The Law Lords ruled this week that the detention of suspects indefinitely, and without trial, was in contravention of their human rights.

Today one of the Special Advocates has quit calling the anti-terror laws "a blot on the legal landscape". (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4108539.stm)

Should we be allowed to imprison people without trial on suspicion of planning an act of terrorism, even if we cant prove it in our own courts?

Security agencies are not infallible - thats why we have trials, and why a proportion of people brought to trial are found not-guilty (and even a proportion of those found guilty of even the most tangible crimes sometimes have convictions quashed - see the earlier debates on the death penalty)

What do other people think about this - is it question of human rights? or of national security? And in a choice between the two - which should win??

Problem is - what we ragard as 'proof', and that which qualifies as 'admissible evidence' are 2 completely different things.

How would you cope with the concept that your friends/family had died at the hands of a terrorist who had escaped justice on a technicality???

Are you too young to remember the IRA bombings in the seventies? or was Sheffield exempt from their attention then?

Originally posted by Strix
Problem is - what we ragard as 'proof', and that which qualifies as 'admissible evidence' are 2 completely different things.

Thats true - but surely its no truer for these terrorist suspects than it is for any other person going through the criminal justice system?

Perhaps we should extend detention without trial for suspects of other crimes - murderers, child molesters, rapists etc. ?


Originally posted by Strix
How would you cope with the concept that your friends/family had died at the hands of a terrorist who had escaped justice on a technicality???

Very badly I expect.

Originally posted by Strix
Are you too young to remember the IRA bombings in the seventies?

Im afraid so - some of us are going through threats from terrorism for the first time.

I think everyone has the right to a trial. I was very glad that this was overruled this week. I think the worst part of it is that it only applied to foreign nationals, as if we are saying that British people deserve a trial, but nobody else.

Labours only way to continue with this now is to make it the same for all crimes, and that would mean that any of us could be held indefinitely if we are suspected of committing a crime... It would be a scary place if that happened.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm willing to live with a certain level of risk in exchange for freedom.

Originally posted by Snook
I think everyone has the right to a trial. I was very glad that this was overruled this week. I think the worst part of it is that it only applied to foreign nationals, as if we are saying that British people deserve a trial, but nobody else.


Thats right - now you mention it, it I believe that was one of the main points of their ruling.

Originally posted by Snook
Maybe it's just me, but I'm willing to live with a certain level of risk in exchange for freedom.

I think I am too :)

Originally posted by Edd
Im afraid so - some of us are going through threats from terrorism for the first time. There's a difference between the 'threats' we have now and the actual bombings that took palace in the major cities then. It changes your view when it's no longer theoretical, and actually touches YOUR life.

Many lost their lives at the hands of these nutters. Is the only way to change public opinion, to let innocent people die? I hope not

Originally posted by Edd
Perhaps we should extend detention without trial for suspects of other crimes - murderers, child molesters, rapists etc. ? Can you give us a good reason why not?

Why is it the innocent and defenceless are without rights in this country? People just trying to live a respactable life are no longer protected by our justice system.

Many crimes are committed by those awaiting trial for similar offences.

And I bet you'd have something to say about a person awaiting trial for paedophilia living next door to any child you know. It's a question of perspective.

[i]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm willing to live with a certain level of risk in exchange for freedom. [/B]


I'm sure you are....and when it happens and either you aor someone you love are the victim will you still have the same liberal attitude then?

I would love it if everybody could live with each other in peace but we cant...so for the greater good of everybody in this country we need more hands on action from the law...right down to random stop and search tactics...however the govt only brought this in because they screwed up on the asylum issue and let all and sundry in...if we had better border security then we wouldnt need to lock up suspects without any shred of evidence.

What is your solution then Edd?

If they are are deported to their own Coumtries, it is believed they will be killed for terrorist related activities.

We could let them loose..

I am not expressing an opinion but asking for yours :thumbsup:

I'm very pleased with the law lords ruling. My personal belief is that if we don't want to fall into the realms of secret police and unnacountability we have to be open and above board with our legal system - detaining certain individuals without trial does not fulfill those criteria...

