Harry’s Place

Not too long ago, a young Brtish woman from Croydon was found murdered in Perugia. Apologies to all who knew her for using this case to illustrate a point.

Italian Police arrested several people and investigations continue. They put what they had in front of a Judge. Judge agreed there was a case to answer and said come back in a year if they were not ready to charge the people detained. None had been charged in the way that we understand in English Common Law.

That’s quite normal in Roman Law countries.

Why are there critics claiming the UK government proposals for complicated terrorist cases involve periods of pre-charge detation that are unknown in other democratic countries? Why aren’t journalists asking those critics any searching questions?

Why not just oppose the legislation as it is, rather than misrepresenting it?

Who is misrepresenting it? The article you linked to certainly doesn’t.

Opposition to the proposals is based on the principle which Brown states himself above -

So our first principle is that there should always be a maximum limit on pre-charge detention. It is fundamental to our civil liberties that no one should be held arbitrarily for an unspecified period.

For many of us 28 days is long enough, and even that is stretching the boundaries of acceptability. Some people oppose the proposals purely on principle, others on the grounds that the government has produced no evidence that a further extension of the time limit is neccessary.

My problem with the legislation is that nobody has made a fully fleshed out, positive case for 42 days.

I want to be told, specifically, that investigations have been seriously prejudiced by 28 days. This hasn’t happened.

This proposal is better than the preceeding ones: in that it involves a greater degree of judicial oversight. But that shouldn’t have been a concession: it should have been a fundamental of the original proposal.

I agree with David T, and would also say that a justification for the 42 days would be welcome - you know. using the same methodology that one might use time-estimating any other project.

But I also agree with Neil D that many critics are disingenuous and some appear to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that there isn’t a serious threat of terrorism in this country and that no one is plotting to blow up airports, trains, restuarants and night clubs. It’s not that the government doesn’ have a reason to look into this.

But I also agree with Neil D that many critics are disingenuous and some appear to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that there isn’t a serious threat of terrorism in this country and that no one is plotting to blow up airports, trains, restuarants and night clubs.

Sorry, but I really don’t believe that the vast majority of critics think this at all.

The whole “power of nightmares” type thinking does seem to have declined in the last few years, somewhat.

Neil D: The judicial and parliamentary oversight protect people from just being locked up for 42 days for no reason. Why don’t critics acknowledge this?

Critics acknowledge that those measures exist, they are just not convinced that they will be effective.

The European HR commissioner, a fair number of MPs, Lord Goldsmith, the EHRC, and former and serving senior police officers are among those critics.

And the current system isn’t as bad as France either. Indeed it is even better than the proposed system. So if having the better system is a major criterion then the course of action should be clear.

The judicial and parliamentary oversight protect people from just being locked up for 42 days for no reason

Such touching faith in the state. I like the resort to moral relativism at the end; Johnny Foreigner is worse so… that’s all right then.

I agree with Brett & David on the case not having been made.
Unfortunately,the politics of all this mean that its got tangled up with Browns status as leader.So we’ll get the usual dogs dinner of compromise and amendment so that Brown can portray himself as enjoying the ” overwhelming support of the PLP”.
If 42 days is right, someone make the case.
If not,drop the bill.

On the subject of those who don’t believe there is any threat.
I presume Simon Jenkins wrote an article yesterday claiming that the security procedures around Danish Embassies were unnecessarily tightened because of a cartoon.

Jenkins is a clown

What do folk think of Phillip Bobbitt’s argument (on Start the Week and in his latest book) that the time for putting in place restrictive legislation is preemptively, when there is a lull, so that it can be debated and framed calmly, rather than left to the aftermath of a catastrophe, when the panic and urgency will precipitate far worse laws.

Trouble is, who knows whether what we have is a lull?

I think a panic would precipitate “worse” laws in any case.

In Germany, suspects can be held indefinitely with a judge reviewing cases every six months.

Doing something just because - as Benji so quaintly put it - ‘Johnny Foreigner’ is doing it is not a good argument, I’d agree, but equally, the fact that other well-established democracies with their own liberal traditions and facing lesser threats have such laws should give knee-jerk oppositionists here pause for thought. This is not an unprecedented attack on civil liberties and the end of human rights in the UK as we know them.

It’s the same with ID cards and calls to bring back some form of national service, both practised widely in other European democracies. There are good arguments against both, but I’d be a bit more impressed if the bulk of them did not claim that their introduction here heralded the emergence of a post-Orwellian police state.

Quite frankly, I’m quickly coming to the conclusion that this coutnry in inhabited by paranoiac weirdos. After the travestys of the “I’d Do Anything…” and “Britain’s Got Talent” results on Saturday night, I’d say we’ve got no collective taste, to boot.

I totally disagree with 42 days. It should be 41 and a half days. 42 days is too long.

Indeed Brownie, I too think the civil liberties ravers are just mentally ill paranoiacs rather than logical thinkers.

Or perhaps they just aren’t very clever or well informed and get easily led. As you say other European countries have ID cards and far stricter rules on keeping suspects in custody yet we still get ridiculous hyperbole about any changes to our laws from the likes of Shameful Chakrabati.

Its like the argument about getting rid of juries (or even removing the idiotic rules re what jurors might read about a case). Most countries do not have juries and run perfectly adequate legal systems but whenever this issue is brought up you’d think getting rid of juries was something that was going to destroy the country.

And as usual our media doesn’t bother to properly question these paranoiacs, it just allows them to spout this ill thought out nonsense without question.

1) The maximum limit. The case hasn’t been made for why 42 days is the “right” choice. Why is it now right compared to the previous requests up to 90 days or so? There has been no justification so why should it be accepted?

2) Why is it the decision of a politician as to who gets held or not? Why are the police not the people that decide with the requirement of being backed up by a judge? Why are politicians, who’s very careers rely on not making the wrong decision (read: the decision that could lead to a terrorist attack happening) in the public eye the ones who are charged with making these sort of decisions about other peoples lives?

3) So how many details about the person being held without charge are going to be made available to parliament? Any debate that ensues is public, so there can’t be any sensitive information available to debate or decide on, and as such how can the decision be informed? And even if it *is* informed, see 2) above, how many politicians are going to vote to allow a captive to be let back out if there is the slightest chance of them doing something (even if there is no evidence yet?). Who wants to be the MP that let a terrorist free?

