The 42-days debate
To read today’s papers, you’d think that yesterday’s House of Lords debate on extending the time limit for detention before charge in terrorist cases from 28 to 42 days was a total and humiliating rout of the government’s position, with Security Minister Lord West’s lone frigate being blown out of the water by a fleet of destroyers led by the former head of MI5, Baroness Manningham-Buller, and with not even a rowing boat coming to his support. But Hansard records an altogether more complex argument, in which despite a blizzard of very serious but nevertheless largely tangential objections or assertions, Lord West’s main contention was never effectively challenged. This was the problem West outlined that 42 days was intended to address:
Two factors are relevant to the issue of pre-charge detention, and to my assessment that there will be exceptional cases where the police will require more than 28 days to frame charges. First, because of the severe consequences of a successful terrorist attack, the police often need to intervene much earlier in terrorist cases. They cannot afford—and I would not want them to—to wait until an attack has happened, and may need to step in at a very early stage of an investigation, before they have had the chance to gather admissible evidence. In the Dhiren Barot case, for example, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the then National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations, said that ‘there was not one shred of admissible evidence’ at the point of arrest. This is different from what happens in most other crimes, where there are victims, witnesses and forensic material that can be used as evidence. Barot subsequently pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 40 years.
Secondly, the clear trend is for terrorist investigations to grow in scale and complexity. In 2001, for example, when the police investigated the last major IRA case, they had to analyse the contents of one computer and a handful of floppy disks. The suspects used their own names, and their activities were confined to the Republic of Ireland and the UK. In 2004, the investigation into Dhiren Barot involved the seizure of 270 computers, 2,000 computer disks and 8,224 exhibits. There were seven co-conspirators and, during the investigation, police carried out enquiries in the United States of America, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, France, Spain and Sweden. I make no apologies for banging this home. In another recent case, 30 addresses were searched within two hours of the start of the arrest phase of the operation; and 400 computers and 8,000 computer disks were seized, along with more than 25,000 exhibits... In addition, the consequences of radiation, chemical or biological contamination could delay investigations by days if not weeks.
I fear that all the indications are—and I do not say this lightly—that it is not a matter of if such an attack will be plotted, but when... I believe that it is better for us to legislate calmly, on a precautionary basis, than to find ourselves scrambling for emergency legislation in the heat of a serious operation.
In the light of this chilling assessment, the response by the Tories’ security spokesman Baroness Neville-Jones was risible:
If security is to be sustainable over the long term, security measures must also facilitate and protect a united society based on shared liberal values and the mutual trust of a free, responsible citizenry. Citizens must be able to repose their trust in each other, not in the state for fear of each other.
Who would disagree with such a pious hope? But we’re not talking about creating an ideal society. We’re talking about whether the police have the means to prevent a major terrorist atrocity in specific circumstances where they say they do not. To reply that we all have to ‘trust each other’ is daft socio-babble.
She went on:
Terrorists want to undermine our freedoms and way of life by provoking the state into putting in place repressive measures.
No they don’t. They want to kill us and take over our country. They have targeted the UK, furthermore, because they have correctly judged that we will not put in place repressive measures but instead will provide the most hospitable environment for them to go about their appalling business -- precisely because our establishment can be relied upon to be so soft-headed.
Lady Neville-Jones went on to say that so far charges had been successfully brought in all terrorist plots within the 28-day limit. True. She then made the common leap of logic that there was thus no evidence to support the precautionary principle underlying the bill. But the only evidence she and her followers would accept, it seems, is an atrocity that occurs because no charges could be brought in time. What such people don’t seem able to grasp is that it is only through luck that this has not yet happened. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to work out that, given the enormous complexity of these plots – not to mention the further complications if chemical or radioactive material is used -- it is almost inevitable that the police will at some point be stymied in precisely the way that they fear. The same argument – that there was no evidence of any cases where the existing pre-charge detention limit had caused suspects to walk free -- was used against extending it to 14 days and then to 28 days. Yet now opponents of 42 days use the 28-day limit to ‘prove’ that there is no evidence for a further extension.
As Lord Harris pointed out:
Three years ago, when the police entered what turned out to be the bomb factory for the 7/7 bombers, they came upon a bath tub of suppurating gloop. It took more than a week of drones going in to try and establish what was in the bath before officers were given the all-clear to search the premises properly and neighbours could be reassured that it was safe to go back to their homes. In that instance, the bombers were not in custody, but it is easy to see implications for a 14-day or 28-day limit with the clock ticking and when the premises of those being held cannot even be searched for the first 10 days or so.
