Defending liberty

Albert

Dear Author, 1st, I do not read the N.Y Times because I disagree with their ownership and politics. 2nd, I beleive you misread the phrase "law of the land." This may refer to principle that one must receive due process with a fair hearing, legal representation,etc. Thank you for your comments.

David Raynes

An unworthy degree of mental gymnastics to justify an unjustifiable position? It is very difficult indeed to forsee enough evidence existing to justify holding anyone for more than 28 days without a charge being immediately possible. It is never the case in criminal investigations that the detective expects to have ALL possible evidence to hand before a charge is preferred, indeed the law currently prescribes continual review and if a charge CAN be preferred it must be done.

Alcuin

I await a convincing argument in favour of extending this limit, which I was originally quite relaxed about. I did hear someone (a Lord, I believe, about a year ago on the Today porgramme) who had become convinced that the problems with exposing our intelligence methods and sources were so great that extension was preferable to allowing such evidence in open court, but have never heard this point made by the Government. I hear the CPS has just denied that it ever requested an extension. Let us have a proper debate, with contributions from the Police, Intelligence services and Civil Rights people. Let us not use this important issue as a political football.

George Steiner

Consider that the Habeas Corpus and the words of the Magna Carta refered to what was then known as crimes. The idea of international Jihad trained and financed by dispersed international actors, fuelled by untold sums of Saudi money was not contemplated. Neither were religious edicts issued to commit those crimes. It is reasonable to enact laws to match the circumstances of the times for which they are enacted. To claim that any number of days of detention without trial is the absolute unchangeable norm is sophistry of the first order. Sir Alfred Denning has himself said that English law is like a ballance never perfectly even but swings between the protection of the freedom of the idividual and protection of the society.

field

Sorry Melanie you are wide of the mark here. You might as well go to your nearest college and start circulating AL Queda recruitment forms to the Muslim students. AQ would like nothing better than for democracies to adopt these illiberal measures. If the USA can avoid any major terrorist attack since 9/11 while retaining a 4 day limit, then your support for detaining people in windowless cells for 90 days on the basis of suspicion is absurd as well as dangerous. Magna Carta is completely irrelevant to the rational argument - it's just a vague symbol of liberty. That you are resorting to textual analysis of the Charter is a sign of desperation I think!

Emily

I cannot believe some of the comments here or the way this is being reported generally.

To top it all I watched the Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald giving evidence on television this week to a Commons committee saying that there were plenty of hypothetical situations where an extension of more than 28 days would be needed, but that one had not arisen yet. As far as the DPP is concerned the law should be framed according to the evidence of past acts of terrorism only.

In other words, he thinks there's no point in having a legal system designed to pre-empt terror, it should just follow in its wake once the horse has bolted. Mind you, that 's Britain's policy to Islamist terror in a nutshell. Pathetic.

David Saxon

You are quite right that legally and contitutionally we could make the limit whatever we want it to be. That is of course, after due consideration by parliament. I really don't think the legalities of the issue are the real problem. It is rather a fundamental lack of trust in the motives of this government. They have proven themselves, on many occasions, to be so cynical, devious, or even downright dishonest, that we cannot help but suspect ulterior motives. If they were serious about combatting terrorism, you would expect them to acknowledge the source of the problem, not pander to the apologists of terrorism, and be prepared to deport terror supsects to their country of origin whatever fate our Human Rights industry thinks might await them. The truth is our government is so afflicted by Islamophilia we really cannot trust anything they say on this subject. Harsh of me, I know, but I have to tell it as I see it.