4) This is the only sensible way to do it, and this part (including the judiciary) means that any parliamentary involvement is absolutely pointless, except that the home secretary for some reason is the only person that can specifically target individuals.

5) This sort of thing is all well and good, but doesn’t help someone that is kept in a cell for 42 days without any evidence proving they’ve done anything wrong and then let free. Especially if they’re going to tout the above reasons as to why they shouldn’t feel guilty for having kept them captive for no reason for so long.

“I too think the civil liberties ravers are just mentally ill paranoiacs rather than logical thinkers.”

Ah, that won the argument. Good job. Shami Chakraborti should be given a Section 3 and the keys thrown away. Anyone who does not believe that the State always knows best and acts for our own good is obviously deranged.

Dan - do you support taxation by the UK state ? If so I presume you believe it is spent generally correctly and in the interests of the people. So when new taxes are proposed to be raised for new spending I imagine you do not automatically reject them because the state is corrupt and incompetent and will misuse the money ?

[NB I am assuming you are not a Libertarian Right Winger here].

Given the above, why do you assume that the UK state will misuse any new civil and criminal powers it is given ?

As for Chakraborti (sic but nice one !) I think she is an unthinking clown and should be banned from our airways (for a starter).

“Given the above, why do you assume that the UK state will misuse any new civil and criminal powers it is given ?”

Anti-terror laws were recently used to spy on people fishing…and also to spy on a family to make sure they were from the catchment area for their school. And you honestly ask us why, on the subject of terror legislation, we assume the state will misuse this power?

Besides it’s not quite assuming they’ll misuse it, more that we assume they’ll just get things wrong, as they have had a tendency to do recently with sensitive issues and data.

Besides it’s not quite assuming they’ll misuse it, more that we assume they’ll just get things wrong, as they have had a tendency to do recently with sensitive issues and data.

Indeed. I’m more worried about crapness than about conspiracy.

Lee - you could argue the same about taxes. The UK Inland Revenue is always screwing things up and has a history of misusing data as you might remember.

So we should stop any tax rises until the IR is reformed and totally without fault then ?

As with anything else these arguments have to proceed from realistic and non-hysterical assumptions. Refusing to allow any increases to civil powers by the UK state because of the minor issues you are talking about is absurd.

Its like saying Parliament shouldn’t have the power to raise taxes because some MP’s have historically fiddled their expenses.

Comparisons with France, Germay and other continental countries are not really a good benchmark, are they? They’ve a completely different legal system, and I’d be interested to see if any of those using Roman law as a comparative basis would care to make the case for it being an altogether better system than the one we’ve got.

As it is, English common law has certain principles - presumption of innocence, habeus corpus, severe limits on the right of the state to lock you away for long periods without charge, the right to trial by a jury of your peers, the right to have the evidence tested against you in court (not by a panel of MPs) etc - and as such, 42 days does seem to weaken those principles unnecessarily.

When the government is reduced to sending out unprincipled little weasels like Jack Straw to split hairs over the precise operation of the law (which he strongly hints he’s opposed to anyway) it’s a fair assumption that there is isn’t an overwhelmingly good and solid basis. That the government would like extra powers in case it needs them isn’t really a good argument.

W’ve forgotten that sometimes you have to resort to drastic measures just to preserve safety and liberty for the great majority.
The main requirement of these detention measures is to stipulate a mandatory review within a period of, say, a year, with the provision expiring unless its effectiveness can be demonstrated. Otherwise the danger is that it will be misused. Let’s not forget how automatic 90-day detention was wielded in apartheid South Africa.

The problem with terrorism (specifically conspiracy to commit terrorist acts) is that it may require a lot longer to build a detailed case than it does for other serious offences, simply because it has an international dimension.

“Given the above, why do you assume that the UK state will misuse any new civil and criminal powers it is given ?”

The British state - or any state for that matter - can misuse powers or can be incompetant. Anti-terrorism legislation is routinely misused in dealing with matters that are nothing to do with terrorism. A parliamentary oversight committee is a ridiculous concept and unlikely to prevent such abuses. Moreover, the whole 42 day length of detention without trial is absurd and arbitrary - why not support indefinite detention if you think the “safeguards” proposed are adequate? I see no adequate justification for this legislation and no reason to give politicians more judicial powers. It’s not just a matter of civil liberties, but actually coming up with sound, water-tight legislation. Because if it goes badly wrong - as previous attempts to do this have shown - it will not only cause serious problems for some innocent people, it will completely upset any counter-terrorism strategy. A legislative balls up is the best way to create confusion, hesitancy and doubt within the security services.

“As for Chakraborti (sic but nice one !) I think she is an unthinking clown and should be banned from our airways (for a starter).”

If you really thought this, you’d be in favour of a totalitarian state.

“As for Chakraborti (sic but nice one !) I think she is an unthinking clown and should be banned from our airways (for a starter).”

Very Stalinist. Are you an ex communist?
You guys really are neo cons. I cannot believe anybody would support 42 day detention sans charge under the current climate of the fraudulent war on terror.
You actually assume that the judicial oversight complies with international norms for terrorism cases. In cases of overseas ‘terrorists’, security vetted counsel and judiciary(siac) are allowed access to the ‘evidence’ allegedly implicating the suspect.
The suspect has no idea what he is being charged with and it is a Kafkaesque nightmare for many of them.
Why should we dispense with centuries long traditions just because the security services are too lazy, inept to produce evidence in court and therefore detain suspects for 7 weeks in legal limbo?

Ever since 9/11, many government’s have used the threat of terrorism to curb civil liberties and human rights. This is a prime example of this bullshit war on terror.

“Refusing to allow any increases to civil powers by the UK state because of the minor issues you are talking about is absurd.”

Comparing tax errors that can be rectified to incarcerating a person for 42 days when they’re potentially innocent is, to be blunt, insane. And you ask people like me to reside in reality?!

“The problem with terrorism (specifically conspiracy to commit terrorist acts) is that it may require a lot longer to build a detailed case than it does for other serious offences, simply because it has an international dimension.”

