42-day Terror Detention Limit

[Cylon]

What do people think about the law changes in the UK which would allow the government to detatain people without charge for 42 days on suspision of terrorist activities. The current limit is 28 days.
I dont get why they dont just charge them with terrorism.
Overall i think its a bad idea to let the government hold people without saying why.

 

[Paulhanselluk]

This is going to cause a major split,

anyway I think its a good idea, we need to make it so terrorists cant hide behind the law and should fear it, I think its a step the right way.

Lets also keep in mind, that the police do need to have reasonable belief that the person is a threat (with evidence), and have to be able stand by this in a court of law, its not quiite as simple as just locking people up.

I feel it boils down to this simple thing, the Law should protect the inocent, not the people who know how to manipulate it for evil.

If iam really honest I feel its not enought, they need to give more power to the police and security service to protect us (I am not however advocating a police state). I also feel that second to the terror suspects the so called "do gooder" should be kept in line, it is because of them that we (as a country) are in the state we are in.

I dont mean to offend anyone, this is just somthing I feel quite strongly about, if I have upset someone, I am sorry, but that doesn't change my views.

 

[Paul]

If they have strong reason to believe then sure, as long as it doesnt affect ordinery people . Im gonna remain neutral in this as i dont really care for the police and as far as im concerned terrorist shouldnt be allowed to live

Sometimes gathering evidence is tricky, also if they have reasons to believe ( Like they listened in on a phone call saying that the 14ths gonna be explosive, something they strongly indicates an attack is imminent but the police cant move in yet due to evidence ) .
However remember that ppl have been arrested for suspected terrorism and where cleared of it . This new law means they will endure over a month in a small cell and then cleared, i think i would wanna sue them if it happened to me !

Ever since the Glasgow Airport bombings ( Which totally failed ) and the Car Bombs found in England ive always said that the police should have more power to protect us but it isnt as simple as that, it takes months of evidence gathering to take a suspect to trial afterall . The law should protect the innocent however criminals use it every day to attack there victims, this is a double bladed sword and it will cut the goverment aswell

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

Surely everyone has done something...

I once read, that the basis of a modern day democracy includes also the right of a fair trial before being held in prison. Yes, when there's an investigaion and you need to keep some on detained, so that he cannot get away, it is necessary.
However, as you know, the judge can set a bail or even deny bail.
Isn't that enough? If the state wants you in prison, they will find a way... but putting someone behind the bars for 42 days withouth explanation, maybe just because you visited the wrong internet site?

Who's a terrorist anyway?

 

[Cylon]

What are other countries policeies on this? i know america has Guantánamo Bay.

 

[Freyr]

Personally, I think this is another step in the wrong direction.

We do not have a serious terrorist problem in the UK. In the last 5 years how many terrorist attacks have we had, and how many people have died or otherwise been injured?

Compare that to the number of people that have died in road accidents in the same period, or that have died from MRSA or C. diff in NHS hospitals. Or that have died from falling down stairs. Or that have been hit by micrometeorites in that time frame. Or that. . . Point made? Look the figures up.

Why are people so paranoid about such small risks? Because we are constantly told its such a big threat? Look at the figures. MI5 said that they hadn't asked for this, the government said that they needed it. The Scottish director for public prosecution reveals that they haven't needed to use anything approaching the current limit. The conviction rate for terrorist cases is certainly above 80%, and I think its in the mid nineties but I can't be bothered to look it up at the moment. IIRC The conviction rates for criminal cases by comparison are under 50%.

If we face a terrorist threat then they MI5 should have its resources increased. We should not enact draconian laws that are actually beyond medieval, they weren't tolerated eight hundred years ago in this country. This was outlawed in the Magna Carta. Well, after 800 years on the statue books it looks like the final parts of the Magna Carta are set to be repealed. If the lords don't throw this out then we lose the right to due process.

If keeping the current, historic laws at this level costs a relative handful of lives for our guaranteed freedom then its a cost worth paying. We happily tolerate three thousand deaths a year for the price of being able to drive on the roads We are apparently happy with another seven or so thousand people that die from C.diff and MSRA in our hospitals.

