MPs savage plan to double terror detention time limit
The Labour Party under Brown are continuing down one of Tony Blair's favourite roads and attempting to increase the amount of time a person can be held without charge from the present twenty eight day limit. The government refuse to specify just what increase they actually want, although it is believed that they are heading for 56 days.
If one considers that people in this country are released after serving half of their sentences for good behaviour, then the government are actually proposing giving some of our citizens the equivalent of four month jail sentences without filing any charges against them.
The reaction from opposition MP's has been swift and savage.
I would have thought that, if the police needed to take such a draconian step such as holding a person without charging them, that one could reasonably assume that they have enough evidence that the person is about to take part in some kind of plot and merely need to hold the person in custody to prevent an attack taking place and to finalise their charges against the person doing the plotting. Surely 28 days is sufficient for this to take place?David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the 56-day proposal represented "a permanent, undeclared state of emergency". He said: "Extending detention without trial will, like ID cards and control orders, undermine our freedoms, but it will not make us safer. In fact, it risks making the threat worse."
Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, branded extending detention without trial "divisive, wrong in practice and wrong in principle". He said: "Rushing forward without compelling reason to do so risks alienating opinion in exactly those communities we need on our side. Of course extremists, preachers of hate, will seek to radicalise youngsters whatever we do. But surely we have learnt by now that breathless talk about the war on terrorism or sloppy anti-terror legislation gives them needless additional ammunition to sustain their twisted and misguided grievances."
Bob Marshall-Andrews, the Labour QC and trenchant critic of the Government, said ministers had failed to give "a single example, not one" to justify extending the 28-day limit.
Patrick Mercer, the former Tory homeland security spokesman and an adviser to the Government on terrorism, warned: "Our enemies will label what we are doing simply as internment."
And, as Bob Marshall-Andrews points out, the government have failed to give "a single example, not one" to justify this proposed increase.
We once before introduced internment in this country and it was widely acknowledged as the greatest recruiting tool we ever gave the IRA, with the exception of Sunday, Bloody Sunday.
Why is this Labour government so determined to repeat past mistakes?
Click title for full article.
2 comments:
The other thing I don't understand Kel, is why bother even having 28 days when all you really need is a shoot-to-kill policy to take down suspects whenever you fear an imminent terror attack (which is pretty much everyday given the paranoia high up).
If they couldn't stop De Menezes and put him in detention for even 1 day let alone 28 days then what does doubling it acheive?
Alex, I take your point, they haven't even attempted to justify why they need to double the time people can be held without charge.
And as for the de Menezes case, why is Sir Ian Blair still in his job? When the Hutton report criticised the BBC two heads rolled simply because they were in charge of the BBC during the time of the events in question. Why do we hold the BBC to a higher standard of accountability than we hold the Met? After all, the BBC didn't shoot anyone to death in broad daylight, the Met did. And yet Campbell insisted that BBC heads should roll, now we have Labour MP's falling over themselves to explain why Blair should remain at his post. It's bonkers...
Post a Comment