I don’t think anyone disagrees that it can take time…the question is how long does someone have to be kept locked up without any legal support because of what effectively mounts to a hunch by the state that they haven’t quite pinned down yet? Find the appropriate burden of proof needed to charge someone, charge them, allow post-charge questioning and let the person have all the legal rights that are befitting of a suspected criminal that is innocent until proven guilty. There seem to be far too many people at the moment willing to accept we should drop that simple principle and start treating people as guilty until we can’t any longer legally hold them to find out they’re any more guilty than we did previously.

Dan - you go on about how a cock-up might be made and be bad for the anti-terrorism campaign. The possibility of mistakes being made under any law (wrongful imprisonment does still happen you know) does not mean the law should be abolished - obviously.

And you have not anwered my analogy re taxation.

On banning S Chakrabarti, let me be clearer. She should be allowed on the airways as long as someone with a more sensible and balanced view (ie most of the population) is brought on to argue against her each time. At the moment this doesn’t happen IMHO, so given the status quo she shouldn’t be allowed on.

If a bomb goes off in central London, killing hundreds, and the Police said they needed more time to detain the suspects in excess of 28 days, then I suspect Parliament would be recalled in order to ensure they get the time they needed.

It is therefore preferable that such legislation is done now, rather than in the wake of an atrocity.

I do, however, wish Brown had not wrapped it up with his leadership. Parliament as a whole should be held accountable for the decision they make as a collective. If it is Parliament’s view that 42 days, even with the safeguards, is not needed, then Brown should say:

“Well, we would have preferred you give us the tools we need to carry out our task, but we accept that this is not the general view and will work within the existing legislation. Be warned that we may need to revisit this legislation if the civil contingencies legislation does not allow us to effectively pursue terrorists in the wake of atrocities or foiled terrorist attacks, but the public should be aware that the government has done all it can now to protect their safety”.

Basically make this issue about Parliamentary oversight, rather than whether Brown is a waste of space (which is no longer a moot point).

Comparisons with France, Germay and other continental countries are not really a good benchmark, are they?

With respect, you would say that, wouldn’t you? As before, those in favour of 42 days have to do slightly better than simply highlight the practices of our European partners as if this settles the argument, but equally it is relevant to point out that Britain wouldn’t be doing anything unique as regards 42 day detention and indeed would still be lagging behind the likes of Germany, France and Italy in the detention without trial stakes.

For the record, I’m pretty much ambivalent about the proposals, although I don’t quite follow the logic that demands we have to have been in a situation where we’ve been forced to release suspects after 14 or 28 days who’ve then gone on to commit a terrorist outrage in order for 42 days to be justified. Seems somewhat arse about face, to me.

I just learned on the BBC site that we can already detain people for 30 days over whatever the maximum limit of the day is, so long as the government has announced a state of emergency. In the event of a 9/11 type attack in the UK, I imagine that’s exactly what the government would do.

I just learned on the BBC site that we can already detain people for 30 days over whatever the maximum limit of the day is, so long as the government has announced a state of emergency. In the event of a 9/11 type attack in the UK, I imagine that’s exactly what the government would do.

Does that option has less safeguards (in terms of judicial and parliamentary review) in place that the proposed legislation?

Lee - people go to prison for tax offences as well you know and the tax authorities have some very strong powers re investigation ie they don’t need warrants for some types of searches. Were you aware of that ? And no doubt sometimes mistakes are made in those cases with very bad consequences for those concerned.

Also of course the IR has recently screwed up massively re tax credits and left a lot of poor people owing them money they can’t afford to pay back.

So why don’t you look on proposed tax rises/changes with the same distrust as changes to UK civil and criminal powers ?

MoreMediaNonsense: I believe that those that go to jail for tax offenses are CHARGED for having done so and thus get all of the legal rights of seeing what the evidence is against them so that they can refute it. I’m not saying that the system is perfect, obviously, but at least those people wronged by the state are able to defend themselves within the realms of the law.

Lee - to be clear - do you think people should be held without charge ever then ? Or is it just the number of days you object to ? Is 28 (or 5 or 10 whatever) OK for you but 42 not ?

A judge will review it every week and in effect it will rarely used and only for the serious terror offences. There really isn’t any reason to oppose it. Opposing something like this on ‘principled grounds’ is not on.

However, on the other hand, it would be sorta funny to see what happens if Brown loses.

Just saying.

Indeed Mike, its only paranoid maniacs like Shameless Chakraborti who are against it.

[I'd except extreme Right Wing Libertarians from the above of course - they at least have a logical position]

Does that option has less safeguards (in terms of judicial and parliamentary review) in place that the proposed legislation?

Not sure. My guess is it requires no judicial oversight whatsoever given a state of emergency is a pre-requisite.

Truth of the matter, most Brits like me who would be hoorified by this have realised that we are now subject to the legal system of those other EU countries, we can be taken into custody as a UK citizen even when in the UK, there is no need for a hearing on extradition and they can be held indefinately while investigating the crime. I seem to remember that one young chap got taken back to Spain for a crime he did not commit and was held in a Spanish jail for a couple of months. Truthfully I could not give a monkeys on this 30 day, 42 day issue, it doesn’t matter anymore.

The idea that Shami Chakraborti is “unthinking” or a “paranoid maniac” is laughable. She has the respect of those she opposes and always has a sound and balanced argument. She is incredibly clever and even if you profoundly disagree with her, condemning her as insane just undermines your own position - particularly as your psychological assessment appears to be your main grounds for opposing civil libertarians like her.

I still don’t understand why 42 days is necessary. If the safeguards are sufficient, then why not indefinite detention under the parliamentary oversight deems the accused can be set free? If the safeguards are insufficient for indefinite detention, then why are they sufficient for detention for a limited period?

She’s not paid to be “balanced” Dan, so why do you think she is ? If she was totally balanced in her arguments she wouldn’t be a figurehead for a pressure group would she. She’s employed to put one side of the argument.

IMO the arguments of Liberty that anything the goverment does to make it more difficult for terrorists are “a slippery slope” towards dictatorship and bad because mistakes might be made are absurd and indeed likely to be held mainly by paranoid maniacs.

From the Liberty website http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/issues/2-terrorism/index.shtml :

“Since the Prevention of Terrorism Acts of the 1970s terrorism laws have done little to ensure that we are safe from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the human rights and civil liberties of those living in the UK.”

