Blair Defeated!..................

Merlin the Magician

Merlin the Magician

At the Start
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
3,556
Location
SOUTH WALES
:o DEFEATED 322-291 ON the right to hold possible terrorists for 90 days :o

I personally would have voted yes so as to give the police the time and power they need with a revue next year I thought that as being the correct thing to have done.....

Anybody got any input with regards this?????????????
 
Originally posted by fudge@Nov 9 2005, 06:53 PM
Obviously the 322 like terrorism in our country
Click to expand...
I don't but I also wouldn't like to see further infringements on our civil liberties.

Where would it end? If we allowed suspected terrorists to be held without charge for 90 days, how long would it be before other suspected criminals were held without charge for a similar length of time?
 
I'm with Colin on this.

Also good to see Blair in a position which will force him to review his position in his party and as leader of this country - personally I think the man has lost the plot entirely.
 
I think it has to be good news that this bill was defeated. 90 days house arrest? This is not a police state and to detain people when they have done nothing wrong, but "look suspicious" is just plain wrong.

No one is denying that there are terrorists in the world but to arbitrarily detain people without evidence cannot be allowed to happen. Well done to the politicians who voted against Blair(s) on this.
 
I am reminded of something that Winston Churchill said in 1947 when talking about parliamentary democracy:

"Indeed, it has been said that it is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried from time to time."
 
If you are part of a highly complex and sophisticated cell, you're going to have highly complex and sophisticated codes, drop points, decoy and distraction tactics, bank accounts in bizarre places in countries which may not be inherently cooperative with the British police, multiple passports, a variety of names, and so on. Dissident factions are singularly difficult to penetrate with would-be double agents and informers, particularly when their cells are spread as far apart as the US, Australia, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, the UK, and a number of European countries. There is a constant exchange of personnel and information, thanks to the fact that these are usually well-educated, or well-enough educated, people with a fully up-to-date understanding of money laundering, weapons concealment, terrorist training, etc., and who also enjoy anonymity provided by many supporters on the ground, not necessarily active in terrorism themselves, but certainly not anti- its proponents.

The Police were still going to have to go, under the proposed 90 days detention rule, to the courts EVERY WEEK to continue to convince the courts that they had continuing, further evidence to support continuing detention. If the courts thought that by, say, 40 days the Police were not progressing their suit, they would have ordered the detainees to be freed. Anyone who thinks that four weeks is sufficient to unravel the tangled webs of dissident networking must be barking mad.

As usual in this country's political make-up, we have a fudge of the issue, so that everyone can sit around gloating that they mostly got their way. The particular smugness of the Beeb's reporter tonight, almost orgasmic at the thought that the Prime Minister had been defeated, distracts from the much more important global view, and, IMVVHO, shows us as the Little Englanders we are. It was nothing at all to do with the erosion of the civil liberties of potential maimers and killers: it was a bit of pettyfogging politicking, a way to weaken Blair, and give him a slap.

In other words, it was more important for the gloaters to put the POSSIBLE short-term detention of what may or may not be fanatical killers, part of the current psychopathy of hatred, ABOVE the prevention of the POSSIBLE maiming and murder of British citizens.
 
Mr GG used to work for the police, faffing about with their computers. He says it can take up to four months to decode some computers and that's why they want some people in custody for up to 90 days. I still don't think one suspicious computer is enough to hold someone for that long though.
 
Jon,

If all you say about the intelligence and organisation of these cells is correct then 90 days wouldn't be long enough for our boys in blue.

Once again I refer back to the shooting of the totally innocent young man from Brazil, if that was typical of the intelligence ( in more than one sense of that word ) of our police force well I think they would have to open up several detention camps to house all the suspects.

As you know I respect your opinion but I don't respect the people who run this country ( police and politicians ) or their judgement on who to retain under house arrest or any other form of arrest.

Respectfully,

Colin
 
Colin, please feel free to disagree with me, even vehemently, if you wish! :D We won't fall out over it, I promise - I honestly don't fall out over differences of opinion when we make them in as objective a way as possible.

Hey, I never said I endorsed the government, or endorsed the Polizei! I can't stand this government, didn't vote for them, never will. The Police make cock-ups and cover-ups in probably equal measure. :o The death of the lad was appalling, of course it was. BUT... yes, I'm afraid that reading a number of articles from a variety of onlines does lead me to believe that there is an octupus-like spread, right around the world, of fanatics. They are denounced by the learned and sincere Mullahs, in fact, many have placed fatwahs on their actions.

I read Arab News (a Saudi Arabian English-language daily paper) most days, and while I don't suppose it makes two sentences here, there are regular shoot-outs with, and captures of, Al-Queda supporters. Caches of arms, including ground-to-air rocket launchers (handy for bringing down the occasional passenger plane), bomb-making equipment, and grenades have been found. Dozens of people, native and foreign, have already died in that country that year. Then think of Nairobi, of Bali, of Madrid, of London, let alone today's anniversary for New Yorkers. The Aussies have just uncovered a significant cell, and made many arrests. And we are assured that, since our London horrors, two 'serious' incidents have been thwarted.

We're not dealing with a few rowdy guys who fancy making social nuisances of themselves. These aren't the racketing rioters of France. This is a long-standing, far-reaching, sophisticated network, and if we continue to wring our hands piously about POTENTIALLY infringing a strong suspect's right to freedom for what is a very short while - our burglars get out of jail quicker - then I'd rather keep my sight and legs, thanks, and not donate them involuntarily to some crackpot's idea of a righteous crusade.

And I respect you, too! :D
 
Why does Blair want to stop at 90 days?