EyeSee

So as long as it is a law, passed by government all is OK? And that stops tyranny......? And your argument certainly allows the deletion of trial by jury, as that OR a law is all you require. They may well have been wise in the 13th Century, but it isn't common currency now.

field

Emily - The point is where do you stop? Why stop at 90 days? There will be plenty of cases where if you hold someone for two years you will eventually crack the case and get the evidence you need. What - don't you care about those cases??? And you must always remember - could this sort of legislation be used against you at some future date? Maybe some left wing government at a future date will declare Zionism to be a racist and terrorist movement as the UN has done in the past and make support for it subject to anti-racist laws. And perhaps some oppressive police force (West Midlands?) will arrest Melanie on suspicion of having been associating with overseas Zionist terrorists (aka the Israeli government) and hold her for 90 days incommunicado in an windowless cell as they try to build a case. But it will be all right according to Melanie - because it will be "the law of the land". No need to worry. 28 days is far too long already. I think four days is fine for us if it's fine for the Americans. I'm happy to run with the one in a million risk of being killed in a terrorist attack if it means my country remains free.

dsquared

No, this is wrong. In context, "law of the land" refers to the common law of England. It doesn't just mean any old statute passed by Parliament (a concept which didn't really exist at the time). In 1215, statute law could be passed by decree of the King, so it would have made no sense at all for the barons to have included this loophole in clause 29. The "law of the land" as a restraint on the power of the King didn't exist in 1215; it was created later. It ought to have given you a clue that nobody has tried to seriously make this argument in English law for the last 800 years.

anna goldstein

what an ignoramus you are melanie... either that or you're being wilfully misleading. the problem so many people have with the current proposal is that it is in danger of giving too much power of detention to a very few people. it is competely at odds with magna carta - odd though that it took the nyt for you to actually bother to read up what magna carta has to say on the issue. i reckon you should stick to preaching to the converted in the daily mail. you're out of your depth here.

Neil Feguson

Two words: Camp Delta.

Stuart

Melanie, I saw an interesting debate about extending 28 days where someone argued that we didn't need these laws 30 years ago in the days of the IRA. The reply was most interesting. "OK then. Which Islamic groups and spokespeople will we be banning from appearing in the media, who shall be Interned without trial and which groups shall we make illegal? Also, be prepared that certain people will be having 'work accidents'" It seems to me that extended detention is mild compared with how we dealt with the IRA and its counterpart terrorists.

Herbert Thornton

If the opinions of several posters are correct, then it would seem that the detention of enemy prisoners of war during WWII was illegal - not to mention the internment of Sir Oswald Mosely.

Arthur

Recommended - Lionhearts blog applies to us all.- http://lionheartuk.blogspot.com/2007/11/my-blog.html Melanies blog is of importance to us all too, yet those who like to come here and criticise her would rather we buried our heads in the sand with our necks exposed. Keep it up, Melanie, you perform a real, and valuable service. Thanks.

Political Umpire

For heaven's sake, Melanie, there are many arguments for and against extending the time permitted for detention without charge but this isn't one of them. Short history lesson: Magna Carta had nothing to do with securing the rights of the peasants and everything to do with filtering power from the King to the Barons. If you'd suggested to them in the C13 that 'peers' meant a jury in the modern sense you'd have been swinging from the nearest tree. To try and subject the document to the sort of close textual analysis appropriate to a modern statute is to misunderstand it completely. Its language sounds like the modern language of rights, but that's thanks to the efforts of authors many centuries later and has nothing to do with its original meaning or purpose. http://cricketandcivilisation.blogspot.com

field

I think dsquared delivered the knock out blow to Melanie's argument. The "Law of the land" indeed did not refer to "any old statute" - it referred to common law which had within it some natural defences against oppression. I am sure Melanie will be gracious in defeat on this occasion, for all her fine skills of argument. I don't know why she's got a blind spot on this one. Perhaps she has simply reacted to the line up of the "usual suspects" opposing the 90 day extension - it's normally not a bad rule of thumb ("If George Galloway, Liberty and the MCB are against it, then it must be right!")

Jo Morris

Isn't the problem with careless destruction of civil liberites this. If we enact laws they apply to everybody. If suspected terrorists can be detained for 28 days without charge, how long will it be before that is applied to other crimes? What about the people who have been wrongly convicted? What about all the false allegations etc that it would encourage?