Do you think that is true ? I think its entirely wrong in every way.

If the safeguards are insufficient for indefinite detention, then why are they sufficient for detention for a limited period?

So you’re arguing for 0 days detention without trial?

These insane vitriolic attacks on Shami Chakribati, calling her “mentally ill” and calling for her to be “banned from airlines” is nothing but a sign of desparation from the people that advocate 42 days detention, ID cards etc. You’ve lost the argument guys, just admit it.

Slightly OT but see here how the ghastly Ms Chakrabarti reacts to a real issue of liberty and free expression : http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/publications/pdfs/freedom-of-expression-feb-06.PDF

“LIBERTY CALLS FOR SENSITIVITY OVER CENSORSHIP”

The title says it all really doesn’t it ? Read the article, its truly nauseating.

Ha ha ha ha ha hilarious - “banned from airlines”. Not quite what I meant, but I see what you might think.

Now you mention it though… :)

No doubt that one will be on Islamophobiawatch or the Decentipedia by now or something.

MediaNonsense: I believe there is justification for a small amount of days detention for any crime under current law to allow the police enough time to question their suspect. I believe currently (correct me if I’m wrong) that it is 1 day and they can ask for more from a judge. This is sensible as it allows, under current law, someone to be questioned to strengthen a case people think they have, or to ascertain a likelihood of guilt before deciding on what to charge them with (if anything).

Can I just ask, given we live in a system where this government has made it easy for the police and other authorities to spy on anyone they believe might be breaking the law or trying to, why it is that the police can’t simply keep tabs on those they believe to be terrorists for 28, 42 or 90 days until they have enough proof that they’re doing wrong to arrest and charge them?

Or is this ultimately an admittance by the government that they can’t be bothered to resource our security services enough to utilise already liberty contravening laws to do the job effectively so have to create more legislation to cover that up?

“Since the Prevention of Terrorism Acts of the 1970s terrorism laws have done little to ensure that we are safe from terrorist attack, but much to infringe the human rights and civil liberties of those living in the UK.”

I’d say a whole raft of IRA bombings and four attempts by muslim extremists (one successful, one pathetic, one dodgy wiring and one tackled by a passer-by) on this country since the 1970s can’t really be too wrong, can it Media?

Does that option has less safeguards (in terms of judicial and parliamentary review) in place that the proposed legislation?

Not sure. My guess is it requires no judicial oversight whatsoever given a state of emergency is a pre-requisite.

In that case, if your guess is true, it would be correct to say the terror legislation Brown is proposing is a positive step forward for civil liberties, compared to the situation that currently exists.

Chakrabarti more or less has her heart in the right place and is nobody’s fool, but I do think think Liberty is a little too self-satisfied and smug for its own good at times, and Shami gives a good impression of someone who has started to believe her own press.

Was Liberty really founded to help protect speeding motorists find loopholes in the law?

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/07/03/liberty_if_it_means_anything.php

Neil: The situation that currently exists is that we’re not in a state of emergency. What legislation is like for state of emergency detention without charge is a separate issue. I’m sure that people that are opposed to the current 42 days fight are also opposed to lack of judicial review during a state of emergency, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to drop arguing against 42 days while it is going up for a vote just because that situation exists elsewhere. I guess perhaps you don’t advocate votes for 16’s because currently they can’t vote and that’s good enough? Or perhaps are a bit annoyed that women get a vote because legislation historically said they couldn’t.

What a preposterous point to argue in favour of 42 days…

I’d say a whole raft of IRA bombings and four attempts by muslim extremists (one successful, one pathetic, one dodgy wiring and one tackled by a passer-by) on this country since the 1970s can’t really be too wrong, can it Media?

Which is like saying that anti-hooligan measures taken since the mid-80s have done nothing to curb violence in and around football matches because you can still get punched on the way to see Tottenham against Arsenal.

Bollocks, in other owrds.

I’m not saying Liberty’s argument is correct, Brownie, but it’s hardly “completely wrong” is it? It’s not like terror legislation has actually stopped it happening is it?

“If a bomb goes off in central London, killing hundreds, and the Police said they needed more time to detain the suspects in excess of 28 days, then I suspect Parliament would be recalled in order to ensure they get the time they needed.

It is therefore preferable that such legislation is done now, rather than in the wake of an atrocity.”

Yes, let’s legislate out of fear. It still won’t wash, no matter how you try and dress it up. Fear is what is driving this authoritarian legislative proposal. Once you freak the masses out about dangerous terrorists and ‘complex’ case building, the next stage is obviously authoritarian laws.
We have been here before with Diplock courts, internment and they were such a resounding success that they recruited many an IRA volunteer. Will we ever learn from history?

Kiguthara: Quite, and it just makes me sad that we as a nation tend to look towards people like Israel and Palestine and ask why they can’t just sort their problems out with diplomacy and rational policies, when in reality our government is dragging us back to a stance we should have long ago learned from and evolved out of.

Lee - countless terrorist plots have been caught since the 1970’s and the IRA was defeated partly because of UK policing and intelligence activities. And you think none of this was due to anti-terrorism laws ?

As to 42 days, personally I think its justified in a small number of cases subject to judicial review for the reasons people have advanced here. What I can’t stand are the hyperbolic arguments about it being a terrible disaster for our liberties and a “slippery slope” to a police state. That is paranoid lunacy and I make no bones about saying it.

“And you think none of this was due to anti-terrorism laws ?

As to 42 days, personally I think its justified in a small number of cases subject to judicial review for the reasons people have advanced here.”

Yeah, the Diplock courts, internment really helped defeat terrorism in Ulster. Come on, the muslims are the Irish or the 21st century.
Who’s next? Who will be the ‘5th columnists’ in 20 years time?

Judicial scrutiny of ‘evidence’ is heavily stacked against the defendant as outlined earlier. The SIAC courts are kangaroo courts in which normal rules don’t apply. Secret court hearings are hallmarks of dictatorships.
Remind me why Ian McDonald QC, quit as counsel on these cases.

kiguthara - jury trials in NI during the troubles as opposed to Diplock courts would have been far worse for injustices, given the sectarian divide. Internment could have worked IMO if it had been done on a massive scale to both sides backed up by more force. Extreme measures against militias do work - look whats happened to the Mahdi army in Iraq recently.