Yet the fact that we might possibly lose a few dozen people every few years to terrorists serious scares people, and I can't see why when they accept the ten thousand deaths each year without thinking about it, but they are happy to hand ever larger chunks of our freedom to the government based on the government saying that there is a huge threat of al-Qaeda/terrorists destroying our society if we don't give the government whatever it wants. Terrorism is the black cheque the goverment has for doing whatever they want. Need to justify giving everybody in the UK an ID card, and requiring its carried everywhere? Oh, Who would support that? Ah, now its going to help fight terrorism! Line up here to support it.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

Terrorists CANNOT hurt us. More than ten thousand people die every year at the moment on the roads and in hospital, and that is far from an exclusive list. The real danger is that we keep giving more power away to a government which is quite happy to take on ever more growing powers to "keep us safe".

They will abuse the power, Its simply a matter of time. Unless something changes with the direction this country is headed in another 50 years we are going to have made 1984 look like a game of happy families.

 

[Phoenix]

Both sides here have valid points. Laws like this CAN help keep us safe, but can also be horribly abused by those in power.
Take South Africa for example. People were put in charge by the people, to look after the best interests of the people. Now, due to their (our political leaders) greed, the regular person can barely afford housing, food or transport, which are in general essential for getting a decent job. And all because laws were introduced to help the poor, and are now being used to starve them.

It doesn't matter what country one is in. There will always be good laws being used for the wrong reason, by greedy/ignorant/evil people.....

 

[Syf]

I have to agree with Freyr 200%. There's already enough laws in every country to over-address the potential terrorist threats. Anything more is just a means for those that want to dictate how people live and think to get their way. I mean, here in the USA, the lawmakers have been passing laws that are to "protect" against terrorists, but some how, they also added burning copyrighted MP3s as an act of terrorism (and other similar activities connected to illegal copies of DVDs, etc)... How a would be "pirate" of DVDs and CDs is a terrorist baffles me.

 

[Dan1025]

I have to agree with Freyr 200%. There's already enough laws in every country to over-address the potential terrorist threats. Anything more is just a means for those that want to dictate how people live and think to get their way. I mean, here in the USA, the lawmakers have been passing laws that are to "protect" against terrorists, but some how, they also added burning copyrighted MP3s as an act of terrorism (and other similar activities connected to illegal copies of DVDs, etc)... How a would be "pirate" of DVDs and CDs is a terrorist baffles me.

Exactly, it seems that we've gotten to the point where the goverment can pass any law they like, regarless on how it infringes on our civil rights and liberties (which it all too often does) as long as its done under the guise of "preventing terrorism". If we allow laws like the one mentioned at the start of this thread to pass unchallenged, then we really are on a slippery slope.

I once read a book that contained a speech by Adlai Stevenson. The year was 1952. He said, “The tragedy of our day is the climate of fear in which we live and fear breeds repression. Too often, sinister threats to the Bill of Rights, to freedom of the mind are concealed under the patriotic cloak of anti-Communism.†Today, it’s the cloak of anti-terrorism.

On the TV program Boston Legal, the character Alan Shore (played by James Spader), in defense of a woman who refused to pay her taxes in protest, made a speech about what the government (particlularly the US government) has been allowed to get away with, all under the cloak of anti-terrorism.

"When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn’t.

Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

And now, it’s been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven’t.

In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we’re okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there’s no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we’ve lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America!"

Thats exactly the point I'd like to make in this thread, the governments of the world have essentially been given a free pass by the public to pass any law they like as long as the words "anti-terrorism" are uttered a few times. Why? mainly because of the fear we as a society have when it comes to terrorism, regardless of facts and figures such as the ones that Freyr pointed out, our fear seems to have gotten the best of us, the government is then using that fear to get what it wants, and there's a word for that.....

