The case for 56 days

Tim

Throughout this debate though, no one from the 56 camp has been able to present any evidence that 28 days is insufficient. All we have is the assertion that plots are more complicated and these guys are more dastardly than ever before. I would argue that the plots that have failed and been thwarted have all been remarkably simplistic. See the attacks on Glasgow aiport - basically 2 blokes driving some camping stoves into an airport. Further, none of the plots that failed (21/7, Tiger Tiger, Glasgow) would have been prevented by 56 days. Aboloshing a law as profound as habeus corpus should require a little more than scaremongering.

David

But Matthew, when the Home Secretary can't put foward a good reason why, and can't even express an opinon as to the number of days it should be, then I'm afraid the argument is far from being made and from being convincing. I remember the letter of so called evidence produced by the government when they were discussing 90 days-all their actual examples were sub-judice, that is to say people had been charged and were under going trial, the hypotheticals appeared to indicate that a terrorist cell of 10 people would have 300 computers in their posession, and the issues surrounding decryption are now not relevant since it is an offence not to give up the key.

EyeSee

What a hopeless attempt to support Brown. Let me get this right. Because certain Labour supporting senior policemen etc say they agree with Brown, all will be OK. Why then does a survivor of 7/7 say it is not necessary and says it isn't the police or security services asking for it. How would it have stopped 7/7? Why do we hear of lots of plots but no actual substance eg arrests? It is purely about politicians having power and look how the abuse what they currently have! You are a prime reason for not renewing a magazine subscription.

Simon

I cannot see the distinction between what you are propsing and internment. Confidence in the Judiciary has fallen too in recent years. They hardly distinguished themselves in some of the landmark trials of alledged IRA bombers in he past. Since then we've had Hutton. Now we are being asked to surrender more important liberties but be assured that each case will be examined by Jacqui Smith. No thank you, and, if I may say so, hardly in line with the best traditions of The Spectator.

Corin Vestey

To oppose detention without trial for the best parts of three months at the whim of the State is not mere party politics. Many of those who oppose this huge extension of the State's power over the individual do so because they know that power grabs tend to be incremental. As someone who has been an acute observer of the EU Mr D'Ancona knows this. First it was 28 days, now it is to be 56 days, what next? I yield to very few in my concern over Islamist terrorism but destroying our fundamental liberties so that the police have more time to put a case together is not a sensible way to proceed. However, I must be honest about what this means. It means that innocent people may die so that the liberties of millions are not curtailed forever by the State. I reluctantly submit that this, along with vigilance (and a ruthless efficiency), is the price of freedom. It would be ironic if, in fighting the tyranny of sharia law, we willingly imposed another form of totalitarianism on ourselves, would it not?

Jon

Franklly why stop at 56 days if these people are so inscrutable. 90, 120, 365 - there's no limit once you relax the burden of proof reqiured to lock someone up without trial.

Jon

Franklly why stop at 56 days if these people are so inscrutable. 90, 120, 365 - there's no limit once you relax the burden of proof reqiured to lock someone up without trial.

Kevyn Bodman

No evidence that 28 days is insufficient. So what is gained by 56 days? Or any other number of days even though the Home Secretary hasn't yet formed an opinion on that number? The idea of Parliamentary scrutiny is laughable, the members of the legislature are not strong enough to prevent the abuse of executive power in this case. So you need to trust: a)the judgement and b) the honesty of this lot. I don't trust them. But even if this lot, and the next lot, and the lot after that were blessed with both good judgement and honesty sooner or later we'll get a government that falls short in one or both of these areas. Would they give up the powers? Henry Porter is much closer to the correct solution to this problem than Matthew D'Ancona is.

Tiberius

That's a bit severe, Eyesee. There is a case for extending the detention period, although I don't suscribe to it, mostly because (as Simon writes)I have little trust in our authorities to apply the law in a common- sense fashion. We have not deported airline hijackers, for example, but we do attempt to return assimilated refugees (well at least one case has been reported)to Zimbabwe. As Matt rightly reports, we face an enemy of terrifying proportions, but to my mind extended detention would have to be accompanied by profiling (and it won't be). Otherwise it is not beyond the imagination to see a Julie Walters type dinner lady being banged up for buying a couple of bags of plant fertilizer. My conclusion is that the attitude of our authorities has to change if we are eventually to win the fight against these terrorists. If the PC stuff remains in place, extending the detention period wouldn't be worthwhile anyway.