As for the rest of your stuff its the usual paranold lunacy I’m afraid. “Kangaroo courts”, “hallmarks of dictatorships” - get real mate. Do you really believe judges in this country are in league with the government to oppress Muslims ? What about the recent ruling re control orders ?

Your comments are an insult to people who really live under dictatorships

“What I can’t stand are the hyperbolic arguments about it being a terrible disaster for our liberties and a “slippery slope” to a police state. That is paranoid lunacy and I make no bones about saying it.”

There are few issues here, I’d love to get your opinion:

If a judge is needed every week to keep the process going, why does parliament need to be involved in any way if not to politicise and influence a judicial process?

Why are MPs the ones that make the initial decisions despite no guarantees of them a) turning up, b) being versed in the law to the degree of the judges that will come in later, c) getting the full picture of a persons “crimes”?

Why is it acceptable to have a law that intends to allow security services to spy on those they suspect to be terrorists, and then to add a law that detains people for 42 days (or infact any amount of days over the normal amount allowed for all criminals)? Why can’t security services simply spy on suspects until they have a case and then arrest, question and charge like any other criminal? This is what the 2000 law came in to effect to do; has it failed so badly, and/or is this government funding security services so poorly that we need to add even more legislation that contravenes the conventional law set down since the Magna Carta?

What use is a scrutiny committee to someone that has been incarcerated for 42 days wrongfully other than to give the illusion of accountability? Will the home office really be “more careful” about detaining suspects after getting a bollocking or will they simply incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate because “we’ll be sorry” if it turns out they didn’t detain an eventual bomber?

And this is all aside from the fact that this legislation hides other beasts that 42 days is overshadowing, such as the government appointing its own coroners to “sensitive” inquests, and being able to remove juries from those processes. The whole bill is built to give this government more power where it doesn’t deserve it, to take away from judicial processes and precedents that have yet to disprove their worth.

“As for the rest of your stuff its the usual paranold lunacy I’m afraid. “Kangaroo courts”, “hallmarks of dictatorships” - get real mate. Do you really believe judges in this country are in league with the government to oppress Muslims ? What about the recent ruling re control orders ?”

I believe security vetted judges and lawyers are part of the problem, not the solution.
Paranoid lunacy is when people oppose the governments attempts to curb the liberty of individuals under spurious legislation, eh?
Come on, nobody but you neo con HP lot believe this laws fight terrorism.
As for internment working, you fail to mention the torture that accompanied it. White noise, sleep deprivation etc.
Reminds me of Lord Hoffman’s words on the subject a few years ago when the government faced a beatdown in the Lord’s: ‘The real threat to the life of the nation… comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. It calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has, until now, been very proud - freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention’

Come on, nobody but you neo con HP lot believe this laws fight terrorism.

Done an opinion poll on that have you ? I think you might find the results interesting. Here’s one for you : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290867.stm

“Asked for their views on civil liberties and police powers amid the current tensions over national security, most respondents told the researchers they supported strong measures.

Eight out of 10 respondents agreed it was “a price worth paying” to restrict the freedom of those suspected of terrorism, such as by using electronic tags, home curfews or bans on going to certain places.

The government’s controversial control order powers, currently in force against 18 terrorism suspects, impose similar restrictions.

Virtually the same number again said that following people suspected of involvement of terrorism, tapping their telephones, opening their mail or detaining them for a week or so without charge was a “price worth paying”.”

As for internment - OK I agree, it should have been done without the torture.

Media: No answer to my questions?

You’ll also find that rather than using polling data from almost a year and a half ago, this poll only a couple of months old… http://www.yougov.com/uk/archives/pdf/Liberty%20results%2008%2003%2027%20(2).pdf … shows that only a third of people think this policy is to help the police, almost 3 quarters think extending the detention period is wrong compared to allowing post-charge questioning, and only 13% of people actually agree with what this legislation aims to achieve.

There is also a strong inclination (from my perspective) within the polling results that the 13% is only that high because of who people in the midlands perceive terror suspects to be culturally, even though people in the midlands are the harshest critics of why the government is doing this.

How they do things in other countries isn’t an issue for me. We have a long liberal tradition in this country which we should be proud of and we are talking about freedoms which people have fought to establish and protect over hundreds of years. This is not a right wing libertarian argument, it is a left-liberal one and I’m not really sure that some of those defending the government on this really understand the principles behind it - this is certainly true of those who suggest that judicial or parliamentary oversight neccessarily make extended detention without charge ok.
This does not mean that all of these things must always be set in stone but we should always be wary of attempts by governments to water them down. The assumption should always be against unless the government makes an overwhelming case for change, which they have manifestly failed to do with 42 days detention.
And yes, once we start salami-slicing our civil liberties with the regularity this government has done we are starting down a road that can lead to some very nasty places. Of course it is silly to suggest we are currently living in a police state but the argument that we therefore have nothing to worry about is nonsense.
Many of the kind of measures that have been mentioned above can be seen as relatively minor on their own, but put them all together; extended detention without charge, control-orders, restrictions on the right of peaceful protest, the abolition of double jeopardy, ID cards, sloppily drawn anti-terrorism legislation, punitive measures on asylum seekers, powers to confiscate people’s property when they have not been convicted of any offence, restrictions on jury trials. And these are just the things I can think of off the top of my head. Sometimes you need to draw a line in the sand and say “this far and no further”.

Lee- That poll is over complex - post-charge questioning is not an option being put up by the government at the moment. They didn’t ask a proper straightforward question on the 42 days (not surprising as the poll was for Liberty).

Even then only 28% thought bringing in 42 days would be “bad for Britains’ reputation”. Hardly a disaster for UK civil liberties eh ?

I presume if you agree with this poll about the 42 days question you also agree with the earlier BBC poll re the other measures that are “a price worth paying” ?

As to your other points :

a) I don’t think MP’s need be involved.
b) Spying on suspects is different to having them in custody for obvious reasons eg flight. We sometimes need to have both options.
c) “incarcerate, incarcerate, incarcerate [for no good reason]” - any evidence that is happening, that a large % of people detained so far have been locked up for no reason ?
d) “Govt doesn’t deserve more powers” - are you a Libertarian ? If not would you apply the same argument re tax rises, or action re climate change or any other area where the goverment has powers ?