Many arguments advanced yesterday against the measure were very much off-target. A constant refrain was the damage it would do to relations with the Muslim community, causing information about terrorism to dry up or even pushing British Muslims into the arms of al Qaeda. The idea that a 42-day limit which would only be used once in a blue moon, if at all, would push Muslims into the arms of terrorists is surely as absurd as it is insulting to them. As for jeopardising their willingness to shop the terrorists in their midst, my understanding is that the number of times British Muslims have brought forward information of material value to a counter-terrorist operation is precisely zero.
Lord Dear, a former Chief Constable and Inspector of Constabulary, made much of the fact that no other country had resorted to such lengthy periods of pre-charge detention in terrorist cases. But that’s because a) they often routinely lock up all suspects pre-charge for a very long time and b) their systems are totally different.
Then there was the argument advanced by the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, that none of this was necessary because of the ‘threshold test’ which allows charging in situations where the evidence to show a 50 per cent-plus prospect of success before a jury is not yet available, but the authorities believe on reasonable grounds that it will become available and where, if the detainee were released, he would be a danger to individuals or the community at large. My understanding, however, is that this is only used where the police need only a little more evidence to bring a charge; it has not been used and would be quite useless in circumstances envisaged by the Bill where at the point of arrest the police have no evidence that would be admissible in court.
Lord Falconer’s explanation, by the way, why he supported 90 days when he was Lord Chancellor but opposes 42 days now, was totally absurd. When it was pointed out that the threshold test had been in place at the time of the 90 days debate, he shamelessly replied:
My Lords, I completely accept that it was in place at that time. The extent to which it could be used was not known; the extent to which it became the basis of most terrorist charges was not known. Now that it is known, the basis for an extension to 42 days completely disappears.
Hello?
Baroness Manningham-Buller, whose intervention has been treated by today’s papers with the reverence afforded to the of Oracle at Delphi, said she opposed the measure because of the need for the suspect to be given the right to a fair trial. But it has nothing to do with a trial; only with the period of detention before charge.
Meanwhile, contrary to the general impression, some weighty voices spoke in favour including two former MI6 officers, Baronesses Ramsay and Park. Lady Ramsay said:
I remain as convinced now as I was then that a maximum of 28 days in our legal system is inadequate in the face of the distinctive terrorist challenge of our time. I would also rather give the Home Secretary a reserve power for a possible increase than legislate in the emotional heat of a terrorist crisis.
While Baroness Park observed:
The US Senate 9/11 commission report gave several telling examples of terrorists identified too late because of the simple fact of delays in answers from often friendly but slow-acting services. One of those cases involved a close link to the group that eventually carried out that bombing. I give that as an example of why I believe that the law should make it possible to get an extension of time if that is judged necessary. I am not saying that it has to happen; I am saying that, if it needs to happen, it ought to be able to happen.
Therefore, I remain committed to the urgent need to extend the powers on pre-charge detention seven days at a time when asked for, for up to 42 days. The enemy is not the IRA but a global, amorphous organisation that uses rare forms of Arabic to communicate. It is highly skilled in new communications technology and its tentacles reach into Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan and Malaysia. The men and women with the necessary linguistic and professional knowledge to extract intelligence from vast quantities of material seized are hard pressed... The liaison services have an agenda of their own and, even if they respond promptly, they may be understaffed and the answer may—almost certainly will—take weeks rather than days. Can it be right to lose crucial evidence because it comes too late, when we are only seeking an extension of a week at a time, with the approval of a senior judge and the DPP, and only if it is necessary? Who is going to ask for it if it is not necessary?
The former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Imbert made this powerful point:
Where lies the greatest harm? Where lies the greatest risk? To keep in custody for more than 28 days a person who is then not charged or who is charged and then found not guilty? Or to release someone strongly suspected of planning to cause casualties and murder, who goes on to commit a horrific offence? Getting the balance right between an individual’s human rights and the protection and safety of the public is a conundrum we must solve. We get it wrong at our peril.
And Lord Howarth made this core observation:
We need to rethink the balance between security and liberty. That is not a metaphysical absolute but it is contingent. Our responsibility is to uphold the maximum liberty consistent with our people’s security in these new circumstances. A pragmatic judgment has to be made. Islamist terrorism is new. It rapidly adapts and mutates. While we have to hold to our enduring values of liberal democracy and the rule of law, we too must
adapt and mutate.