 

[Paul]

They are passing laws just because they can . They have banned Japanese swords in most of the UK except Scotland ( , there was a huge backlash up here about it . We scots like our swords and its part of our culture ) just because a MP just slashed by one . Then went onto say that Swords cause lots of deaths where the figures prove them totally wrong that swords are hardly ever used in crimes ( Knifes are far more common, easyer to hide and can be just as deadly ) . This new law is just the same idea, they need some new laws and brown isnt looking to good for the next election so maybe he's counting on this saving him

I would put more money into our Intelligence Services, they track these guys and tell the police who is doing what and when . Detecting the real threat is far more effective than holding uncharged suspects for long periods of time

Atm im quickly loosing faith with the goverment down south, Some rules they make are stupid and others are touching human rights . While the stupid ones are shot down up here it is starting to look like these guys are just throwing idea's into a bag and picking some for new laws . They should start doing something worthwhile like cutting the fuel tax or making sure the troops fighting these terrorists have everything they need, the MP's get paid plenty for that afterall....

 

[Freyr]

They are passing those laws because they have all but removed the checks and balances that were in place to protect us from this on the pretence that the House of Lords shouldn't be able to vote down laws because they aren't elected, ignoring that this is the entire point of having the House of Lords.

What I think is really dangerous is attitudes like this:-

If iam really honest I feel its not enought, they need to give more power to the police and security service to protect us (I am not however advocating a police state). I also feel that second to the terror suspects the so called "do gooder" should be kept in line, it is because of them that we (as a country) are in the state we are in.

And this is the really dangerous thing. I am worried about the fact that expensive freedoms that were paid for in blood over the last thousand years are being swept away in a wave of hysteria. Anybody that objects to the extreme excesses that are being perpetrated are being portrayed as the enemy and people are buying it.

You ARE advocating a police state, you just don't realise it. We already have one CCTV camera to every 14 people in the UK. We have the largest DNA database in the world, and once your on it you never get off, even if you shouldn't be on it. We have the impending ID card situation. There is no point having an ID card if you are not required to carry it. Its not going to be voluntary, because otherwise nobody is going to carry it. We have seen a systematic disassembly of checks and balances in our governmental system, and the only reason the house of lords hasn't been completely reduced to a rubber stamping body is that using their last remaining worthwhile power to play an eternal game of legislative ping pong.

The right to protest is being decimated. If the authorities decide at their discretion that they don't like a protest they can shut it down. The RIPA act is being used for outright spying for offences as "serious" as checking what your putting in your dustbin or to check if you live in a school catchment area.

One day, when this ends the verdict of history will be damming.


This was written by a german intellectual after world war II who was detained by the Nazi party as part of their deconstruction of the weimar republic into the 3rd reich.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Does it sound familier? We have already done the communist one, replace social democrats with "Accused Terrorist", trade unionist with another target that you can whip up a lot of hysteria over, like asylum seeker for instance and then put the civil libertarians in last, which your working on at the moment.

What is next on your glorious war on terrorism? (or maybe it should actually be called a war on freedom?) The ONLY place terror is really coming from is the government and media. If you stopped to think you wouldn't be so scared about this.

And no, I am not actually a liberal. I don't believe in sticking a convenient label on someone because that allows you to neatly ignore them and their point of view, you would probably call me conservative if you believed in such a system.

 

[Cylon]

"He who would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will lose both and deserve neither."
-- Benjamin Franklin

Lets just hope that doesnt turn out to be too true.


Did u hear about that conservative guy who resigned to force a bi - election over it. Whilst i dont really like the idea of the 42 detention the government did vote for it and this is a democracy and it would probably turn out more than half the population were in favour of it. So if we alue democracy should we go with the majority if they want to put the democracy in danger?

 

[Phoenix]

I seem to remember that quote from Civilization IV, Ceylon. It is a good one, yes?

Also:
"There is no such thing as a perfect government or political view. And this, simply because there are no perfect people...and no-one can possibly create something perfect, if they themselves are flawed, and every human has at least one flaw. It is, unfortunately, human nature to attempt the impossible..."
That from an old teacher, from my highschool, when asked what he thought the most perfect system in history was. He had a good, if unfortunate, point...

 

[Paulhanselluk]

They are passing those laws because they have all but removed the checks and balances that were in place to protect us from this on the pretence that the House of Lords shouldn't be able to vote down laws because they aren't elected, ignoring that this is the entire point of having the House of Lords.