Andrew - my argument on this is that many “Left-Liberals” have double standards on this. They are nearly always sceptical re extending govt powers in cases of law and order but do not react the same when it comes to govt imposing greater restraints on economic freedom eg in raising taxes or interfering in other social issues like banning smoking.

The explanation of course is that such “Left-Liberals” are paranoid maniacs on the one hand and money-grabbing envy driven failures on the other.

Don’t you agree ?

The complexity of an investigation is not, in and of itself a good reason why the detention period should be extended. Fraud cases can be highly complex and require extensive investigation, often lasting many months. The thing is that if a fraudster is at liberty the worst case is that he/she skips the contry and is never seen again. The worst case with a terrorist is that he/she use their liberty to perpetrate an atrocity and people die.

Of course the state isn’t trustworthy. We know that the it can and will use laws in ways the legislators never intended. Examples of this would include would include using laws created to help extradite terrorist suspects being used to extradite businessmen to the US and using anti-terror laws to prevent the re-entry of Walter Wolfgang to the 2005 Labour Party Conference. This is why the safeguards are so very important.

I have a genuine question for those who are pro 42 days. If someone is detained for 42 days and then released without charge how do they rebuild their lives? If they are an employed person they may well have lost their job, potentially fallen behind on their mortgage payment or rent, and have a stigma they may never live down (there is no smoke without fire right?). Of course some of this will apply to 28 days but the longer the detention is the worse the effect is. An innocent victim in and of itself isn’t a sufficient arguement against 42 days but I rarely see any discussion about the potential victims of such a detention.

Personally on balance if the safeguards are strong enough I wouldn’t object to a 42 day detention. I just have a hard time actually being for it in part because I really don’t think the case has been made.

There are two reasons why some of the usual other wordly abstractions beloved of Lawyers apply even less than usual:

1) the house in Dewsbury that the 7th July London bombers used as a bomb factory was booby-trapped and it took a very long time for specialists to work their way in. If there are several at once, how long would that take?
2) In the case of an armed robbery (crude, old fashioned, low value crime, ugh!) its quite OK to follow the suspects almost to the last minute before making arrests. This really ain’t the case with bomb plots and the suspects have to be intercepted before their activities, and therefore much evidence, has matured to the point of being ready to put in front of a Court.

Who are lawyers to complain about anybody else being slow? An eternity is a brief interval discussed by lawyers.

Andrew - my argument on this is that many “Left-Liberals” have double standards on this. They are nearly always sceptical re extending govt powers in cases of law and order but do not react the same when it comes to govt imposing greater restraints on economic freedom eg in raising taxes or interfering in other social issues like banning smoking.

It’s not neccessarily double standards. It is perfectly legitimate for governments to levy taxes and take reasonable steps to enforce their collection, there is no great civil liberties issue there. Smoking is a more difficult one - I don’t have strong opinions on it myself, but I do think there are times though when it is legitimate for governments to place restraints on people’s behaviour when it impacts on others, and this can apply to both social and economic issues. That’s why I’m a liberal and not a libertarian. Even then though there are limits - governments should not be able to arbitrarily seize people’s property, nor persecute them because it doesn’t like their lifestyle.
Often these kinds of issues should be open to debate and be decided at election time but there are certain freedoms which are particularly fundamental and so it should be more difficult for governments to interfere with them. A number of these involve the rights of an individual when accused of a crime and deprived of their liberty which is why they come the fore in discussions around law and order.

The explanation of course is that such “Left-Liberals” are paranoid maniacs on the one hand and money-grabbing envy driven failures on the other.

Don’t you agree ?

Well as I consider myself a left-liberal myself you won’t be surprised to learn that I don’t.

Of course the state isn’t trustworthy. We know that the it can and will use laws in ways the legislators never intended. Examples of this would include would include using laws created to help extradite terrorist suspects being used to extradite businessmen to the US and using anti-terror laws to prevent the re-entry of Walter Wolfgang to the 2005 Labour Party Conference. This is why the safeguards are so very important.

This is true but it’s not always the case that injustices arise when laws are misused. If legislation is fundamentally illiberal then it can still lead to injustice even when used exactly as intended.

I have a genuine question for those who are pro 42 days. If someone is detained for 42 days and then released without charge how do they rebuild their lives? If they are an employed person they may well have lost their job, potentially fallen behind on their mortgage payment or rent, and have a stigma they may never live down (there is no smoke without fire right?)

Those who support extended periods of detention wigthout charge or trial don’t give a damn about it.

Andrew - thanks for actually attempting to argue with my points. Your position seems to be that some civil liberties issues are so important they almost define a democratic system and are immutab le, detention without charge being one. The answer to that from the experience of other democracies legal systems is that detention without charge in some cases is perfectly consistent with democracy and that to me that is a persuasive argument.

The answer to that from the experience of other democracies legal systems is that detention without charge in some cases is perfectly consistent with democracy and that to me that is a persuasive argument

A persuasive argument of what? I don’t really see it as a point of contention that democracies do some horribly unjust and disreputable things. Because a policy is enacted by a democracy does not make it right or not oppressive. The most compelling argument against 42 days detention is that is unjustified wank, by a sad act PM who is desperate to prove himself tough on terror.

“The answer to that from the experience of other democracies legal systems is that detention without charge in some cases is perfectly consistent with democracy”

I don’t think stating that this or that country has a certain way of going about things is a particularly compelling argument. I know that India, the world’s largest democracy, repealed its Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002 which allowed detention without trial for 180 days. Indian law is based on English law, so it is closer to our system than continental legal systems. One of the chief arguments against it was that it was being used more to intimidate poor tribal communities that support Maoists in Jharkhand than it was used to combat jihadist outfits from Kashmir and Pakistan. I think the reasons behind the repeal of POTA in India should be a lesson to British parliamentarians.

Human Rights Watch published a report following the repeal of POTA in India - http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/09/22/india9370.htm - and said the move “would be an example for the rest of the world that counter-terrorism efforts need not undermine fundamental rights.”