I heard some home office guy (Des Brown) on Radio 5 this morning.

Apparently anyone who does not agree with locking up foreign terrorist suspects without charge or doesn't think ID cards will prevent terrorism is guilty of "wooly thinking", which for a politician is code for saying "they are thick".

I for one am absolutely fed up of being told by this government that if I don't agree with any of their policies I am basically sub-intelligent.

I wouldn't say I am a fan of the Tories, but I don't remember them ever telling me I was stupid.

Not only that but 'wooly minded liberal thinking' which sounds an awfull lot like the pronouncments of the US neo-cons.

And while I'm on this point - just whats so bad about being a liberal?

Call me an old cynic, but I find it interesting that the ruling was made the day after Blunkett resigned. Coincidence? :suspect:

Some background info here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3534274.stm

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
Call me an old cynic, but I find it interesting that the ruling was made the day after Blunkett resigned. Coincidence? :suspect:

Nomme

Don't think there's any significance, in fact Blunkett will be more than a little miffed I imagine as there is nothing he relishes more than slagging off the judiciary.

no surprise that i also welcome this ruling.

whenever a topic like this is brought up, we always get the "how will you feel when it's your puppy that's stuck up a tree" argument.

Turn it around. How will you feel when it's your goodself that's being held without charge or trial or access to a lawyer.
A system like that is wide open to abuse simply because it has no accountability.
Or how will you feel when it's a member of your family that's in that situation and no one in authority will even confirm that they are being held, because "it's a matter of national security"?

In that BBC report ..."He [Blunkett] is reported to be planning to merge the 2001 Act with the Terrorism Act 2000, which deals with domestic terrorism."

Which I suppose could be a threat that British nationals could subject to the same treatment as foreign nationals. Blunkett probably had the nerve to try this on but I doubt that any future Home Sec will. If it is a line Blunkett was thinking along then perhaps he is safer out of government.

Like cyclone says - theres no accountability - and thats not what living in a democracy is about.

We are worring about 'innocent' people, but sometimes forget that the presumtion of innocence until proven otherwise is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system.

People have rights and those rights are enshrined in law - we cant just take those rights away without any due process, by waving the "national security" trump card.

Belmarsh is holding only 13 prisoners with this status. If they were genuinely dangerous - why are they free to go if they can find another country to go to? Or in the 3 years or so they have been imprisoned, we cant find any evidence that they planned to carry out acts of terror? Are we really safer with these 13 behind bars?

Venger - yes we could let them loose - i honestly dont see what else we can do in the long term - can we just keep them there for 40 years? 50? until they die? Without ever having to prove that they even conspired to do anything? Either way, its going to end up costing the taxpayer a fortune!

There really is no simple solution to the problem - but I dont think we should buy into the culture of fear and paranoia that has grown up around this issue.

If we abandon the principles we pretend to be fighting for, then we really have lost.

A number of detainees have been released without any explanation as to why their circumstances have changed. (not that they ever knew why they had been detained anyway!)
Much of the "evidence" is provided by the Security Services: Anyone still believe in WMD?:rolleyes:
A former 'intelligence' officer revealed that much of the information he sent to HQ from overseas was culled from reading local newspapers...imagine a KGB officer sending intelligence to Moscow based on the contents of The Sun....quality!
Some of the 'intelligence' is also provided by the regimes of the detainees home countries who would kill/ltorture them if they were returned... is this held to be reliable evidence as well?

We are on the slippery slope to becoming a Police State
These people should be prosecuted or released immediately

Well if the security services was just you, and you could decide to lock someone up without charge for the protection of the country, you could probably come up with a few names.

I know I could.

Probably something along the lines of Tony Blair, Nick Griffin (ooh, bit of topicality there!), The editors of the Sun and the Mail (actually I might even be able to stick a charge of incitement to racial hatred on them - so actually scrub them off the detain without charge list).

See, once you have the power its so easy to play that sort of game with people who you don't like.