TGF UKIP

You are being unbelievably charitable to Brown over his motives on this, Matthew. For Brown state control over as much of peoples' lives as possible is a prime political goal and this move should be taken along with the draconian and intrusive other "security" measures unveiled last week. (On Marr yesterday Ruth Kelly was extremely evasive over the number and nature of questions that people would be required to answer when travelling or attending "venues at risk" - try asking a Kopite 53 questions to get into Anfield,Ruthie Baby. Ratcheting up the paranoia of the citizenry has long been utilized as a mechanism for one party states to take still more powers over them. All this is leading towards not just ID cards but much further.It is, I believe, impossible to be too cynical about Brown and it is also impossible to ignore the sinister change that has taken place in the nature of the police in the past ten years. So far as the party politics of it is concerned, as I recall it was reported that at the PLP meeting just before the 90 day vote, Blair told his backbenchers that the whole thing was tactical with the aim of backfooting and splitting the Tories. It must also be said that, in pursuit of "brand decontamination" the Tories have got themselves in a very uncomfortable position on this - a seemingly LibDem security policy as well as a LibDem foreign policy.

Lee Jakeman

On purely SECURITY grounds, there is a case for 90 days, never mind 56. The real problem is that our security has become a party political issue. It shouldn't be. I don't slavishly support any government, but then, by the same token, I don't believe in opposition for opposition's sake.

Perdix

Hi TGF - interesting you can't debate anything without a dig at the Tories. Why does it not occur to you that the Tory position is one of principle rather than "decontamination"?No wonder ukip are sinking witout trace.

EyeSee

Tiberius. Our police (with whom I have worked when they were noble) imprison a man for protecting his property (due to their failure) and then say he must stay in prison after his time, because he wont be safe outside. Another failure on their part. The police ignore Islamist hate and turn on the programme makers, they relentlessly pursue motorists for revenue. The police, now more routinely armed, accidently shoot an innocent man. They use anti-terror laws to remove an 82 year old man from a Labour conference. Matthew, by trying to support Brown as he does, supports all of the above. At what point was I being harsh?

Jack R

Yes, I support an extension to 58 days; the Islamic jihad threat to the UK is severe, and may involve international links, language translations, computer encryptions,etc. Matthew outlines the necessary parliamentary and judical safeguards needed in all this. I'm not taken in my Brown, and I will not be voting Labour, but security should be paramount in a few cases.

Tiberius

"At what point was I being harsh"? I meant threatening to cancel your subscription!

Ruddigore Topsider

"the issues surrounding decryption are now not relevant since it is an offence not to give up the key." Your faith in influence of British justice is touchingly naive, and illustrates the extent to which the pre-9/11 mindset dominates British discussion. The people who committed the 7/7, 21/7, Tiger Tiger and Glasgow airport attacks demonstrably do not share your reverence of the law. The threat of further prosecution is unlikely to have the effect on a would-be self-slaying mass-murderer as it might (*might*) upon a 15-year-old hoodie up on shoplifting charges. No one is suggesting overturning habeas corpus. And no one is saying the attacks themselves have become complex: clearly they haven't. But the extent to which terrorist groups go to cover their planning and logistics *has* become more complex. Our actions don't take place in a vacuum, but in a complex cycle of action, reaction and counter-action. If our change of procedures forces networks to take even more elaborate precautions, it makes their network less agile. That gives us more chance of identifying critical nodes, and therefore more chance of disrupting their plans. Also, given that the current limit is arbitrary, and established as a result of practice under previous, far less potentially ruinous, terrorist campaigns, it is specious to argue that a different as-yet arbitrary limit be rejected.

The Laughing Cavalier

As TGF UKIP says, it is impossible to be too cynical about the very sinister NuLabour movement. Much of its authoritarianism and the Surveillance Society that it is hell bent on introducing stem from its desire to control and interfere in every facet of people's lives. As for the threat of 2,000 potential terrorists, is that all? Two thousand amongst 60 million? Let us try to keep this in proportion. When the Provos were threatening railway stations and public places, sometimes blowing them up, did we surrender to this sort of government sponsored hysteria? No, of course we didn't then and we shouldn't do so now. If we do, we shall end up in the sort of dystopian nightmare depicted in Twentieth Century novels.

Amanda Thrillme

"When the Provos were threatening railway stations ... did we surrender to this sort of government sponsored hysteria?" So you think we should surrender to the Orwell-quoting hysteria instead? As to this being a creeping totalitarianism, and an example of a power-crazy government inflating the threat cynically to justify extending its control: I find it hard to understand how anyone could carry on living in Britain if that is what they truly believe.