Harry’s Place

But this is the way you argue Brownie. You dress polemic up as fact all the time. Remove the plank from your own eye.

So, this begs the question: if the police don’t really want or really need 42 days detention, why oh why is labour pushing for it? Do we really want to do away with such cherished liberties as right to trial, and habeas corpus in this death by a thousand pieces of anti-terror legilsation.

Shami Chakrabarti was in scintillating form on this issue on Question Time last week. She is a true British heroine!

But this is the way you argue Brownie. You dress polemic up as fact all the time. Remove the plank from your own eye.

Yeah, but I’m just a Joe writing on a blog in his spare time. I’m meant to have planks in my eye.

The Guardian is respected national news organ and these are professionals journalists.

See?

Even so, you’ll be hard-pressed to give me an instance of “polemic dressed up as fact” in this post. Where there is polemic, it is unashamedly polemic and I make no attempt to dress it up in anything. The Guardian can do the same on its editorial page and in the op-eds. But front-page news is supposed to be just that.

See again?

Shami Chakrabarti was in scintillating form on this issue on Question Time last week.

We must have been watching different episodes. She was reduced to stammering when Milliband referred her to what she and Liberty had been saying when limit was riased to 28 days. When he pointed out the 4 cases where charges were brought on 27th and 28th days, charges that would never have materialized if the limit had stayed at 14 days.

She ‘fessed up that she wouldn’t be happy with anything more than a week detention. At least she’s honest.

At least she’s honest.

She is. Particularly as she doesn’t shy away from the potential consequences of her stance - ie: that it’s possible people could be released without change and then carry out an attack BUT this is a risk society should be prepared to take.

So many other self-appointed defenders of “our civil liberties” don’t have the guts to admit this, preferring a fantasy world where the threat is manufactured and the 42 day proposal a fascist construct.

I really like Shami Chakrabarti. Probably because I often disagree with her, yet always listen. SHe argues cogently and passionately. The Observer should get her instead of that pompous, monotonous, doom-monger Henry Porter to discuss civil liberties.

@Brownie - yes. that is a fair point. But I think she was right to observe that in the USA and other EU states the authorities are able to determine whether or not to bring charges in a far shorter period of time.

I still thought Chakrabarti won the argument against an admittedly robust defence by Miliband.

@Brownie - yes. that is a fair point. But I think she was right to observe that in the USA and other EU states the authorities are able to determine whether or not to bring charges in a far shorter period of time.

I still thought Chakrabarti won the argument against an admittedly robust defence by Miliband.

“Observer should get her instead of that pompous, monotonous, doom-monger Henry Porter to discuss civil liberties.”

Many in the past have been described as pompous doom mongers.
I guess when you havent lived in a dictatorship, you dont know how dangerous the state can be.
How much more can we take? More assaults on hard won freedoms every year?

It is creepy how you try to force people to tattle on their friends and neighbors under the threat of detainment.

I didn’t think that Chakrabarti was particularly impressive last week. Four out of ten at best. For me she only raised one good point, which Hurd amplified and made better and that point was is what would happen if and when someone is detained for 42 days and then released without charge. Miliband noticably ducked that. Many commentators talk a lot about how 3 cases have gone to the wire but they don’t address the flip side.

I don’t know if 42 days is the right length of time. I haven’t yet heard much reasonable argument, let alone anything compelling for why an extension is needed.

What are the real risks associated with releasing a suspect after 28 days? Obviously there is a flight risk. I have to believe that this can be ameliorated at least in part by confiscation of passport etc. The second risk obviously is that they might commit an atrocity. I just don’t know how big a risk this really is. It’s not as though the police forget about them and move onto other things. The investigation still continues if a suspect is released, the computers that are so often mentioned are still being analysed, leads are still being followed up and the case is being built. As and when it comes together the suspect can be rearrested and charged.

Unless someone can quantify the risk of release (particularly of the suspect carrying out an atrocity) I can only go by my gut and that currently feels that the chances are slim. I’m trying to weigh this against the cost to individuals of extended detention when they are innocent.

Of course this all assumes that a 42 day detention would only ever be used against suspected terrorists, and not in any other types of crime as we have seen with other legislation.

Many in the past have been described as pompous doom mongers.

Really? How many? Who? What happened? Were they proved self-effacing visionaries? How does this story end?

Sorry if I seem glib - it’s just that this statement is a complete non-sequiteur…

I guess when you havent lived in a dictatorship, you dont know how dangerous the state can be.

