42 days to detain terrorists

[ashlee_nicole33]

This sounds just as theoretical as the arguments given by the government for the reasons to hold suspects for 42 days!

 

[apc81175]

Maybe they are theoretical but the first difference is that the burden of proof is not on us. It's for the government to show that the new laws are truly necessary and address the concerns of its citizens and Parliament.

Secondly, as theoretical as these arguments are, they are far from baseless. Of course we can't look into a crystal ball to tell exactly what the government is going to do as a statement of fact but we can make an educated guess. My argument is that there is literally no reason not to extend the current rules on pre-trial detention for other crimes so the government is extremely likely to want to do so in future; if the justification is protecting the public then there is no reason not to. They show a disturbing tendency to believe everything the police tell them, to misrepresent the liberal zeitgeist in order to justify "reforms" and to ignore suggestions made by Parliamentary select committees. Axelator's argument works along a similar theme - you only need to look at world history to see that governments will get away with what they can. It need not be some sinister big brother state wanting to exploit its people for personal gains but it can jsut as easily happen because the government feels it is doing the right thing.

OK, you could say that the government is also making an educated guess based on intelligence from the security services and the opinion of the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, but it has failed to answer suggestions made by the Parliamentary select committees which were also made with reference to senior officials in the criminal justice system. Thus its case has not been made out.

 

[srbim]

they couldnt abuse it for one simple reason. this is an extension on the time to hold terrorists correct? In order to use the law you have to arrest them under the terrorism act which would need suitable grounds to do so or it becomes unlawful arrest which leads to a mass media frenzy especially if the defendant was a minority. (not being rascist, thats just how it is) A loophole in law means that a defendant can only be held and questioned on the offence they were arrested for, so the power couldnt be applied there. Lastly the CPS follow these things and they would be pretty quick to pick up on an unlawful holding. The current 28 day limit is higher than that of other crimes anyway but no ones mentioned that yet.....

 

[Sammyk]

what do you mean a "white british person"? 1. anyone can become british now without too much hassle. 2. yes white people are less likely to be arrested under terrorism but thats simple geography. The "main threat" at the moment is Al Quada which is based in the middle east. A white person can be a terrorist by all means, but Al Quada are a religious terror organisation based on Islam. More ethnic minority people are islamic than white people, that doesnt mean its rascist to arrest an Arab for terrorism

 

[ICGayPeople]

I didn't say that.

What I meant is that it's easy to downplay the threat to civil liberties that this legislation will pose if you know you're extremely unlikely to be affected by it due to your ethnic group. However there is a sizeable group within the British population whose everyday lives WILL be affected by this legislation, contrary to Taff's assertion, so this legislation should not be imposed unless absolutely necessary. Which, again, the government has not demonstrated.

So yes, it's unfortunate but unavoidable that muslims and people of middle-eastern ethnicities are more likely to be arrested for terrorism. But that's not what this is about. This is about whether it's right to detain these suspects without trial for 42 days, not whether it's right to detain them pending a fair trial in the normal way. I don't believe the government or the British population have a sinister racist or islamophobic agenda, but that what's being demonstrated here is a lack of concern for the civil liberties of muslims.

EDIT: for the sake of simplicity I've decided to address both of your recent posts together.



The mere fact that arrests have to be done under the reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime is nowhere near as effective a safeguard against unjust detention as a fair trial brought within reasonable time. That's why we usually require this to happen when someone is arrested for an offence.



What would the CPS do? They can't do anything until a decision is made to prosecute. Even then, they're an arm of the state and they should be held to account in terrorism cases just like any other.



I did. The Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Ken MacDonald QC, believes that the 42 day limit is unnecessary, and this is the guy in charge of prosecuting terrorism cases. In addition, there have only been 3 cases since 2005 when the police used more than 14 days.

In addition to this, you - like the government - have not shown why this power should only be used in relation to terrorism. If you're going to just trust the government to get it right then why bother with fair trials at all?

I will repeat for the sake of clarity:

THE QUESTION IS NOT WHETHER THE STATE SHOULD BE ABLE TO ARREST PEOPLE FOR TERRORISM, BUT WHETHER TERRORIST SUSPECTS SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY TO SUSPECTS OF OTHER CRIMES. THE GOVERNMENT HAS NOT DEMONSTRATED WHY THEY SHOULD.

