Lock you up and throw away the key?

[ColdFusion]

You’re a law abiding citizen. You make your contribution to society. You abhor violence of any kind. You protest against the Government about a politically sensitive issue, but you’re innocent of any crime.

A tin-pot out-of-touch-with-reality Judge, hell-bent on a peerage, decides, based on ‘evidence’ (that neither yourself nor your legal representative is entitled to have access to) that you are guilty (without trial) based on "the balance of probability" of being engaged in, or associated with, terrorist activities (of which you know nothing).

The DPP states there is “no reasonable prospect of successful prosecution” but despite this, subject to the anti-terror bill going through, the options available to the Government, oops sorry, the Judge are:

[*]House arrest
[*]No access to telephones or the Internet
[*]Lock you up and throw away the key

Mr Blair says, "the security service and the police are advising us that this legislation is necessary to combat terrorism effectively” so that makes it alright then. Welcome to a country where you’re about to lose your civil liberties. Welcome to President Blair’s world.

</rant>

 

[mirabriani]

I am not taking sides but I recognise this is a difficult issue.
Given that you need to protect this country. what would you suggest as an alternative if you believe there are 200 terrorists biding their time?

Briani

 

[ColdFusion]

'Evidence' that can be challenged and a fair trial?

[ QUOTE ]
...if you believe there are 200 terrorists biding their time?

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you believe this? Or is it just propaganda to help achieve Governmental objectives?

 

[sailorman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not taking sides but I recognise this is a difficult issue.
Given that you need to protect this country. what would you suggest as an alternative if you believe there are 200 terrorists biding their time?

Briani

[/ QUOTE ]

they will have to go some to beat the 5000 killed by the MRSA, sponsered by HMG each year.
still they r trying to reduce this figure in a few years to only 3000.
thats alright then. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[poter]

Tend to agree with the non terrorist theory, seem to remember a Tele prog not so long ago that the terrorist threat was a lot of spin from both sides of the Atlantic & very little substance.

But hey big bruver ermm I don't subscribe to anything & Mr Blair should be worshiped. crawl crawl. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[raven]

I think that on balance of probability it is likely that there are a large number of subversives at large in UK society.

The situation concerning illegal immigration is hugely out of control and it is absolutely simple for terrorists to enter this country illegally and unknown.

Immigrants and asylum seekers who present themselves upon arrival into the UK can be processed in a proper and democratic way - the real danger is that for every one that presents him/herself on arrival, there are fifty that just slip in through the back door in trucks, boats and private aircraft.

I cannot see any way that our security can be assurred whilst this is allowed to continue and unfortunately this crude new legislation is a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is already well out of control.

 

[alant]

Nothing wrong with a good Knee jerk if circumstances warrant!

The alternative, which we 'enjoy' now, is to continue to rely upon the jury system.
How much better are the judgements made by those?
Would any of us innocents be confident of a correct verdict?

<this crude new legislation is a knee jerk reaction>
It may be so, but what better way do you know of dealing with any attacker, than a good knee jerk? Preferably well directed into their soft bits. Not likely to hurt them long term, but will bring tears to their eyes, concentrate their attention elsewhere, allowing an individual to escape.
This knee jerk legislation may similarly allow our society to escape serious assaults, crude & brutal though we may become as a consequence.
Anyway, they'll be rewarded with mega compensation from some lottery fund later.

 

[TheBoatman]

Until a couple of months ago I thought I lived with 30 miles of London now I think it might be 30 miles from Moscow?

The thought that I could just be plucked off the street and held without trial or representation on the whim of some polictico or "p***d off plod is somewhat alarming so say the least!

Surely if they (HMG) have reasonable grounds or probability then that should stand up to scrutiny by a judge?

 

[tcm]

ah but

i agree and have misgivings, but the legal systems of evidence after the event come to us fdrom medieval times when the worst that one person could realistically do was kill another, steal thiongs and so on, and the punishment systems assumes that even criminals value their freedom and their lives.

But modern terrorist crimes are potentailly far more damaging to hundreds or thousands of people - it would be too late for evidence. Is someone snooping your house or office? Not done anything wrong, see, so the police can't do anything .

I can imagine (some, very specific and not applyiong to most) circumstances where such a person might be reasonably assumed to be planning a terrorist attack yet with a completely empty criminal record.

9/11, with thousands dead and no criminal trial to follow proved that the normal justice system is irrelevant for such crimes and criminals - they'll kill themselves too.