What I think is really dangerous is attitudes like this:-



And this is the really dangerous thing. I am worried about the fact that expensive freedoms that were paid for in blood over the last thousand years are being swept away in a wave of hysteria. Anybody that objects to the extreme excesses that are being perpetrated are being portrayed as the enemy and people are buying it.

You ARE advocating a police state, you just don't realise it. We already have one CCTV camera to every 14 people in the UK. We have the largest DNA database in the world, and once your on it you never get off, even if you shouldn't be on it. We have the impending ID card situation. There is no point having an ID card if you are not required to carry it. Its not going to be voluntary, because otherwise nobody is going to carry it. We have seen a systematic disassembly of checks and balances in our governmental system, and the only reason the house of lords hasn't been completely reduced to a rubber stamping body is that using their last remaining worthwhile power to play an eternal game of legislative ping pong.

The right to protest is being decimated. If the authorities decide at their discretion that they don't like a protest they can shut it down. The RIPA act is being used for outright spying for offences as "serious" as checking what your putting in your dustbin or to check if you live in a school catchment area.

One day, when this ends the verdict of history will be damming.


This was written by a german intellectual after world war II who was detained by the Nazi party as part of their deconstruction of the weimar republic into the 3rd reich.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Does it sound familier? We have already done the communist one, replace social democrats with "Accused Terrorist", trade unionist with another target that you can whip up a lot of hysteria over, like asylum seeker for instance and then put the civil libertarians in last, which your working on at the moment.

What is next on your glorious war on terrorism? (or maybe it should actually be called a war on freedom?) The ONLY place terror is really coming from is the government and media. If you stopped to think you wouldn't be so scared about this.

And no, I am not actually a liberal. I don't believe in sticking a convenient label on someone because that allows you to neatly ignore them and their point of view, you would probably call me conservative if you believed in such a system.

I dont want to get drawn into a debate over my views, and I will not be commenting any further in this thread (let alone reading it). before I close off on this topic, I do believe that some people dont have a grasp on the whole situation, and are condeming my views for giving power to people who can save us and keep freedom, but are yet saying my opinion is dangerous, a point a think that contradicts its self.

I would also like to ask
"has anyone heres family been affected by terrorism, I know mine has......"

 

[Phoenix]

Paulhanselluk, ain't no-one dissing your point. Personally, I think it's valid one. However, you must admit that while it is a good idea, there will always be those who will miss-use it. I wish it were not so, but ja. I'd personally like to have that sort of thin down here in South Africa right about now....

 

[Syf]

Need I remind everyone, debates are fine. However, Let's keep it civil and not allow our emotions to turn this into anything but a debate. I would hate to lock this thread, but if it looks to be heading toward a flame war, everyone knows it will be shut down.

 

[Freyr]

I dont want to get drawn into a debate over my views, and I will not be commenting any further in this thread (let alone reading it). before I close off on this topic, I do believe that some people dont have a grasp on the whole situation, and are condeming my views for giving power to people who can save us and keep freedom, but are yet saying my opinion is dangerous, a point a think that contradicts its self.

These are the core issues. "Save us" and "keep freedom"

What are these extreme measures saving us from? Since 2005 we have had two attacks. One killed 38 and injured ~700. The other only managed to injure the perpetrators as the design of their "bomb" was not viable. They hoped to blow up gas canisters by opening the valves and setting fire to them.

Gas canisters are designed to survive that. Even if they had of blown up while it would have made an impressive fireball it would still have failed to kill anybody not inside the car or within a few metres. As for the car bombs in london, they were parked without tickets which the ever vigilant council noticed and promptly towed them away to holding areas where they posed no threat to the public. (That always makes me smile. Any car bombers will have to buy parking tickets next time round.)

In 2005 a good ten thousand people died on the roads and in hospital. That's two hundred and sixty three times the casualty rate from terrorism. Even if we had an attack every year that killed this many people that would be preventable by becoming a police state I think that freedom is worth the cost.

