Dirty tricks in the detention cell

field

Melanie - Very impressive arguments? Any such arguments are completely utilitarian (aka amoral). Any thing you can argue for 90 days you can argue for 95 days - or do you deny that!!! And so the moral outrage you set on those who don't want to move to 90 days you should set on yourself - because there could be a terrorist outrage involving the deaths of tens of thousands and all because you made the limit 90 days and not 95. But I go further. There are many cases where it will take at least two years to fully break an Al Queda cell. Are you arguing that we should not have two years' detention without charge in a windowless cell - that you would risk the terrorist outrage occurring between 90 days and 730 days? The Al Queda recruiting stall is being set up - hurry, hurry while stocks last!!! Before we move on from 90 days detention without trial to 365 days....

Lee Jakeman

I bet the "impropriety" turns out to be peanuts compared to MP's "expense" claims.

Dee Ranged

The detention of up to twelve months for a suspected Spanish criminal clearly demonstrates that Spanish democracy and freedom is not undermined. So why quibble about 90 days?

Kevyn Bodman

Really Melanie, you're being a bit naive here, aren't you? Of course it's a planted story but stories are planted in the press and on to TV every day.Our broadsheet Sunday papers would look very different without them. And we are always able to find out what the PM is 'expected' to say in advance of the delivery of any speech. This kind of manipulation of the news agenda is regrettable, but impossible to eliminate. Melanie, you work in journalism so you know that. Turning to the 28 day limit I think you are simply wrong to want to see it extended. The freedom of 'terrorist' suspects is my freedom and your freedom too. I simply do not believe that any law written for 'terrorist' suspects will be limited in its application to only 'terrorist' suspects. Sooner or later it'll spread. And there is no safe limit. Why 90 days? Why not 95? field's comment above is correct. 100% security; we can't have it. But we can maintain the freedom of innocent people not to be detained without charge. Suspects are just that, suspects. They're not necessarily criminals, and we are unwise to blur the distinction.

Thom

Mel, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions on the erosion of the western way of life and its moral backbone believe me, but in your support of the detention policies of this group of statist hacks you are way of the mark. Keeping someone locked up sans' charge will not keep this country safe; terrorists cells are so diverse and reliant on democratic nations indiscretions for their support and legitmacy that any move away from truly freeing principles engendered by our philosophy as a nation (but not by our politicos) serves to bolster theirs. Aside from the obvious answer that yes, there probably is a move to undermine his reputation but if it weren't true any such attempts would be valueless; perhaps costly in the form of libel action. The truth is though that our high spending, politically entrenched public servants are now private servants; there in it for themselves. If you do anything right Mel do this; drop this belief that detaining all peoples, who by BRITISH are innocent until proven guilty, for extended periods is legitimate; it would make us no different from communist china's treatment of Christians.

Phillip Reece

Thom, or no different from dictatorships like France, Spain or Italy