 

[Ashton]

I do think they should be treated differently to most crimes. There are crimes, such as mass rape or murder, which I think are equally as bad. I personally believe they should be treated differently as terrorists kill innocent people usually by malicious tacticss (such as explosives) On top of that I find Al quada worse in the same way I hated the IRA, because they kill people purely for not believing in their religion. It is, in my view, completely different to kill someone face-to-face because they did something to yuo or your family (I know a lot of murders are for different reasons but I'm using this for simplicitys sake) compared to me saying "right I'm an Aethiest I'm going to kill everyone who has a religion".

 

[Ic3Sk8r333]

If we did not have the ability to hold them for 28 days detention, would you be happy to let them go?


Like I said before, your idea that the government will apply this to other crimes is just as theoretical. What is it based on? If you're against the proposals for lack of justification then fine, I can agree with that, but to suggest that the government is going to apply them to all sorts of other crimes is ridiculous. Since you're claiming that they may you should support the claim. The fact that extended detention requires authorization and review from a judge means that even terrorist related criminals may not even be allowed to be held for extended time, let alone other crimes.


Well I think a) the danger they pose is demonstrably greater and b) the amount of time it takes to build a case against a terror suspect is far greater. I think there is a difference.
I'm not sure if I support the proposal entirely, but in any case I'm not against the principle of it. I do think there are good reasons for the potential need for longer times, but I do think they should be further demonstrated to be a bit more than theoretical.

 

[justsomedude]

42 days is adorable.

Currently in the US if someone decides you're a terrorist/enemy combatant they ship you off indefinitely with no rights. It doesn't even matter if you're a US citizen or not.

Its a very slippery slope to start legislating circumventions of the basic civil/human rights your citizens are 'guaranteed' under your system of laws.

No one wants another catastrophic terrorist attack but we also don't want the equally as dangerous but more insidious erosion of one's basic rights. One day you wake up and you find you're living in a police state with no voice or recourse to change it.

"Those that would give up essential liberty for a little security deserve neither." -- Benjamin Franklin.

"All animals are equal,but some animals are more equal than others." -- George Orwell "Animal Farm"

 

[IUgirl#3]

Part of the issue is that these new laws would inevitably be used against on-terrorists. Do you remember the old geezer who heckled at a labour Party conference, and was arrested under anti-terror laws?

Precisely, who knows what it would be used for some years down the road.
What happens if they decide to redefine truckers blocking up central London, or blocking a fuel depot, as terrorism?

 

[ajaX]

I suppose my point was that the big change has already happened, we're arguing over scraps. Even allowing terror suspects to be held without charge, in my opinion, was not justified. As I said, I don't like the government getting more power than they need. But, it seems like they already have, and so arguing over the extension to 42 days, to me, is not all that important. 28 days? 42 days? 56 days? 79 days? It doesn't really matter, it's all relative trivialities as the damage is already done.

Hence why I don't see how it can effect the majority of people in the country. If Muslims are at high risk of being detained over this, then whether it's 28 days or 42 days it doesn't matter at all. The fundamental change has already occurred. There are bigger problems facing the country, and they are the same all over the world- food prices, fuel prices, house prices. These are the things that effect everyone. Terrorism is a distraction.

 

[aj]

Another completely unecessary step by the Governement to deflect attention and to attract the Sun-fed-BNP-huggers.

Contray to what the Governemnt would like us to believe, terrorism is not becoming more complex, at least not as much as portrayed and the police don't need more power. As the West has wiped out Al-Qaeda and other groups leadership and bought the fight to them you now have a much more serious problem. Now you have decentralised cells that operate without the blessing or training back home. And what fuels these cells? A feeling of insecurity, outrage at occupation and a feeling of being attacked by the Governemnt. And what do you think that will come of this proporsal? Do you think that the Muslim community (cause let's face it the racist Terrorism act only applies to Muslims*) will feel more secure knowing that they can be locked up for a month and interrogated without anybody raising an eyelid as everyone belives Muslims=Terrorists?

Actually the governement tried to get this through before with 90 day except for 42. I believe they lost by the greatest margin in British history. Now they're trying again but a much more easier to digest 42 days. Seeing that there isn't a climate of hysteria, the government will have a harder time pushing this one through unlike the other bills when everyone was screaming "Terrorists are the son of the devil, they must be stopped regardless of human rights"

* Conclusions based on following:

 

[KacieS]

Yes. If the police can't find strong enough proof in the first few weeks then it just seems that rather than there being an iminent threat they're just scratching around to for something to convict the poor man.