Well… you certainly wouldn’t have any personal experience of it. But what’s your point? As far as I’m aware neither Henry Porter nor Shami Chakrabarti have lived as citizens in a dictatorship. I lived in Fascist Spain from 1978-80 - but I was only six years old so I’m not pretending I have any special insights into the dangers of the State from that experience!

Besides, I’m not sure why preferring Shami over Porter when they make pretty much the same argument has provoked this response from you.

How much more can we take?

You see… This is the typical self-obsessed formulation of self-appointed “defenders of civil liberties”. As if the issue causes them personal agony and despair. As if they’ve suffered such grievous assaults that some tipping point must be imminent.

The truth, of course, is that public opinion is overwhelmingly in favour of 42 days. So, clearly, “we” - as in the general public - can take quite a bit more. This doesn’t mean 42 days is right. But this fanatasy that due process and Rule of Law in the UK is one step from being crushed by State Tyranny - it’s indulgent hysteria from a pampered elite who have never had to fight for a right in their lives..

“fear of causing irrational distrust” - I’m assuming this was in reference to “Damage to relations with Muslim communities from whom intelligence to counter terrorism is needed”

Rather patronising to describe the distrust of the Muslim community (justified or not) as ‘irrational’, no? Especially when a noticeable portion of the judiciary, elements of the police force, and a large portion of decidedly non-Muslim public and political opinion (and I don’t just mean the Guardian) are opposed to the proposals.

Hard as it may be for you to possess some empathy with the average Muslim (admittedly I don’t expect much of this from a post on HP), but for the Muslim community the extension of the 42 day limit does not represent an abstract and hypothetical blow to ‘cherished liberties’ in this country, but a direct and practical threat to their personal freedom.

If you want to increase the moderating influence of the “vast majority” within the Muslim community refraining from dismissing their legitimate worries as “irrational” would be a good place to start.

Referring to Brownie’s original post btw

Just to clarify:

I agree that some anti-terror legislation has been rushed or badly drafted and does erode fundamental civil rights.

But those hysterics who pretend it’s a pre-meditated assault by shadowy State forces actually make it much harder to have a serious debate on the issues. WHile they cry “how much more can we take” - the general public sees the Govt unable to deport foreign national Jihadis on Human Rights laws.

These people embrace the Tipton three as innocent victims of Gitmo and celebrate the UK security services releasing them hours after return to UK soil. When it becomes clear the Tipton Three were indeed at Jihadi training camps and were released in the UK because there’s no law against such training - these same people never ever mention it. Can’t admit the principle remains regardless of guilt or innocence. Becasue they don’t have the guts to defend terrorists. They have to pretend there’s no such thing.

42 days is ridiculous. don’t blame the police for being annoyed w/the policy. it’s just going to make their job harder.

it’s just going to make their job harder

How’s that?

Good post, Brownie.

It amazes me why people get so worked up about this. The sky didn’t fall in when they increased the number of days to 28 so why are we to believe 42 days will mark the end of civilisation?

This power would only be used in major terrorist cases and would only happen very occasionally under extremely cautious rules.

Yes one could ask: well why bother having it in the first place if it will rarely be used? But one could also ask back: why oppose it in the fist place if you claim it will never be needed?

It amazes me why people get so worked up about this. The sky didn’t fall in when they increased the number of days to 28 so why are we to believe 42 days will mark the end of civilisation?

No one is claiming it will in itself mark the end of civilisation. The thing is you can look at every piece of legislation passed by the government which has had a negative impact on civil liberties and say that taken individually they are fairly insignificant. There has to come a point though when you have to say enough is enough and that we have given the state as much power as we are prepared to and it has to accept that and work within existing limits. For many people now we have reached or even gone past that limit.

As I’ve said before, some opponents of the government are overly hyperbolic in their arguments but equally some of its supporters are overly dismissive of arguments about civil liberties.

Phomesy,

You make an important point - defending civil liberties and human rights means defending them for everyone, including (you could say especially) those who are guilty.

@ag - ‘I have to believe that this can be ameliorated at least in part by confiscation of passport etc’

Surely you jest Sir!

IF this is a terrorist, confiscation of passport would be just a minor inconvinience to leaving the UK.

Get real.

@Andrew Adams - ‘As I’ve said before, some opponents of the government are overly hyperbolic in their arguments but equally some of its supporters are overly dismissive of arguments about civil liberties’

Yes. I can agree with that.

However, I do see the demand for 42 days as legitimate bearing in mind that it can always be repealed if shown to be misused too often. I believe that the measure only refers to suspicion of being involved in terrorism.

You make an important point - defending civil liberties and human rights means defending them for everyone, including (you could say especially) those who are guilty.