Where I do agree with the critics is that the 42-day limit in itself was plucked out of the air; it was an attempt to push once again for an extension between the original 90- day proposal and the 28-day compromise, on the grounds that more time was still needed. I also very much agree that the concessions have in themselves produced the unworkable and unconstitutional provision of getting Parliament’s approval for a police operation.
But to me, the principle of extending the limit remains sound and the opponents’ case does not answer the main point. Lord Howarth made perhaps the most fundamental point of all – that he believes this country is in a state of war. I suspect that the core issue for most of those arguing against extending the time limit is that they don’t agree. They don't believe the chilling assessments of the threat. They think ‘Blair lied about Iraq/ intelligence and policing are politicised/ the threat is exaggerated’.There lies our tragedy.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (39)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
1 Yes campaign launch will cause problems — for the independence movement - Ysenda Maxtone Graham
2 Obama vs Balls - edited by Graham Storey, Margaret Brown and Kathle
3 Cameron's attack on Balls is strangely endearing - Lloyd Evans
4 Susie Squire to take over as Tory press chief - James Forsyth
5 What Farage's offer means for David Cameron - James Forsyth
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
RUFFS Bespoke Signet rings
62 Shore Road, Warsash, Southampton, SO31 9FT Telephone: 01489 578867 Web site: www.ruffs.co.uk
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Orwell Spinning
July 9th, 2008 6:08pmMP makes a cogent case for using the precautionary principle with regard to curbing terrorism. She also relied upon it when making her arguments against the MMR jab.
So why is she unwilling to use the same principle with regard to climate change?
Paskalis
July 9th, 2008 6:17pmIf Britain, with its gratuitous military intervention initiated by deceit, is "at war" today, it has unwisely chosen to be, but that's poor reason to curtail the diminishing freedoms of its people.
HJ
July 9th, 2008 7:36pmPerhaps Melanie Phillips would like to tell us where in the proposed legislation on 42 days there is any reference to terrorism? There isn't - the authorities will be able to detain anyone for 42 days without any explanation whatsoever.
Her argument is spurious. It's possible that the rules on 'admissible evidence' could and should be changed, but the idea that no evidence at all should be required puts excessive arbitrary power in the hands of the authorities - the same authorities that shot dead a completely innocent man.
Tom Cobley
July 9th, 2008 7:44pm"...a 42-day limit which would only be used once in a blue moon, if at all..."
Such touching faith, that an authoritarian would pass up the use of an authority.
I am sure it will be used, and it will on some occasion be mis-used too. If not used, the claim will be that it was not necessary; if used, the claim will be that more is necessary.
Can we all agree on that, at least?
Jack R
July 9th, 2008 7:46pmMelanie, your points about the increasing complexity of such security cases in terms of deciphering computer evidence, muti-language translations, international linkages and multi suspects makes a strong case for e.g. 42 days.
I'm not enthusistic about being on the same side as Brown on this, but unfortunately I am.
Much of the opposition to 42 days seems to have reduced itself to vague, pious speeches about liberty (of Islamic jihad suspects). Of course, there must be specific safeguards so that there is independent judical oversight of each specific case.
steve
July 9th, 2008 7:49pmThis is so full of holes.
Ms. Phillips cites Lord West. Would this be the same Lord West who on the Today Programme in November 2007 said even he wasn’t convinced of the need to extend beyond the 28 days and within an hour after a visit to Downing Street flipped flopped?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7094438.stm
Eliza Manningham-Buller is the former head of MI5, in charge of the UK’s domestic security including counter-terrorism. Citing two former members of MI6, charged with foreign intelligence, on the 42-day issue is not even close to being the equivalent of a former head of MI5.
“But the only evidence she and her followers would accept, it seems, is an atrocity that occurs because no charges could be brought in time. What such people don’t seem able to grasp is that it is only through luck that this has not yet happened.”-- So why based on this logic have any limit at all? The 42-day limit, like the 28-day limit, is completely arbitrary.
“Lord Dear, a former Chief Constable and Inspector of Constabulary, made much of the fact that no other country had resorted to such lengthy periods of pre-charge detention in terrorist cases. But that’s because a) they often routinely lock up all suspects pre-charge for a very long time and b) their systems are totally different.”—Lord Dear on the BBC specifically compared the situation in the UK to countries with similar legal systems, including Canada which has a 1-day limit. The United States has a two-day limit.
