Lock terror suspects up indefinitely say British police »
Posted By gamahuche 1 year, 3 months ago in NewsBritain, in the aftermath of another terrorist attack, is facing demands from the Police to allow the detention of terrorist suspects without charge for 'as long as it takes'. The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, believes an upper detention limit is essential to avoid a de facto Guantanamo based in the UK. Civil rights groups are deeply concerned.
Read Full Story at observer.guardian.co.uk »
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 79
-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 3 months ago
"Ken Jones, the president of Acpo, said such hardline measures were the only way to counter the complex, global nature of terrorist cells planning further attacks in Britain and that civil liberty arguments were untenable in light of the evolving terror threat.
Jones, a former chair of Acpo's counter-terrorism committee, said: 'We are now arguing for judicially supervised detention for as long as it takes. We are up against the buffers on the 28-day limit. We understand people will be concerned and nervous, but we need to create a system with sufficient judicial checks and balances which holds people, but no longer than a day [more than] necessary."
A view from across the pond which challenges European principles of fairness and justice.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty stated 'We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment.'
Who's winning and who's losing?
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 3 months ago
gamahuche asks ' Who's winning and who's losing?'
you're right, you really have to wonder!
sounds like they are having some of the same problems America is having, with our administration doing what they want and not what our policy says to do.
with terrorists tho- hmmm? I sorta understand why they might have to be held longer, not to say lock them up indefinately tho-
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 3 months ago
There have already been some draconian laws passed but this is the first time that the idea of locking people up and hiding the key has been mooted - at least publicly and by such a significant figure as the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers.
Its not so long ago that "Bobbies" weren't armed. Even now they aren't armed as a matter of course. There was an incident about 18 months ago of a police hit squad killing the "wrong man" on a subway after one terrorist alert.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
humemacdonald1 year, 3 months ago
Trnscndr
Extending a period of detention to let us say, 60 days if executed as the article implies it might be, still does not deny habeas corpus to the person.
Habeas Corpus puts the burden on the State to justify the detention of said person,it does not specify a period of time that this must be satisfied.
This does not have to be an all or nothing situation. Increasing detention time does not have to imply the end of habeas corpus. The States in contrast, actually suspended it right?
Reply
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 3 months ago
This is exactly why our world is foolishly only seen in black and white, when in reality all we are is lighter and darker shades of grey..
Every serious matter is handled with simple extremes, when
matters such as this require serious resolution.
Either you're for one extreme or the other.
As of Sunday 7/15/07 this is a perfect score thread
(until one of nine people get on here) even if my idea seems
against your better judgement, then please suggest enhancements..
THAT SAID:
Our judicial system allows death row prisoners to remain alive 2-3 years before they get to trial, sentencing etc.
Then they have as long as 3,4 years to appeal etc..
If these murderers can be given THAT long although it's in the extreme case of capitol punishment, why shouldn't DETAINERS be given a reverse appeal in case they are getting close to something, and these guys know they only need to hold out 27 more days?
If they feel they need an extension to keep them longer
do so by appeal.
Reply
-
-
0%
Amazing11 year, 3 months ago
What poison has been released into global society by the development of extraordinary renditions, Gitmo, and enhanced interrogations? How long before the entire world descends into this evil pit which has been primarily dug by an arrogant frat boy and his regent who really thought they could get away with anything?
Sad. Really sad that this is happening. The terrorist will soon have us eating our young.
Reply-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 2 months ago
You are wrong. Even if the USG and GBG choose to ignore their own laws, that won't change the basic compassionate and humanistic instincts of regular people. Sure, there are some who might 'eat their young' if ordered to by Big Brother - there always have been brainless followers. But resistance is part of our common culture, from our English origins. Dissent is what inspired our great Revolution, and the British of the time were sympathetic, having completed their own glorious restoration not terribly long before then. Trust the British, Amazing1, they have not knuckled under to tyranny yet. They may yet pull us out of this jam, which we presently seem unable to do...