Consider for a second what people are being held for. Possession of literature useful for a terrorist, glorifying terrorism ect. Now replace "terrorism" with "drugs", drugs cause a lot more deaths per year yet I don't see any so-called Hip hop artists being locked up for glorifying drugs. Of course not because people would cry "Freedom of speech". Were is our freedom of speech if we're locking up people for possession of of a few fatwas on Jihad and knowledge about stripping rifles**? This was the case of Muhaofftopicd Atif Sadique after 9/11. Enforcement of "thought crimes" are a serious danger to our liberty and could lead the way to other restrictions in all our lives.


*Which means struggle and can occur in the sense of dialogue and financial means. Also, simply having the material doesn't mean you were willing to act upon it. Most people have bibles in their houses, they're not going to act upon it anytime soon...

**Much more detailed knowledge can be aquired in legal defence journals and on the internet.

 

[Crazy_gurl]

But if they have enough reason to suspect terrorist activity, but not evidence to charge. Remember they cannot question suspects after being charged or used intercept evidence in court. Obviously this needs to be changed, but currently, if they charge them they can no longer question them in making their case, and they may have intercept evidence of terrorist activity but they cannot use it, hence the current need to delay charging the suspect.


The point is they need to justify their request to a judge, who will then review the detention. They can't just hold those held on suspected terrorist offenses 43 days if they feel they need to, let alone for a non-terrorism related crime. The basis for the proposal is very specific. There is no way it can be applied to cases which are not within the requirements of the bill. Even if they try to, it's highly unlikely to it would get authorised and there is no way the IPCC would be silent on the matter.

And there a difference between freedom of speech and a incitement or intention of violence. I doubt someone will be prosecuted merely for having a document about something like building a bomb. I'd suspect if they are there would be more to it such as reasonable suspicion behind why they have it, and/or links to questionable people.

 

[poole7577]

Yet what seems to be the case is that the police don't need the extra time. 28 days is more than enough to question suspects and judge whether or not a resonable case can be made.



You're arguing that the law can't be abused, I say (some aspects of) the law is abuse. The fact that they have to justify to a judge isn't the greatest garuntee of no misuse. I would much rather have a panel, judges can also be biased and the police could misrepresent information. For example, you Topher are a judge, I come to you with the following information:

"Mustafa Ali is a bearded asian man that regularly attends a mosque and has distributed material that condems British presence in Iraq. He also has knowledge on fuses and has a degree in chemistry. We also know he visits questionable sites, can we detain him?"

Would you give permission? Consider that everyone, due to biased media, believes that "Muslim" is a synonym for "terrorist".



You're right, that wasn't the whole story. He had visited militant websites and had material about guerilla warfare, if I remeber correctly. But, all of the information he had was freely available on the internet. There were no plans found for any attack. He had not called for attacks on any group.

 

[FashionDiva]

I agree. I don't think the case has sufficiently been made. I'm against the proposals for a few reasons, but I'm not against them in principle as many others are.


I don't think that is enough to warrant being held for 28 days let alone longer. I think the need to be held for up to 42 days would need to be exceptional. I think it would be within his right to distribute material critical of our misadventures in Iraq, providing he didn't incite violent/terrorism in the material.

 

[moretoo]

I fear that what the government are trying to do is, once this law is passed which I’m sure eventually it will be, they will fabricate a story whereby their detaining a terror suspect beyond the 28 days has led to them foiling a big planned attack on society.

Having successfully fooled all the fools, they will then extend this kind of thing in other areas of law, claming they need to detain people for longer.

Welcome to liberty.

 

[Nita]

I dont think they'd get away with it, even the suggestion of it would cost them the next election (if you assume they havn't lost it already). Terrorists are public enemy number 1 and they are having to fight like hell to get this through. I dont see a slippery slope here.

 

[bookmagic01]

The Cons haven't said they would do any different if in power. Just simply look into it at the time they come into office.

 

[Kharisma12]

Think they said it is likely they would reverse it. (Not that I would trust them to do this)

 

[Gabbzlyo]

As you seem to know more about the process than I do, do the police apply for time and then question or do they question and then apply for extra time?

Let's say for example, the Mustafa had distributed literature calling for "Jihad against occupying forces"? What would your response be? Bearing in mind any time more than about a few days would wreck his carer for years.