MMN, yes that is basically my position. Some democracies may have more draconian positions on this issue but that doesn’t mean they are right - we have to decide for ourselves what kind of measures we think are appropriate and I think we have already gone as far as we should with 28 days.

Like most decents you can’t see the wood for the trees, here you are having a debate on detaining terrorist for 42 days to be able to put together enough evidence to be able to carry out a criminal prosecution, knowing that there are layers of intelligence data in the mix and of course other jurisdictions that may or may not be helpful. Because of the threat of an attack the police may have to move in on them before thay have enough evidence to prevent an attack and that has actually happaned.

As long as we define the basis of the extention as being for say International Terrorism then the extended period may apply, that makes sense and only impinges on the liberties of those that have already rejected those liberties.

“We have a long liberal tradition in this country which we should be proud of and we are talking about freedoms which people have fought to establish and protect over hundreds of years.”

As I pointed out earlier those liberal traditions have been eroded and UK citizens are now subject to other countries laws for the most basic of crimes even if they are back in the UK and I gave an example of a young man taken back to Spain from the UK without an extradition hearing and held in jail for an extended period for a crime he did not commit. As this impacts a lot more people than this 42 day detention period and is a real erosion of the UK liberal traditions I find it unbelievable that you prattle on about a group of people who are no longer deserving of such liberties and miss the boat completely.

Someone mentioned the USA in regards to certain businessmen, but when it comes to Europeans your silent, why?

There was a case in France where a dysfunctional family alleged that a large number of people were involved in a paedophile network, 30+ people were incarcerated for up to two years, their children taken away and one even committed suicide in prison and they were innocent. When this sort of approach is now applied to British people from an overseas jurisdiction which means that you can be taken to say France without any extradition hearing which will be the case with the Lisbon Treaty, you just ignore it. Which is the greater impact on liberty?

Yes perhaps this is an anti-EU rant, but in my view locking someone up for 2 years like that when innocent is not in the tradition of the UK and now that British citizens can be dragged out of the UK and incarcerated just like that I really do wonder why you focus on protecting the risghts of people who perhaps deserve to be treated that way and ignore that real issue on UK civil liberties.

Media: “Lee- That poll is over complex - post-charge questioning is not an option being put up by the government at the moment. They didn’t ask a proper straightforward question on the 42 days”

That’s kind of the point. The government despite all reasonable expert opinion and advise on OTHER options than 42 days is pressing on with this one issue. The public may support 42 days rather than no change, but they’d also rather have a better solution too. Is it really too hard to understand that?

“b) Spying on suspects is different to having them in custody for obvious reasons eg flight. We sometimes need to have both options.”

We have both options already, surely if they’re on the verge of flight there is less than 28 days needed to secure a charge? I still don’t understand for a second how the intelligence services, if resourced properly, shouldn’t be able to track these terrorists they claim are out there up until only a few days before they wish to commit and attack and have enough evidence to charge. This is where the legislation needs changing, resourcing of authorities properly under current laws.

“any evidence that is happening, that a large % of people detained so far have been locked up for no reason ?”

Every single person so far locked up as part of an extended detention before charge has been let free. There has, as far as I’m aware, been no convictions or even charges on anyone that as yet has been detained illiberally.

“Even then only 28% thought bringing in 42 days would be “bad for Britains’ reputation”. Hardly a disaster for UK civil liberties eh ?”

Of course it’s a disaster for civil liberties, just because people in this country are buying to the fear being propagated by the authorities doesn’t mean that liberties are being maintained. The two are, funnily enough, not mutually exclusive. If the public suddenly started supporting 100% taxes, would that make that taxation any less authoritarian?

““Govt doesn’t deserve more powers” - are you a Libertarian ? If not would you apply the same argument re tax rises, or action re climate change or any other area where the goverment has powers ?”

My point was quite clear, that the government don’t deserve powers that belong in the hands of the judiciary. You seem to agree despite your inane arguments for this bizarre muddle of legislation, there is no need fo MPs that don’t have the correct qualification for the job and specifically have a conflict of interest to be involved in the processes they’re trying to get involved with. it’s nothing about libertarianism and everything about asking that the best qualified people for the job do it *with justification*.

“The explanation of course is that such “Left-Liberals” are paranoid maniacs on the one hand and money-grabbing envy driven failures on the other.”

I’m probably not that left compared to centrist, but I believe that all legislation should be justified, all changes of policy should make sense. If the government decided to raise taxes and the justification was a guarantee of better healthcare, lower waiting times and beter survival rates then I would probably support it…just as I would support justified changes to the terror laws to make the security service’s job easier without needlessly infringing on civil liberties. No government should be able to pass this kind of policy as it continues to have no justification.

David: “Yes perhaps this is an anti-EU rant, but in my view locking someone up for 2 years like that when innocent is not in the tradition of the UK and now that British citizens can be dragged out of the UK and incarcerated just like that I really do wonder why you focus on protecting the risghts of people who perhaps deserve to be treated that way and ignore that real issue on UK civil liberties.”

David, your prejudices precede you. Why exactly do you believe people brought in “on suspicion of terrorism” deserve to be treated in any illiberal way? Perhaps your view is that the police can never get intelligence wrong and will always lock up some dirty muslim extremist that deserves to have their rights taken away? What exactly makes someone suspected of plotting terrorism have access to less rights than a serial killer, or a serial rapist, child molester, or even professional thief?

Lee Griffin, actually I think that the police do get it wrong which is why I am against the death penalty.

In fact people being released does not mean that they are not guilty, it just means that the police could not get the evidence into court to convict them, a number of those cases were because they did not want to impact their intelligence sources.

Prejudice, you are the one calling them a dirty Muslim, I never said that.

Well lets take your example, which I guess will enable you to label me in some way like the use of prejudices, first of all I think that the case of that young black guy who was taken back to Spain for a simple case of theft and locked up for over 60 days when he was innocent, and without an extradition hearing it was a direct assault on his civil liberties as a UK citizen.

In which case he was treated worse than terrorists who may be plotting to murder hundreds of people. Are you telling me that these people should be treated better than that young black guy?

In terms of your question the issue is whether in your own mind you see Islamic Jihad as a policing matter or war, declared or not and I seem to think that war has been declared on us by AQ and their ilk. As far as I am concerned there is no relationship between them and the cirminals that you detailed, I would use the Geneva convention on enemy combatents and lock them up until the war has ended as prisoners of war. And I will emphasise that it would only be those that were active in war like acts.