Reply
-
-
0%
deathray1 year, 3 months ago
One would think the British would be learning from the US experience with Guantanamo; there are certainly advantages in the short term, but indefinite detentions are probably hurting us more at this point than they are helping us.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 3 months ago
Many countries in Europe have a large Muslim population. The risk of dangerous reaction will only increase if the authorities act without very clear and clean judgment. Guantanamo has become a festering sore which can easily be held up as a model by the 'victims'. Are the British going to do the same thing? Probably not. Will they be accused of it? Probably yes.
Reply-
0%
lvrofwolves1 year, 3 months ago
well as you said gamahuche- who's really winning and who's losing?
Terrorism is the cause of many acts that wouldn't normally be done by anyone-just like the bobbies without firearms-and killing the wrong man on a subway, terrorist threats cause terror, and when there is terror, people react differently then thought out policies. Sad that so many will suffer not only the physical acts of terrorism, but everything else that goes along with it...which of course is the objective of the terrorists.
Reply
-
-
0%
badnootka1 year, 2 months ago
The brits are not suggesting gitmo style detention but longer periods to investigate. If the suspected activity is inherently dangerous to society then it is for the good of society to ensure that any investigation is thorough and the suspect detained until the investigation is done. Detention is not cruel and unusual. It is not indefinite and no one is suggesting it should be.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 2 months ago
You obviously didn't read the story.
Here's the first sentence - you will notice that a key word is INDEFINITE and that's precisely why it is an issue.
"One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge."
I think your opinion of what is or isn't cruel or unusual might radically shift if you were the one that was being 'interned".
Reply
-
-
0%
humemacdonald1 year, 2 months ago
yes but what they are proposing is nothing like -Guantanamo- that is a travesty.
Reply
-
-
0%
Goppy1 year, 3 months ago
I personally agree with Goerge W. that any one who threatens America needs to go to jail without the benefit of trial.
Perhaps youall dint notice that Goerge W. Bush got his inspiration for this tekneek from his hero, Fidel Castro and that other communist nation, China.
Although our proceedures arent as extensive as those used in China. They more extensive than those used in Cuba - or so it seems to me.
As a Law & Order fan, Im hopin that this will lead to puttin even more poeple in prison. We got to protect our freedom! I say extend the policy to puttin poeple away who read too many subversive books at the libary. Books like Adventures of Huck Finn.
I dint like the way Tom Sawyer hung out with that Huck Finn. That book was just Liberal excuses for being kindly to whut was a terrorist of his time - Huck Finn. I believes Huck Finn is a template for liberal terrorism.
Im glad we got Goerge W. in office protectin us from terrorists.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 3 months ago
Boy, you're good!!
You're doing a great impersonation
of an uncultured Stephen Colbert!
(very nicely, by the way)
The sad part is that probably 30% of this
country would agree with your comments,
justifications and your accusations..
If you want to find them I can
help increase the odds dramatically:
Look in country western bars, Nascar events,
hunting clubs and ALWAYS look for the pick up truck
(with or without a deer tied across
the front and fishing gear in the back),
and ALWAYS with a confederate flag and
or a Bush/Cheney bumpersticker on the back!
Reply-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
Hmm. The biggest NASCAR fan I know is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat.
And it wouldn't help to concentrate on pickup trucks. Nearly everyone here drives one, even the people who haven't taken off their Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers yet.
Hmm. The most extreme Republican I know drives a Jeep...go figure.
I guess it just goes to show that stereotypes aren't always as useful as you think they might be.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
sumptuousdigs1 year, 3 months ago
Thanks gamahuche. . If you live long enough, you're going to meet some people that have, or will, commit a serious crime. Guilt by association may be a red flag, but without further evidence, a lengthy detainment is unwarranted. In the US, GHWB and sons should be locked up using that criteria.
