When Skies Are Grey Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Another erosion of civil liberties or a natural step in the protection of our shores.....discuss??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexMcC Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I for one love(d) Labour. Where the hell are we going........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mission Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Just out of interest, does anyone know what the time limit in the US is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 1971: NI activates internment lawThe Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Brian Faulkner, has introduced a new law giving the authorities the power to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists without trial. The decision by Stormont, the government in Northern Ireland, to implement the new measures was made in the wake of escalating violence and increased bombings in the province and the threat to Northern Ireland's economy. The move has been welcomed by Unionist MPs but has been fiercely condemned by Republicans. More than 300 suspects have already been detained in a series of dawn raids today. 'Unacceptable level' The decision to bring back the internment law for the first time in 10 years, under the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act, was made last week following consultation with British prime minister, Ted Heath, but an announcement was delayed to enable the Army to make the arrests. In a statement made at 1115 BST today, Mr Faulkner said Northern Ireland was "quite simply at war with the terrorist." He said: "The terrorists' campaign continues at an unacceptable level and I have had to conclude that the ordinary law cannot deal comprehensively or quickly enough with such ruthless violence. "I have therefore decided... to exercise where necessary the powers of detention and internment vested in me as Minister of Home Affairs." He said the decision had been made to protect life and property and the main target would be members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). The act has been described as one of the most powerful anti-terrorist measures on the statute books of any Western democracy but Mr Faulkner said he could not give any guarantees it would bring an end to the campaign. Suspects who are arrested under the new law, and who are not charged or released within 48 hours, will be taken to reception areas where they will be held indefinitely without trial. They will have a right to appeal to an advisory council - which is yet to be set up. 'Short-term measure' The British Opposition has called for Parliament to be recalled so the issue can be debated fully. James Callaghan, shadow home secretary, said: "Quite obviously the government must act against gunmen shooting in the main streets of Belfast, especially as the shootings are growing. "Internment, however, is only a short-term measure. And although it worked before in temporarily removing the leadership of the IRA, it proved to be no long-term solution to the problem. The government has made it clear it has no intention to recall Parliament. The decision to reactivate the powers goes against the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights of the Council of Europe to which Great Britain signed up in November 1950, although a let-out clause states the measures can be used if a state of war exists. The power of internment was reactivated during the Northern Ireland troubles of 1956-61. During that time nearly 200 known or suspected members of the IRA were detained without trial in special internment camps for an average of two years. BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/4071849.stm I'm surprised they haven't revived that one YET......... Still if they will leave top secret papers on trains Clicky then the 'great struggle' against the cave dweller and his cronies will probably drag on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Just out of interest, does anyone know what the time limit in the US is? If in doubt...Guantanamo dude!! According to the news there seems to be some dubious whipping going on...with the DUP members becoming Brown's saviours....and there was me thinking his poll ratings couldnt drop any further!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Just out of interest, does anyone know what the time limit in the US is? If in doubt...Guantanamo dude!! According to the news there seems to be some dubious whipping going on...with the DUP members becoming Brown's saviours....and there was me thinking his poll ratings couldnt drop any further!! I know people will be cynical, but if you are on US territory then the maximum period is 48 hours. The distinction is that the US military exhibitionary forces are not covered by the US consitution etc and can hold people under US military law. I realize it looks like the wild west, but Guantanamo is sort of regulated under military law. If you are on US soil - you've constitutional protections. Though I am slightly unclear how that would relate if they claim you are a prisoner of war - thousands of japanese were held without court intervention in WW2 for example. Nowadays they'll try and use immigration or material witness laws to hold you longer, plus they are allowed to use intercept and other intelligence info in court which makes it easier to press charges early and get something to stick. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*daniel* Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Flippin travesty. Anyone see any of the commons footage before the bill went through? There were quite a few logical labour 'rebels', and a few pro 'terror' supporters. Their arguments for it were fairly appalling. What a bunch of muppets. Terror attacks happen once a blue moon, I'm sorry but in a democracy you accept certain threats to live with liberty. To take away every citizens liberty because of the possibility of a crime being committed should not happen imho. Damn it. It was so frustrating listening to an interview with the home secretary the other day, she needs a damn good slap. Anyone think it's a good idea on here to pass the bill? House of lords to the rescue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I'm against the changes - for me the whole thing is backwards. As far as I am aware they can only hold people for 48 days if the Home Secretary or whoever declares a state of emergency. But it is highly unlikely that they would do that prior to an attack - it would be blowing the intelligence services cover. That is what makes a nonsense of the whole thing - I can't imagine the circumstances