It’s the classic Death penalty conundrum. I’d prefer one thousand guilty murderers to go free than for one innocent person to be put to death by the State.

I feel a bit this way about the 42 days legislation. I understand the pressure the security services are under and the consequences of failure will fall on them (and Govt) NOT Henry Porter… But I don’t know if I’m willing for one innocent person to suffer that deprival of rights for that length of time…

I think Chakrabarti is a bullshitter, as David Aaronovitch pointed out her arguments with regard to other european nations notably France and Italy are mendacious.

Read the full Aaronovitch article and the extent of her mendacity is revealed.

Phil, do you have link to the Aaronovitch article?

It strikes me that some people are lining up in favour, or against, this measure, for the wrong reasons.

No-one is asking about the logistics, in general terms of course, of these investigations. What do they actually have to do when they pick someone up?

I can speculate about things like computer drive scanning, translation of files, image de-coding, liaison with overseas security services, chemical trace analysis, and surveillance of suspected accomplices. I can easily imagine some of these activities being lengthy, and resource intensive. But to the uninitiated, any restriction on detention time appears arbitrary, including the limit we already have. All we are told at present, is that one integer is bigger than another, a fact we had already absorbed for ourselves. We have no concept of what is enough.

Given all that I’m not impressed to see senior officials basing their decisions on political sensitivity. It’s cowardly and venal.

If your boss asked you if would like an extra two weeks to complete a difficult one-month task, what would you say?

If your task is keeping people alive, a loud and justifiably exultant “yes please!” would almost certainly be your first reaction.

But counterterrorism is not mechanical. Perceptions do count. A climate of mistrust, fear and even hostility is an operational hazard every bit as serious as a legal framework that provides only limited support.

It doesn’t matter, if you are working on practical and near term strategy or ops without a real police state behind you, how wildly wrong the mistrust and more may be. This is about winning in a democratic and free context, not the stubborn application of rigid principles (not that the latter can’t help, or is necessarily wrong, but it is really best left to others). If a policy move increases difficulties, without adequately and discernibly adding to operational strengths, it should be dropped.

Nor is counterterrorism an isolated policy area. It is obviously connected to politics.

There’s no need to hold hands with nominally non-violent (in the UK at least) Islamists in silly kumbaya sessions. That will only encourage them in their political endeavours, and (understandably and rightly) anger others.

There’s also no need, though, to chop firewood for the Islamists if there is little to gain from doing so.

In the current situation, detention for 42 days looks like a tidy pile of firewood for a gain of, well, what exactly? When we are promised the power will rarely be used, if ever, and then only under intense scrutiny?

British jihadis should be terrified by the extent of physical and electronic surveillance, infiltration and thorough investigation revealed in recent trials. So many have been rumbled, and how, under the current rules. Plainly the job can be done.

What would certainly make it easier are more resources and sharper operations. The intelligence budget has been massively increased, but this is a decision that Blair should have made on the train back from Brighton on 9/11, not a development that took years as the scale and range of the threat to the UK itself sunk in. The establishment of MI5 regional offices also came too late. There are of course other specific events that appear to be cock-ups (e.g. MSK on the radar, but not on 7/7 itself).

Still, I don’t grumble as much as I once did, since the counterterrorists have raised their game.

If operations are going well, HMG should let the professionals get on with the job and focus more on politics.

This proposal is political, stirring up division and fear, yet again, almost seven years after the world, um, noticed Islamist terrorism (slow learner, that world).

In my view, at this stage a bit more relaxed confidence would be appropriate, and even beneficial, on the side of HMG and British Muslims too, unsurprisingly stressed and distressed as both groups are these days.

If Brown is defeated on this proposal, well, good.

It amazes me why people get so worked up about this. The sky didn’t fall in when they increased the number of days to 28 so why are we to believe 42 days will mark the end of civilisation?

Huh? The ’sky didn’t fall in’ when Clause 28 was in operation; in fcacat, no one was ever prosecuted under its provisions. So do you want it reimplemented? The only question that needs to be answered is where is the case for 42 days? So where is it? Is it underneath the sofa? Is it in Jacqui Snmth’s handbag or up Gordon Brown’s rectum. I think we should be told.

I think Chakrabarti is a bullshitter, as David Aaronovitch pointed out her arguments with regard to other european nations notably France and Italy are mendacious.

Well that rather depends on whom you believe.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/02/terrorism.uksecurity

The government’s claim that criminal suspects in Italy can be held for months without charge has also been dismissed by Italian parliamentary authorities. They have confirmed to Commons librarians that the maximum period of pre-charge detention under Italian law is four days.