“I suspect that the core issue for most of those arguing against extending the time limit is that they don’t agree. They don't believe the chilling assessments of the threat.” You “suspect”? Based on what evidence beyond your personal opinion? Please try delving into the government’s political agenda over this matter.
Tom Cobley
July 9th, 2008 7:52pm"the precautionary principle" - ah yes.
The precautionary principle is invoked where logic has failed, where terror has taken grip. If you don't believe in climate change, then clearly the precautionary principle cannot apply. If you do believe, but cannot persuade, then the precautionary principle is a good fallback.
Presumably, there *are* some occasions where we have to fail-safe, but it is always instructive which ones a particular person chooses.
I believe in applying it to climate change and not to 42 days, personally. In both cases, let us all live to see who is right.
Fergus Pickering
July 9th, 2008 8:11pmThis sountry is not at war because some Lord says so Were we at war all those years the IRA were planting bombs? I think if we were a war we would notice it.But of course when Humpty Dumpty uses a word...
field
July 9th, 2008 9:39pmMelanie -
You are soft on terror. Why not make it 43 days? Come to think of it - why aren't you arguing for 96 days like Tony Blair did originally? No make that 100 - oh s*d it, 365 days will do, a whole year sounds good.
As the noble nonsense:
"Two factors are relevant to the issue of pre-charge detention, and to my assessment that there will be exceptional cases where the police will require more than 28 days to frame charges. First, because of the severe consequences of a successful terrorist attack, the police often need to intervene much earlier in terrorist cases."
So the Police are quite happy to
let rapists carry on murdering, serial killers carry on killing, bank robbers carry on robbing? Rubbish. This problem applies to all offences.
"They cannot afford—and I would not want them to—to wait until an attack has happened, and may need to step in at a very early stage of an investigation, before they have had the chance to gather admissible evidence. "
Yeah, well that brings us straight on to what is admissible evidence. This government doesn't make it easy on the police.
"In the Dhiren Barot case, for example, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the then National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations, said that ‘there was not one shred of admissible evidence’ at the point of arrest."
I hope Dhiren Barot doesn't read that. He'll be able to sue for wrongful arrest.
"Secondly, the clear trend is for terrorist investigations to grow in scale and complexity. In 2001, for example, when the police investigated the last major IRA case, they had to analyse the contents of one computer and a handful of floppy disks. The suspects used their own names, and their activities were confined to the Republic of Ireland and the UK. In 2004, the investigation into Dhiren Barot involved the seizure of 270 computers, 2,000 computer disks and 8,224 exhibits. There were seven co-conspirators and, during the investigation, police carried out enquiries in the United States of America, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, France, Spain and Sweden. I make no apologies for banging this home."
This is completely fraudulent. They only need ONE piece of evidence to charge and if it is a case of international terrorism there is no way the person is going to get bail. Is the Noble Lord really trying to tell us they didn't have ONE offence nailed within a week of having Barot arrested? I simply do not believe it if that's what he is telling us. The government are deliberately trying to confuse the public on this.
Melanie, you being very naive. The government are using this attack on our civil liberties in order to wrongfoot the Tories and appear tough. They are really concerned about terrorist subversion in this country. If they were they would close down the Saturday and evening schools where kids are brainwashed into the belief system that makes them willing Jihadists.
But the government has loads of line IT won't cross - they are all PC lines. They won't tackle the extremist Mosques, the extremist clerics, the unregulated schools and colleges, the unrestricted immigration which keeps feeding the problem.
The response by the Tories’ security spokesman Baroness Neville-Jones is not risible, it is reasonable:
"If security is to be sustainable over the long term, security measures must also facilitate and protect a united society based on shared liberal values and the mutual trust of a free, responsible citizenry. Citizens must be able to repose their trust in each other, not in the state for fear of each other."
That's absolutely right. We should first of all be looking to stop subversives - people who believe in Islam's ultimate triumph as a political and legal system - from entering this country and we should kick out anyone we can kick out who is a subversive. We should make clear that we will use the full force of the law against people engaged in the conspiracy to impose this alien and undemocratic system on us.
GNO
July 9th, 2008 10:27pmMelanie what deal has the government done with you? Offered you a peerage perhaps?
I wouldn't settle for anything less than a Baroness Phillips!
