relying on British support for an attack against Bashar al-Assad’s regime, but they were dealt a blow on Thursday evening that could undermine the international legitimacy of their plans for military action.

During an emergency session yesterday, the British Parliament rejected Prime Minister David Cameron’s push for intervention in Syria. Though the vote was non-binding, Cameron has said that he will respect the “views of the British people.”

The vote was also an embarrassment for Cameron, who was unable to convince skeptical members of his own coalition — the 30 Tories and nine Liberal Democrats who voted against intervention — to back his call for military strikes against Assad. The vote is politically damaging to Cameron as there is talk that Labor-led opposition, which smells blood in the water, could call for a vote of “no-confidence” against the Prime Minister’s coalition government.


The views and opinions expressed by individual authors are not necessarily those of other authors, advertisers, developers or editors at United Liberty.