Of course at that point AQ gets a shot in the arm for its war of civilisation which may not be a good thing, especially as fellow Muslims are turning against their extremism in Iraq.

We are policing people who want to carry out war like acts, its a nightmare any which way you look at it, but as long as the focus is on that, then you should be able to define the way they are treated so that they do have protection

Why on earth is the colour of the guy extradited to Spain relevant in this discussion?

I only mentioned his colour after I was accused of prejudice.

Lee - “Every single person so far locked up as part of an extended detention before charge has been let free. There has, as far as I’m aware, been no convictions or even charges on anyone that as yet has been detained illiberally.”

Do you have a link for that ?

I want to know why 42 days was considered ideal. If one were to believe that police need the time to gather evidence before charging a suspect, but required them to be in custody in the mean time for public safety, then why is it not indefinite detention? What if the police required just one more week to gather the evidence against the individual? If the safeguards are so sound, then what is wrong with indefinite detention without charge? The fact that it is not indefinite detention is an admission that at some point detention without charge becomes unjustifiable. So what justifies 42 days, or seven days, or 28 days or 180 days?

As I pointed out earlier those liberal traditions have been eroded and UK citizens are now subject to other countries laws for the most basic of crimes even if they are back in the UK and I gave an example of a young man taken back to Spain from the UK without an extradition hearing and held in jail for an extended period for a crime he did not commit.

I agree that this is appalling and I wholeheartedly condemn it. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still fight to preseve the liberties we still have.

this impacts a lot more people than this 42 day detention period and is a real erosion of the UK liberal traditions I find it unbelievable that you prattle on about a group of people who are no longer deserving of such liberties and miss the boat completely.

Well firstly the subject of the thread is 42 days detention which is why that particular subject is being addressed here. No one is suggesting there are not other possibly worse abuses happening - I mentioned above a whole load of areas where our liberties have been compromised and I’m happy to add deportation without due process to the list.
I have a problem with the notion that some liberties are less important because people affected are somehow less deserving. The point of civil liberties is that they apply to everyone, even the worst of us. That’s partly why the “judicial oversight” argument about 42 days is a red herring.

Andrew Adams,

“I have a problem with the notion that some liberties are less important because people affected are somehow less deserving. The point of civil liberties is that they apply to everyone, even the worst of us. That’s partly why the “judicial oversight” argument about 42 days is a red herring.”

I struggle with that I used to believe that, but then civil rights, does that means that you have to accept the civilisation in the first place, the rules and norms that bind civil society, and that is the question that keeps rearing it damn ugly head everytime I go down that route.

I have almost reached the point where I would accept the removal of civil liberties based on being a citizen or not or removal of that right, because being a citizen means that you have rights and also obligations, and then back in the same damn circle again with some Facist or Stalinist making a decision on such rights…

This isn’t about a current need, there is no evidence for a need (listen to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the former A-G), indeed as the Home Secretary herself admitted it is for when a hypothetical problem becomes “becomes unhypothetical”.

This is about Labour desperately trying to outflank the other parties on terror - trying to look tough on terror - because they are losing the trust of the electorate at an ever increasing pace in every other area of policy (and now this one). Sadly now it is also about saving face, it is about Gordon Brown’s leadership.

Labour have put themselves into a position - they have propagandised the terror threat (I’m not saying there never was one, just that Labour have made it worse, which is Simon Jenkins’ point), forcing themselves to continually pump out terror legislation, and as a result they used up all their sensible ideas a long time ago.

We should not be playing these games with people’s lives.

42 days is the current limit of 28 days plus 14 days (or two weeks). It is a convenient and arbitrary number designed to be as politically palatable as possible. It is not a number based on a practical need supported by evidence.

It is a different tactic to aiming high (90 days) in order to get something lower through while still looking tough. It is only two years since we debated 90 days and got 28 days. Do you think that in another year’s time we will not see a proposal for a further extension? 42 + 14?

Why not make it indefinite, if encryption is so tough and investigations so complex? Why not keep people in prison for ever? Answer: because that isn’t politically palatable, even though it would be better purely in terms of police work than 42 days.

Why not keep an eye on the suspect for lengthy periods of time rather than detaining him? Because it is too resource-intensive and we would rather risk ruining the suspect’s life than invest more money. And the Government wants to - needs to - look tough on terror.

The so-called “Parliamentary oversight” is merely a sop to make MPs feel better about voting for this. But they will be told nothing useful because it could prejudice investigations and, later on, court cases. There is no point, from that perspective, for them being involved. There is no way they can make an informed decision, and as Alistair Carmichael MP said, “People who hope to be due for re-election in two years’ time are not the best people to trust with the liberty of the individual” - in other words they cannot be said to be neutral decision-makers. So we have uninformed, biassed people voting on whether or not people should be detained without charge for a long period.

Let the judge oversee the extensions. No problem with that at all - they are neutral and informed decision-makers. But shouldn’t we allow the suspect to challenge the circumstances of his detention? The police do get things wrong sometimes, and something that looks suspicious may have an entirely innocent explanation that may not be apparent to the judge without evidence from the suspect (Secretary of State v AH, a control orders case, has an example of this).

In relation to the independent reviewer, yes, great, but this review won’t help the guy sitting in Belmarsh for 42 days with his life in tatters.

“The judicial and parliamentary oversight protect people from just being locked up for 42 days for no reason. Why don’t critics acknowledge this?” No-one reasonable is saying they will lock up people for no reason - they probably do think they have a good reason, as in the case of Lofti Raissi or when police arrested some Pakistanis at Gatwick airport. But - as indeed in the case of Raissi - they do sometimes get things wrong. That is why we have to be very careful. Secondly 42 days is a long time. Hell, 28 days is a long time. Do try to imagine what would happen if someone made a mistake and locked you up. What would happen to your life? They might also traduce you in the media, like they did with Raissi.

As for the proposals being better than legislation in France, so what? We’re probably better of than Zimbabweans too. We should be judging proposals on the values of our society, and perhaps also those countries with similar traditions and legal systems. As much as I like France, it is a bit too foreign in this respect.