Nick Kaplan
July 9th, 2008 11:12pmIn 28 days there may be a limited number of hours (672) but there are an unlimited number of man hours. Instead of locking potentially innocent (and in the case of 28 days 50% of actually innocent) people up for longer, surely it makes more sense to just employ more people and gather the necessary evidence faster.
YA
July 10th, 2008 12:33am..oh my..
"Islamist terrorism"..
Islamist Republic of Iran
Islamist World
League of Islamist States
Organization of Islamist Resistance
and
don't panic I am Islamist
Just back from "The Edge of Love". Very crude propaganda, but far more effective than Melanie's anti-Islamist cud.
David Raynes
July 10th, 2008 12:44amYou repeat what Peter Clarke allegedly said "Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the then National Co-ordinator of Terrorist Investigations, said that ‘there was not one shred of admissible evidence’ at the point of arrest. You then add words (presumably) of your own "This is different from what happens in most other crimes".
I have no idea where you got this last idea, it is utter garbage in serious crime. I have myself interviewed and arrested people who just happened to be "around" the scene, I have interviewed where a false name was given and the real identity was not discovered until days after arrest and even after charge (when the individual suddenly confessed their true identity), where the home address and real identity was not know, still I managed to interview, still I managed to make the decision to charge.
You are totally misled, you are trying much too hard to sustain an argument that just will not wash. The debate is over Melanie. I am usually a great fan but on this your are totally wrong. The whole thing was a put up job to wrong foot the Tories, it originally started as a very badly made out argument (according to my source, allegedly designed by Peter Clark but signed off by Andy Hayman), to an innocent yet proper question from the Home Office about the sufficiency of powers. You made your decision to support the argument too early. You are trying much too hard to sustain your position when the very idea has come up against close and critical examination. Your position is based on an ignorance of the investigation process that is mind boggling in its appalling ignorance for the arrogant intellectual position you try to sustain. Too many words, just like too many notes in Mozart. It saddens me that you dismiss knowledgeable and even learned opponents as "hysterical", people who have concientious well thought out positions, it saddens me that you sideswipe yesterday at M/S Manningham-Buller knowing she will likely not comment herself. This is desperate stuff. Just occasionally you might be wrong.
Kevyn Bodman
July 10th, 2008 4:59am42 day detention is not just about Islamist terrorism; it will be used against suspected terrorists, and sooner or later it will be used against people like you and me, the lippy dissidents in society.And sooner or later it will become more and more widespread.
As someone wrote above, you want to give authoritarians more authority but you think they will only use it sparingly and responsibly? That is truly risible.
There are a number of motivations behind 42 days, and wrong-footing the Conservatives is one of them. Another is to make it easier to lock ANYONE up.
The government is lying about the need for 42 days.
I'll say it again, they are lying. More and more we are heading towards the situation seen in non-democracies where the government views its own population as suspects.
Field at 9.39pm had some good points; this is one of his paragraphs,
'But the government has loads of line IT won't cross - they are all PC lines. They won't tackle the extremist Mosques, the extremist clerics, the unregulated schools and colleges, the unrestricted immigration which keeps feeding the problem.'
That's where the problem lies, and 42 day detention doesn't address it.
Kevyn Bodman
July 10th, 2008 5:01am'not one shred of admissable evidence at the point of arrest.'
Take a minute to think about the implications of that statement.
Orwell Spinning
July 10th, 2008 8:35am@ Tom Cobley.
I don't agree that the precautionary principle is used only where logic fails (although MP is certainly using it in this way here). One applies the precautionary principle when one double checks before using a Pelican crossing.
I do agree with your views on when to apply it, though. MP is basically saying we should trust the government because they tell us to, a dangerous position to take.
Orwell Spinning
July 10th, 2008 8:39amA PS to my previous comments: I misused the word "cogent", in my first post. My point was that MP's post was, unusually, cooly put; not that she was right! She isn't.
Oops.
elixelx
July 10th, 2008 9:29amTwo men came before a rabbi with a dispute over colour.
"It´s white!" said one.
"You´re right" said the Rabbi.
"It´s black!" said the second.
"You´re right!" said the rabbi.
"They can´t both be right!" exclaimed the Rabbi´s wife.
"You´re right!" said the Rabbi.
When did the British lose their sense of civility in argument? Disagree with the argument, by all means; but don´t attack the person making them...You irredeemably stupid, nay-saying, neo-liberal suck-ups!
I´m right, right?