Reply -
0%
agentX1 year, 3 months ago
'as long as it takes'
What the hell does this mean? Until the suspect gives up terrorism? Until evidence comes out that he/she was never a party to a terrorist organization? Until a government flunky says so?
Or, until Amnesty International or another NGO pressures the gov into releasing the suspects?
Habeus Corpus exists specifically for this reason. If the gov cannot show proof that the suspect has committed a crime, then they have to let the suspect go.
We should defeat radical Islam, not act like radical islam.
Reply -
0%
UnusualSuspect1 year, 3 months ago
While I normally don't approve of holding anyone without just cause and without some proof, I guess I have to agree, within certain limitations, that some people who are arrested in connection with certain types of crime, such as terrorism, can be held longer to obtain more information about them and the crime alledgely committed.
However, I don't think think it should be indefinite. I think it should start with 7 days, and the person/case be reviewed at that time to warrant any further incarceration. I would think it reasonable to hold someone for 30 days, then 60, but only after a review at each of those times. If nothing is found at 90 days, then the person should be released and apologized to, compensated monetarily, and have any record against that person involving the alledged crime expunged. Anything beyond 90 days is unreasonable to me without sufficient evidence.
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 2 months ago
I would agree BUT:
The 90 DAY "timeline" in this case gives them
a time certain to "hold out"..
Remember, these are people who
bought plane tickets because
they could..
They know our ways and
if given a set of our rules
they WILL exploit them..
The "appeal" for additional detention time
should have to come from our interrogators,
not a pre-written
right for the detainee to exploit..
If they see need to detain them longer, let them
put it on the record.
It is almost the same thing,
but gives less exposure to the ability
for terrorists to abuse our laws
and is also fair,
holding the interrogators accountable,
and measurable in a court of laws
Reply-
0%
el-jefe1 year, 2 months ago
"The 90 DAY 'timeline' in this case gives them
a time certain to 'hold out'.."
You're right, 90 days is too short. Tell you what, let's make it 20 years, with reviews at 7 days, 30 days, 90 days, 6 months, and every yearly anniversary after that.
They wouldn't abuse our laws with that, that's for sure!
And the beautiful thing about it is, even if we never find any evidence against them, they'll still spend 20 years behind bars! Serves 'em right, the terrorist scum!
Just one thing, though...if the initial evidence is strong enough to arrest them with, shouldn't it be strong enough to keep them the whole 20 years? I mean, it's a matter of safety for everyone, right? You wouldn't hold someone unless you at least suspected him, and if you suspected him, you wouldn't want to let him go unless you were sure he was safe to release back into society.
Reply
-
-
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 2 months ago
"...I guess I have to agree, within certain limitations, that some people who are arrested in connection with certain types of crime, such as terrorism, can be held longer to obtain more information about them and the crime allegedly committed."
But who chooses what type of crime crosses that line?
Sexual crimes?
Crimes against the state?
Religious deviance?
I personally have a thing against Satanic murders. I wish there were more 'extraordinary measures' to punish people like Charlie Manson. Why is he still alive?
But in this country we have one law for all people.
Start messing around with that, and where does it end?
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions1 year, 2 months ago
Somehow, the whole idea of throwing our liberties out the window in order to preserve them seems flawed. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Reply -
-
-
0%
retbg1 year, 2 months ago
Where for that matter are ANY real statesmen or women nowadays? I will support and vote for anyone who has a modicum of ethics and morality and offers me a sense that he or she is acting with integrity and in the best interest of the country and all its citizens. Anybody come to mind that fits that description. Damned if I can think of anyone!
Reply
-
-
0%
humemacdonald1 year, 2 months ago
I don't think a judicially monitored and accountable system for detaining terrorist suspects longer than the average criminal will lead to tyranny in the UK. With an upper time limit imposed, this in no way negates habeas corpus.
Think of all the changes that the judicial and criminal justice system has undergone in the last few centuries. It was not made to be a static system, indeed a country that relies on Common law is inherently malleable by the very nature of its justice system.