So far as police malpractice is concerned, it’s at least arguable that the longer detention period relaxes the pressure on police to manufacture evidence

You’re missing the point here. If you value freedom under the law, locking people up for six weeks without trial should be considered a big deal. It is considered a big deal by most people with even a passing acquaintance of the criminal justice system - so the longer the period of detention, the more pressure there will be to justify this extraordinary measure with some kind of ‘result’. This passes both you and most of the commentators here by because you don’t seem to think depriving British subjects of their liberty without proper due process is a big deal. But you’re wrong about this - it is.

The other thing you have completely disregarded is any danger inherent in the injustices that inevitably must follow if this measure is to be used on a regular basis. They are inevitable because they happen in the present system already - and this has a higher standard of evidence. Yet someone detained without trial is being detained this way because by definition there isn’t enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings. You see no problem with this, no possible negative social consequences? Well, you should.

This power would only be used in major terrorist cases and would only happen very occasionally under extremely cautious rules.

We were told this about the Terrorism Act too. It hasn’t turned out quite like that, has it?

You’re missing the point here. If you value freedom under the law, locking people up for six weeks without trial should be considered a big deal. It is considered a big deal by most people with even a passing acquaintance of the criminal justice system - so the longer the period of detention, the more pressure there will be to justify this extraordinary measure with some kind of ‘result’. This passes both you and most of the commentators here by because you don’t seem to think depriving British subjects of their liberty without proper due process is a big deal. But you’re wrong about this - it is.

Shuggy, my point is that the Guardian article doesn’t include any quotes from senior police officers who oppose the 42-day detention on the basis that it is a ‘big deal’ in terms of civil liberties. As it happens, I have some sympathy with the argument that it is and I don’t feel particularly strongly about making it 42 days instead of 28. But opposing the increase in detention times because police might start behaving like criminals is both a shite argument against the proposal and, in my view, faulty logic.

There are relatively few cases go beyond 14 days and any that went over the 28 day mark would be subjected to scrutiny like no others. Yes, there is always the pressure to get a result, however, precisely because there has been such division over the increase from 28 to 42 I’d say it’s more likely that police will err on the side of caution and if in any doubt release suspects before the 29th day rather than manufacture evidence in cases where every last detail will be put under the microscope like no others in British legal history. And can you imagine what would happen if the first few cases where detention exceeded 30 days the suspects were released? The police are unlikely to go there unless they absolutely have to.

The other thing you have completely disregarded is any danger inherent in the injustices that inevitably must follow if this measure is to be used on a regular basis. They are inevitable because they happen in the present system already - and this has a higher standard of evidence. Yet someone detained without trial is being detained this way because by definition there isn’t enough evidence to bring criminal proceedings. You see no problem with this, no possible negative social consequences? Well, you should.

Well again, you seem to want me to write a post about a different Guardian article. I’m focusing on this article in this post precisely because the arguments invoked by the anonymous police sources against 42 day detention are so poor, not because there are no good arguments against it at all.

I’m not “disregarding” anything; I’m dealing with the opposing arguments presented.

But on your point about evidence, it’s not always the case that detention runs to the number of days it does because there is no evidence to bring charges of any description; it’s often because there is insufficient evidence to bring the preferred charges. For example, on a 14th day, there might be enough to bring accessory charges, but the police persuade a judge that there is good cause to think that charges may become considerably more serious once full evidence gathering has completed. This is the point that Liberty and the Lib Dems miss entirely: this business of charing someone with a minor offence in order to hold the suspect whilst evidence is gathered not only invites considerably more malpractice than 42 day detention (”do him for X while we have a nose around”), it also fails to appreciate what charging a suspect means in terms of how investigations then develop, how resources are diverted and whether the minor charge would even result in continued custody, surrender of passports, etc..

For the record, I won’t lose too much sleep however the vote goes on Wednesday, but I think opponents of the proposal can do better than the anonymous police sources quoted in the Guardian.

I mean, you have.

Well, I’m with you, Brownie. What a lot of credibility that’ll give you.

Shami Chakrabarti is beginning to pull her punches because she wants to be a Labour MP, I am informed. No idea if that’s true or not, but, given the sources, I imagine it may be. I would rather eat nails and then shit them than allow that to happen.

I refer the honourable gentlemen - and ladies, if there are any - to the reply we gave some moments ago.

Ie, those strenuous debates we had when Blair tried to get through 90 days. Nothing has changed, including the heroic efforts of the police service to defend us and our liberal democracy against mediaeval theocracy, and the inevitable next bomb planted by fascists in an orgy of self- and other- destructive mayhem.