when it would be used unless there has already been a major terrorist attack and in the climate after something big it would be totally the wrong thing to do to start rounding people up and holding them without charge - there could be all sorts of miscarriages of justice. I feel that the intelligence services want to keep their sources etc secret no matter what - but quite simply I believe that there are times when liberty is more important than keeping spooks happy - I would be in favour of allowing intercept and similar intelligence info in court. If the issue is so serious then the decision should be taken to blow the intelligence covers go in and arrest and use that evidence in court - I feel that is a much better option than declaring emergencies and holding people for 42 days. The fact that the director of public prosecutions - the person responsible for deciding when and how to charge somebody - is against 42 days proves to me it is unnecessary. Letting intelligence intercepts be admitted to court, charge on balance of probablilities (or whatever the term is) and allow post charge questioning - far far better ideas than a home secretary the politically grandstanding more than likely after the event when the public mood would allow people to be rounded up and held for such a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 One of the most disillusioning aspects of this affair was hearing Labour MPs talk brazenly about how they were prepared to vote for a bill they otherwise had reservations about in order to bolster the position of the government. Political self preservation wins over principal once again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 House of lords to the rescue? It won't get past the House of Lords because Labour don't have a majority there. It'll come bouncing back for debate again in around a year or so, and the commons will have to use the parliament act to get it through, but it'll have to go through another commons debate before that happens. I'd be more interested to see who got what in all these 'negotiations' to get it through. At Gordon Broons current cock-up rate, it may all be academic anyhoo. I've never seen a prime minister so out of touch with reality, with the ability to turn gold, and anything else he touches, to sh1t. I'm hoping that the next year or two will become a far better era for politics, with Bush and Brown put out to grass - but there again, I'm old enough to know we're more likely to get more of the same just wrapped up in a different package. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I really cannot understand why they need this. The only reason I can think of is that it will better equip them to investigate the wider networks in which the incarcerant was allegedly involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I really cannot understand why they need this. No one seems to be explaining the need for it, beyond saying that terrorism is complicated and the police would quite like the power to hold people for such an amount of time. But then the intelligence services surely already have a mandate to investigate suspected terrorist networks for as long as they want, and, as I understand it, the vaguely ominous Civil Contingency act allows people to be held beyond the previous limit anyway. Ultimately, Labour's recent history has shown a contempt for the rule of law in favour of macho posturing and this latest bill smacks of Gordon Brown haplessly mimicking his predecessor's tendencies in the belief he'll look less a dithering third rater stuck way out of his depth. Thatcher may have been a bit mental, Major was boring, and Tony insufferable, but none provoked the sense of despair I get when I watch Brown stammering his way through a press conference as he tries to explain another gimmicky, poorly thought out peice of legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 I really cannot understand why they need this. No one seems to be explaining the need for it, beyond saying that terrorism is complicated and the police would quite like the power to hold people for such an amount of time. But then the intelligence services surely already have a mandate to investigate suspected terrorist networks for as long as they want, and, as I understand it, the vaguely ominous Civil Contingency act allows people to be held beyond the previous limit anyway. Ultimately, Labour's recent history has shown a contempt for the rule of law in favour of macho posturing and this latest bill smacks of Gordon Brown haplessly mimicking his predecessor's tendencies in the belief he'll look less a dithering third rater stuck way out of his depth. Thatcher may have been a bit mental, Major was boring, and Tony insufferable, but none provoked the sense of despair I get when I watch Brown stammering his way through a press conference as he tries to explain another gimmicky, poorly thought out peice of legislation. I agree that there has been a great deal of political positioning going on with this. The main driver, however, seems to be for forensic computing. They said on Newsnight last night that recent investigations have typically involved 200 to 400 computers. I assume from that they were seizing not just home computers, but servers and other equipment in the chain. The only answer to that IMO is to employ more resources to deal with it, not just keep people locked up whilst relatively few resources tackle it. Analysing even one computer properly can take days - extracting that evidence, joining it all together and being able to present it as evidence many man weeks - especially if encryption has been used. Things were a lot more straightforward computer-wise in Thatchers (ZX Spectrum/Amiga) day - and of course there was no Interweb and email, which can go all around the world potentially sitting on dozens of computers. Overall IMO they should stick with 28 days and employ more resources - surely in that time, there would be the time to get enough evidence to charge someone, even if it was a relatively minor charge at first (which is the view of the CPS as I understand it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 The only answer to that IMO is to employ more resources to deal with it, not just keep people locked up whilst relatively few resources tackle it. It's interesting to think just how much of the Government's tough guy approach is in fact a thin veil drawn over what are in effect measures designed to plaster over existing incompetance and faliure. Viewed as Heath Robinson stopgaps, things like ASBOs, threatening schools with closure, and this latest fob make a lot of sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.