The political situation today with the erosion of nation states and the rise of multi-nationals that employ their own form of CIA, a completely different form of commerce and heavy reliance on outside resources and goods means that North America is evolving and change may be necessary.Yes everyone has the right to Liberty, but even Mill the libertarian, would use a utilitarian argument to justify such changes.
Reply-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 2 months ago
Thanks for your contributions! However it was Gordon Brown himself who evoked the spectre of a domestic Guantanamo. If one looks at the erosion of civil liberties in the US which have followed the WTC attacks it doesn't give one much optimism. Lines have to be drawn. Torture light?? Inconcievable 10 years ago that it could be institutionalised - of course it happened openly in what were then deemed "uncivilised" countries. But in the US or a US sponsored facility? Only very much off the record. There is already in England a virtual oubliette prison for terrorists - unconvicted ones under interrogation.
For those of us who survived Nazi occupation and Communism there's too much deja vu about this.
Democracy can only survive when as many people as possible are concerning themselves with guarding against infringement of civil rights. The moment that we stop doing that there'll be someone ready to take advantage. Also see retbg's quote from Martin Niemoller below..
Reply
-
-
-
0%
k21bl1 year, 2 months ago
Why not just take them out and shoot them! Don't have to worry that way!
Reply -
-
0%
Charlson1 year, 2 months ago
That happens in totalitarian governments. Is this the kind of government you want?
Reply -
-
0%
gamahuche1 year, 2 months ago
Wouldn't you and k21bl like to get together and do some role-playing? Obviously the darker-skinned one of you will have to play the A-rab - and living in Florida is NO excuse..
Please report back, whichever one is chosen by the Almighty to survive. Pleas for mercy, adrenaline buzz, the sight and smell of fresh blood, all the really juicy stuff.
Another possibility is that I could make an appointment for both of you with my therapist, Goppy. He will show you his special brand of loving care and attention and you may even both survive that way though possibly with somewhat mangled synapses.
Reply
-
-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 2 months ago
Hey, Dasreichy:
I think there are at least 2 government
agencies watching you!
I wonder why??
Maybe the name??
Can't you just play cowboys and indians??
Reply -
-
0%
retbg1 year, 2 months ago
Having a senior moment - just saw a really scary screen name- I thought it read Das Reich 2nd SS. I'll be damned, it does. Skinhead city. I can't let that pass without a comment.
Reply -
0%
retbg1 year, 2 months ago
DasReich2nd SS? - Wow, I thought we had all you goofy SS types safely locked away in Landsburg Prison or state facilities for the criminally insane? Somebody leave the door to your cage open or did you escape on the way to having your head shaved or get a swastika tattoo on the end of your little Adolph?
Reply-
0%
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 2 months ago
Please, for the sake of sanity, and in the spirit of
not wasting your time (or ours to read it),
do not engage in conversation with people who are
crying out for attention and are willing to
say or do anything to get it..
Reply
-
-
-
0%
retbg1 year, 2 months ago
Be very careful what you wish for people! In Germany, shortly after Hitler was defeated , a Lutheran Pastor named Nemuller was asked how a nation and culture who gave birth to the likes of Bach, Mozart, Shiller, Goethe, Einstein and Nietche could have let such a perverse political philosophy as National Socialism with its agenda of hate and death take hold? He replied, "by degrees, we gave our freedoms to the NAZIS by degrees. First they came for the Jews and I did nothing, then they came for the gypsies and the communists and I did nothing and then they came for the Catholics and the writers and the artists and the intellectuals and homosexuals and still, I did nothing until finally, one dark night, they came for me!"
Reply -
0%
AmericanIdiot1 year, 2 months ago
I have met young Germans who are still ashamed of what their grandfathers did. It is a terrible stigma. Not to mention the inconvenience of having their country bombed into toothpicks and gravel. God help us, we can't let that happen here!
Reply
Got a Story?
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.