The danger from terrorism is absolutely minute by comparison to day to day risks that are accepted. My conclusion is that seeing how there is no significant danger to start with there is nothing to save us from and the only danger to our freedom is that our government will take it with the intention of defending us. Once a government has taken on extra power it never gives it up willingly.

In my eyes that needs defending against more than any damage that could possibly be inflicted by a terrorist killing people or damaging properly.

I would also like to ask
"has anyone heres family been affected by terrorism, I know mine has......"

As in directly killed or injured, no.

However I do see where you are coming from. I'm a first aider and I have been first on the scene of accidents before and after you have managed to keep someone alive until a team of paramedics arrives to take the casualty to hospital you do tend to feel emotionally overwhelmed and feel that nothing is worth the cost of a human life.

I understand, I have been there before emotionally.

But that's wrong. You can put a price on a life, we do it ever day. We accept the price of driving cars is that three thousand people will die on the roads every year and that tens of thousand other people will be injured or maimed every year. We consider that to be acceptable.

What is the price of freedom? That is down to every person to answer for themselves, but I think its worth more than being able to drive on the roads. Far more.

Paulhanselluk, ain't no-one dissing your point. Personally, I think it's valid one. However, you must admit that while it is a good idea, there will always be those who will miss-use it. I wish it were not so, but ja. I'd personally like to have that sort of thin down here in South Africa right about now....

Its a valid point, everybody is entitled to an opinion.

I just think the government is a bigger danger to our freedom than terrorists.

Whilst i dont really like the idea of the 42 detention the government did vote for it and this is a democracy and it would probably turn out more than half the population were in favour of it. So if we alue democracy should we go with the majority if they want to put the democracy in danger?

Well, as David Davies said that is all down to how you ask the question and how informed people are on the issues.

Do you agree to detain terrorists without charge for up to 42 days?

Do you agree to lock up anybody suspected of being a terrorist on the flimsiest grounds (the majority of whom will be innocent) without any charge, legal recourse or right of appeal for up to 42 days while we tear their lives apart looking for evidence they are a terrorist?

If you ask the former then people will agree to it. If you ask the latter people won't. If the people are fully informed and aware of the future ramifications most people wouldn't vote for it.

What David Davies is trying to do is provoke a debate on this, because otherwise it would get an hours attention from the media and then be forgotten. The prospect of the end of eight hundred years of Habeas Corpus should be worth far more than an hour in the media.

 

[Syf]

I stand in agreement that a 42 day retention is way over board, and a total recipe for disaster against everyday people. Freyr hits the head about it all.

I think we (as nations) have made a point to the would be terrorists with the united front against such, as our countries have shown. If they want a war, the united free world nations (NATO, UN, etc) will fight back.

And as for me, Yes, I have felt the impact of loss of friends and family because of terrorists.

 

[Cylon]

I heard labour wasnt stading in the constituacy with David Davis to avoid a debate, so he will just be left debating with the moster raving luni party which may hurt his argument.

 

[Freyr]

I heard labour wasnt stading in the constituacy with David Davis to avoid a debate, so he will just be left debating with the moster raving luni party which may hurt his argument.

No, this is where it gets funny. Labour didn't want to argue it, but then the former editor of the sun decides to stand for the seat with the backing of rupert murdoch and his assorted newspapers. And he's going to argue the election for 42 day detention, and possibly for 420 days. Against the person that won the argument (if not the vote) in the house of commons.

So, he has an opponent with substantial media support which forces other media to cover the battle. He has his argument, and Labour can't run away from it.

 

[EAS_Intrepid]

This was written by a german intellectual after world war II who was detained by the Nazi party as part of their deconstruction of the weimar republic into the 3rd reich.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

That quote ist from Father Niemoeller, a clergimen during the Nazi regime.



I can only agree with you Freyr. If you ask me, this is another battle "the terrorists" won. They are against liberal and civil rights and all the freedoms we have.... our own people take that away from us now, not a terrorist by invading our society.

Yes, I am for tracking down those terrorists and to prosecute them accordingly (with a fair trial). But this is one more step too far. If we act like them, we will become "them".