Lets make it indefinite detention, that way we'll be able to totally stop terrorism.

As you can tell I believe that 90 days is far to long, 28 is more like it, if they can't do it in 28 days then IMO there is unlikely to be anything sus going on.
 
Irish Stamp, it wouldn't matter if it was indefinite: the Police would still have to report every week and announce very clear reasons to the courts why they needed to continue to hold their detainee/s. If they were unconvincing, the detainee/s would have to be released.

I was interested to see on the news last night the strongest possible indication that this decision was not made out of national, let alone global, interest at all - it was, as I had assumed, about being able to give Blair a good kicking, especially as those inside his party who hate him know he won't seek further office. Political opportunism, IMO, rather than taking a global view of what Al-Queda and its offshoots has to offer the world. And just as dozens of people get blown to Kingdom come in West-friendly Jordan, thanks to that nice Mr Zarqawi. You know - the chappie whose believers slice off the heads of the people they kidnap, and video the process for the world to see. Heaven forfend we should ever infringe their civil liberties, while experts try to discover if their mobis did text coded messages about such attractive events. There are some people who'd probably object to us slapping them with a couple of ASBOs and curfew by 10.00 p.m.
 
Jon,

I don't think any of us would have any problem with "terrorists" being denied their civil liberties. It is the ability of the "intelligence" services and the police getting their acts together to target the right people, that is the the concern.

If you were an innocent who was detained, how would you feel about being denied your freedom for 90 days.

If these suspected terrorists are detained and are eventually released without charge, will they receive compensation for the loss of their freedom, be it for 14, 28 or 90 days.

Colin
 
He gets more and more like Margaret Thatcher everyday - out of touch and dictatorial . He seems to think he still has an enormous majority - bullying the Labour back benchers backfired spectacularly .

As for the 90 days it was a potential disaster - internment is the best recruiting sergeant of all. Long internment without trial also leads to serious mental health problems witness the foreign nationals released from Belmarsh . The equivalent of a six months prison sentence without trial .

As for the seven day review by a High Court Judge I am afraid that was a protection in name only - very difficult for a judge in such a situation to gainsay what the police are saying especially as no doubt the suspect's lawyers would be allowed nowhere near the information being relied upon - and accordingly not able to show if it was flawed .

I regret to say that I suspect the real reason for 90 days was that they were hoping it would lead people to crack under the strain and confess - a 21st century equivalent of the rack . Torture by detainment . The result unreliable confessions. Next stop Islamic Guildford Fours and Birmingham Sixes

The Govt already has extensive powers of surveillance and monitoring and of house arrest and control orders that can easily prevent a suspect's ability to be involved in a terrorist outrage after the 14 days - remember on a lower burden of proof .

I think 28 days is too long but beyond it was completely wrong . Australia has just put its limit up to 14 . When the IRA were at their height it was only 7 .
 
Presumably the intelligence agencies would already have done an awful lot of intelligence gathering on these suspects prior to arrest ( see Aus last month, on-going for 18 months ). This being the case, surely 28 days would be long enough to gain enough extra evidence against them. I mean, the suspects supposedly aren't tipped off they are being pulled in, so there is no reason they will be being extra careful prior to arrest.
 
Originally posted by Ardross@Nov 10 2005, 09:58 AM
He gets more and more like Margaret Thatcher everyday - out of touch and dictatorial . He seems to think he still has an enormous majority - bullying the Labour back benchers backfired spectacularly .

As for the 90 days it was a potential disaster - internment is the best recruiting sergeant of all. Long internment without trial also leads to serious mental health problems witness the foreign nationals released from Belmarsh . The equivalent of a six months prison sentence without trial .

As for the seven day review by a High Court Judge I am afraid that was a protection in name only - very difficult for a judge in such a situation to gainsay what the police are saying especially as no doubt the suspect's lawyers would be allowed nowhere near the information being relied upon - and accordingly not able to show if it was flawed .

I regret to say that I suspect the real reason for 90 days was that they were hoping it would lead people to crack under the strain and confess - a 21st century equivalent of the rack . Torture by detainment . The result unreliable confessions. Next stop Islamic Guildford Fours and Birmingham Sixes

The Govt already has extensive powers of surveillance and monitoring and of house arrest and control orders that can easily prevent a suspect's ability to be involved in a terrorist outrage after the 14 days - remember on a lower burden of proof .

I think 28 days is too long but beyond it was completely wrong . Australia has just put its limit up to 14 . When the IRA were at their height it was only 7 .
Click to expand...
I agree with everything our learned friend has said.

90 days is an absolute disgrace. Leadership such as Blair's that has contributed to the terrorism problem in this country.
 
If the police say they require 90 days well give them 90 days to further their inquiries if the suspect was not guilty or no case to answer he will be able to claim compensation.... :o
 
I agree that 90 days isn't right. It surely infringes basic civil liberties to lock someone up for that long on a whim with no charge being brought.

Let's not forget though that although the 90 days is seen as a major infringement of rights in this country, other coutries view it completely differently. Under Spanish law (well, Andalucian law at least, I'm not sure whether it applies to the whole country), a person can be held for up to one year before charges have to be brought, and not just for terrorism charges.
 
If the police say they require 90 days well give them 90 days to further their inquiries if the suspect was not guilty or no case to answer he will be able to claim compensation....
Click to expand...

I suppose its all well and good as long as you're convinced it could never be you at the sharp end of it.
 
The internment point is the key one, and most intelligent. Long Kesh and Quantanamo caused more deaths than 9/11, and will continue to do so for years.
 
Back
Top