Can't think that it is a govt objective to get whacked around the commons and the house of lords as an election looms, so i imagine there must be *something* in it, no?

I spose the trouble is of course that with speed cameras, no foxhunting and so on afffecting ordinary citizens - the feeling is that this is "one more nail" against civil liberties, and i suppose it is. However, i think something is needed for this, but the govt tickets are already a bit grubby and they wasted a lot of time chasing people who wanted to kill a fox every other fortnight instead thinking carefully about how to tackle people who want to blow up train stations and office blocks at rush hour.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: ah but

Think you are right. Some measures need to be taken against people who don't mind taking their own lives in terrorist attacks, with no previous record. I was pulled in on Holyhead Ferry port as having Irish name but not Irish connection after visiting Ireland several times in 1 year with work and Irish girlfriend quite a few years back, as I fitted 'sleeper' profile of the time, and had my car taken to pieces as a result....and not put back together anything like it was originally, but I've got over it.

However, the government haven't any credibility after 'weapons of mass destruction' debacle, the US holding of suspects in Guantanamo Bay for years with no legal recourse, the US and UK videos and court martials of prisoner beatings and humiliations, and various other screw ups. Ever increasing speed cameras, worries about imigration, the economy, and forcing through the fox hunting bill, are not good indications of a government in control of the basics.

A very good programme on R4 somewhile back compared Blair to Thatcher, and the civil servants were sure we'd never have gone into Iraq under Maggie, as she would be up all night reading reports and asking civil servants hard questions next day. They said Blair had the ability to take it in, but didn't bother, and relied on verbal briefings.

 

[Talbot]

Re: ah but

To really bring this discussion to a good temperature:

Both sides are admitting that there are problems with this bill, but bliar reckons that it should go through cause he says so. If it is so essential (and I do agree that a proper bill is vital) then why have they allowed considerably less time than was allowed for the Fox Hunting bill!

Personally I find the glee and gay abandon with which bliar and his cronies approach this major infringement on our civil liberties to be extremely alarming. Planning for movement elsewhere has been stepped up a gear.

 

[jimi]

From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

Professor Paul Wilkinson, chairman of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews University

I have no doubt that the government is correct in warning that there is a serious threat of terrorist attack from the Al-Qaeda network or one of its affiliates.

However, in my view the government's proposed new anti-terrorism measure of house arrest without trial for terrorist suspects, no doubt intended to protect national security, would not only involve derogation from Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, it would also be dangerously counter-productive.

The government's argument is that they cannot resort to the courts because they do not have sufficient evidence which can be used in court.

Other democratic governments have dealt effectively with this problem by ensuring that their courts have the means to try such cases properly, for example by allowing intercepts to be used as evidence in court, by appointing special judges cleared to hear evidence pertaining to national security.

Why is the UK unable to strengthen its judicial process by such means?

I would also argue there are major security problems involved. House arrest without trial and other draconian measures would become a recruiting sergeant for terrorist organisations.

The private residences of suspects would become magnets for protests and demonstrations by supporters/sympathisers of the suspects, potentially leading to violent public order confrontations with our already overstretched police, and possibly leading to the escape of the suspects.

It is dangerous to rush through a change in the law which undermines such a fundamental civil liberty. Think what an authoritarian government might do with such a power

 

[tome]

Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

This is the government which, advised by intelligence sources, committed us to a war in Iraq on the basis of reasonable suspicions that they had WMD ready for deployment within 45 minutes.

The very same government are asking us to allow them, on the basis of further undisclosed intelligence, to lock up citizens whenever they wish on the basis of 'reasonable suspicion'. The Lords are pushing for 'balance of probability' to replace reasonable suspicion and for our judiciary to be the arbitrators.

IMHO it should be opposed as the most dangerous piece of proposed legislation in our lifetime.

 

[AlexL]

If there are terroists around and evidence is avaialble then they can be prosecuted using the existing system, if evidence isn't available then tough, they are innocent until proven guilty. End of story. There is no reason, none at all, sufficient to impose such draconion laws. The government are intentionally stiring the pot in order to get this legislation in - they have been doing it for a while - whitness the paedophile hysteria a few years back that resulted in the ability for police to use illegal internet and e-mail snooping and keep information on people who have never been charged with any crime.
What freedoms are worth protecting by removing the very freedom which is being protected? Welcome to the police state - this is the thin end of a very large wedge where guilt is assesed not by a jury of peers but by the home secretary on a political whim. Whats the bet that a terrorist cell is magically discovered amidst a furore of publicity a week before the election?