I am inclined to believe what the government and the police (as a whole) tell me, rather than that which civil liberties campaigners do.

I realise this makes me naive.

Sorry Brownie, I would have finessed my comment a little more if I realised you were doing the whole civil liberties thing.

*I don’t agree with Brownie at all - he is a lilly-livered liberal ponce.*

The media treat Shami Chakrabarti as if she is far more important an a mere elected MP so I doubt those stories. Labour is against everything she stands for in any event.

Huh? The ’sky didn’t fall in’ when Clause 28 was in operation; in fcacat, no one was ever prosecuted under its provisions. So do you want it reimplemented?

Not the same. People like Henry Porter of the Guardian are saying it will be the end of democray if 42 days are voted for. Nobody ever said that about Clause 28.

My senior sources say the vote is lost in any event, but Brown is so unpopular it won’t matter anyway.

The media treat Shami Chakrabarti as if she is far more important an a mere elected MP so I doubt those stories. Labour is against everything she stands for in any event.

If that were true then I would never ever vote Labour again. Thankfully I don’t believe it is, although Ben’s comments certainly worry me. Labour needs more people like Shami, not fewer.

It’s the classic Death penalty conundrum. I’d prefer one thousand guilty murderers to go free than for one innocent person to be put to death by the State.

I agree, but that’s not my only objection to capital punishment. I’m also opposed because I believe it is wrong in principle. The same goes for 42 days detention. I simply believe it is an unacceptable extension of the state’s power.

People respond as if 42 days was a mandatory period instead of a maximum. I would have thought that after about a week the police will know if this is going somewhere. If its got legs and reasonable suspicion then the 42 days is designed to help make the case stronger where there are complexities of across border links, mobile phone records and password protected files.

I don’t think I read the word “Muslim”! in the proposed legislation so why are people using the argument that such laws have an effect on the Muslim Community? It seems to me that the point being made is “Don’t upset them or a few of them might just carry out that plot”. Its as if we are legislating against a minority based on faith and yet we aren’t!

The reason why people drag the Muslim argument into this is because since March 2007 there have been 60 convictions for terrorism (based on a Home Office answer to Tom McNulty in April 2008). I beleve 100% of those convicted are Muslims. Hence, we are really saying that the Muslim community is affected because that is where the terror suspects come from.

I’d like to know what we are doing as preventative measures.

But whatever we do I will guess that the Islamists will be playing on our fears again by telling us we are targetting their community and trying to make us go soft out of guilt.

I will use the playground defence “We didn’t start it”. Why are we being attacked by guilt when we are being attacked by Islamist Terrorism?

Even is Shami ‘won the debate’ it doesn’t mean she is right.

Don’t awaiting-trial prisoners have a long wait in jail?

“It’s the classic Death penalty conundrum. I’d prefer one thousand guilty murderers to go free than for one innocent person to be put to death by the State.”

How can that be for the greater good? How many might be child predators, for example?Or serial Killers?

It amounts to, I’d rather X amount of kids get killed than one innocent person be put to death by the state. There’s more innocence on the other side of the equation!

The case for 42 days has not been made. That is a good reason not to have it.

The Labour Government wants it for the sake of expediency - to look tough on terror. That is not a good reason to have it.

They are playing silly political games with people’s lives.

“Even is Shami ‘won the debate’ it doesn’t mean she is right.”

That’s a pretty decent summary of NuLab Decent thought, isn’t it? “Her arguments are better, but we’re The Good Guys so what we want must still be right…”

“How can that be for the greater good? How many might be child predators, for example?Or serial Killers?”

I recommend some study of philosophy; your first assignment is “why crude utilitarianism is a ridiculous moral system that has been rejected by absolutely everyone”. Possibly also some study of the social and political history of regimes that have adopted a ’subjugate individual rights for the common good’ policy might prove helpful.

Interesting, so basically you are effectively saying you shouldn’t be taken as seriously as a professional journalist.

O.K., I can do that.

By the way, all the article was doing was reporting the views of the officers who opposed the law. Because you cannot handle the fact, that some policemen disagree with you, you distort the article so it fits in with your caricature of opponents of the 42 day period.

Yeah, but I’m just a Joe writing on a blog in his spare time. I’m meant to have planks in my eye.

The Guardian is respected national news organ and these are professionals journalists.

See?

Even so, you’ll be hard-pressed to give me an instance of “polemic dressed up as fact” in this post. Where there is polemic, it is unashamedly polemic and I make no attempt to dress it up in anything. The Guardian can do the same on its editorial page and in the op-eds. But front-page news is supposed to be just that.

See again?