 

[oldharry]

Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

[ QUOTE ]
Think what an authoritarian government might do with such a power

[/ QUOTE ]

... and you think that Blair is not authoritarian? This legislation stinks - it is quite clearly the thin end of the wedge in that our laws will now allow anyone to be arrested and detained indefintely without trial and without evidence. It would require no further debate to extend it: 1st to ASBO breakers, 'neighbours from hell', speeding motorists, drivers of illegally parked cars, yotties operating unlicensed VHF transmitters (major terrorist threat there sir!)...

you get my gist?

Of course it would never be extended to TRUE criminals: they are 'victims of circumstance' and need support.

"Long term berth on foreign going yacht sought urgently ......"

 

[pessimist]

Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

Have to agree with you. This government (and its predecessors) have lost the trust of the electorate. They are proven liars and manipulators of te truth. Whilst I accept the terrorist threat I cannot accept this kind of draconian legislation for a goverment of such moral poverty.

 

[jimi]

Re: From the BBC .. a quote which eloquently expresses my views

Look at the last line in the above quote!!!

...and I feel I must correct you!

"This is the government which, advised by intelligence sources, committed us to a war in Iraq on the basis of reasonable suspicions that they had WMD ready for deployment within 45 minutes." they were not so advised by intelligence sources!!

and this is the executive which never showed its own Cabinet the legal advice by the AG and refuses to release it now ..

It is high time this country had a proper written constitution with proper constitutional checks and balances. These are slowly being eroded away .. a totalitarian state is not too far away .. not as far fetched as you think!

 

[BobOwen]

As others have mentioned this is a subject that is both extremely sensitive and important to us all.

I am a great supporter of freedom of action and liberties but do have very strong concerns over terrorism. Todays terrorists are technically proficient, very real and know how to manipulate todays liberal and open societies rules to their own advantage.

It is a basis in most terrorist thinking and tactics, to use the very freedoms we all support, to their own advantages. The ease and simplicity that allowed the 9/11 group to enter the states, learn to fly aircraft and carry out their deeds, may be much more difficult today due to increased security and loss of 'freedoms'.

The conundrum is, how does a free society attempt to control or stop such people, while maintaining their "human rights" or indeed the rights of all of us out there ? These are not regular criminals, or regular enemy soldiers. These are often people who are perfectly happy to kill themselves in order to hurt our society. Our society is open to attack from such people and was never conceived or developed to tackle such tactics.

When an opponent has this mindset, regular policing and security is almost helpless in stopping them. Witness the 'success' of human bombers against possibly the worlds strongest security in Israel.

The proposed loss of freedoms disturbs many people, myself included. But the 'enemy' we are up against is bent on destroying our freedoms by utilising them against us.

If those who suggest conventional laws are enough to protect us are wrong, what is the worst that could happen ? Could we pay an unimaginable price with another 9/11 or worse?

If those who support the increased security laws are wrong, we will cause a number of individuals some deprevation of freedom and liberties and in some cases, no doubt, wrongly. Many liberals will be extremely upset.

To those who say conventional policing and security as exists, is enough, I simply ask one question.

"What if your wrong?"

 

[ubuysa]

Well...I've always been a cynic, but I reckon this "bill" has less to do with locking up suspected terrorists and more to do with the upcoming election. The Tories big issue has traditionally been "Law and Order", so how better to spike their main guns than by forcing them to vote againsty a measure that is "supposed" to be about making the coutry safer?

I just can't believe that this government, which in the past has been the master of presentation and spin, could cobble together such an appaling piece of legislation by accident.

I can already hear Tony Bliar on the TV now; "....you can't trust the Tories on law and order, they don't even want to lock up suspected terrorists....". It's all a sham.

Tony C.

 

[jimi]

Bob, I have no doubt that conventional policing etc is no protection against a 9/11 .. in fact I doubt if anything can protect us against sufficiently ruthless and determined suicidal terrorists. The only hopes of reducing the probability of such an attack are:
1) Worldwide intelligence & cooperation
2) Removing the causes of terror.

This proposal does nothing about 1) and increases 2). So IMHO not only will its effect be to erode constitutional rights but also will increase the probability of attacks.