S. Harvey
July 10th, 2008 10:08amThe old 'Prevention of Terrorism Act' limited freedoms and so had to be voted on every year for as long as the NI 'Troubles' persisted. Why hasn't the government just adapted the same law and its mechanisms to protect freedoms?
Jonny Mac
July 10th, 2008 10:10amOrwell Spinning - couldn't agree more with your first post.
Kevyn at 5.01 - I've thought about it, and am not sure what your point is. The Security Service could have folders and folders of telephone intercepts between plotters showing them to be planning an imminent atrocity, and none of it would be admissible.
Harriet
July 10th, 2008 10:40am"Orwell Spinning" - because alleged "climate change" isn't proven, as a number scientists keep saying.
In case you think Islamic terrorism in the UK doesn't exist, something happened a while ago on the underground. Ask your friends about it.
Paskalis: 'If Britain is... "at war" today, it has unwisely chosen to be'
Britain didn't ignite Osama & Co. This isn't some new conflict, it's been going on since the Gates of Vienna and before only people like you don't let facts like that get in the way of your argument.
The logic of ""field" is summarised by him saying that Dhiren Barot can sue for wrongful arrest. Let's hold you to that then, field. When Dhiren Barot has successfully sued for wrongful arrest I'll applaud your astonishing insight into Britain's legal system.
Field says you only need "one" piece of evidence to charge? Where have you been all your life, field? Not a police station, that's for sure. Have you never heard of building a case on circumstantial evidence. Not to mention the time taken to gather that evidence. That's the point here. Letting someone out on bail pending further enquiries isn't good enough where their possible aim is to cause mass murder.
Yes, David Raynes, we know serious crime officers can have little to go on but what percentage of crime is "serious"? That was my reading of the line: "This is different from what happens in most other crimes."
Terrorist cases aren't like the assault cases or driving cases that go on in front of the local beak or the local crown court, which forms the bulk of the country's crime stats.
Andrew
July 10th, 2008 11:00am2 reasons why I disagree with the 42 day detention.
1)Imagine a terrorist makes a phone call. He calls the wrong number and connects to your phone.
12 months later he is arrested on terrorism charges, your number is on his phone. You are arrested and held for 42 days without charge.
2)"Work expands to fill the time available for it's completion."
patricia
July 10th, 2008 11:10am'Permanent state of war' - wasn't that a fundamental objective of the Bush administration?
And here we have MP peddling the same pedallo.
Bush will be shortly consigned to oblivion.
Phillips should surely follow.
EyeSee
July 10th, 2008 11:29amI wonder, by showing such fear of our enemies that we should seek to undermine our cultural ties to tolerance and justice, whether they are already close to winning. A society that robustly defends itself and deals harshly with those that kill it's citizens, is a proud nation still and justice takes it's place in that. 42 days detention WITHOUT CHARGE, not just detention is a pretty clear way of saying to terrorists that we are frightened of ourselves and cannot cope with the threat they pose. We are giving a power to government to hold people on whom they need have no evidence whatsoever. What crime could you commit in Britain that would see you actually serve 42 days in prison? Something fairly serious I would wager. Inept political leaders, with inept security and police forces are exactly the type of people who would promote and in fact need such powers. Can I have Britain back, please? Oh, and let's start hanging the Islamist murderers, whether they live here and kill or came here to kill.
David
July 10th, 2008 11:31amWould love to hear Melanie's reply to David Raynes.
It doesn't help her that we know the government minister doesn't believe in the policy.
She and Lord West conflate stopping the plot with prosecuting the plotters - which are entirely distinct issues.
The same issues of early intervention occur with organized crime, armed robbery etc.
"Precaution" makes sense when the cost of error is large and the cost of precaution is small. I don't think loosing your job, and having your life ripped apart is small cost. The cost to the bureaucrats is small though so they don't mind.
Again confusion from Melanie: the required evidence would be a disrupted terrorist plot, where suspects have to be released without charge for reasons of time, where good admissible evidence is then discovered in the next 2 weeks, and where they have fled - despite having been kept under surveillance since.
Of course if you create a regime for allowing appropriate use of surveillance evidence there is no problem (if you have no inadmissible or admissible evidence then LET THEM)
While Baroness Park appears to want pre-suspicion detention which is tricky to arrange.
QUESTIONS:
How often has significant evidence from foreign intelligence agencies arrived between 4 and 6 weeks after detention?
How long should I be able to be arrested for "being around" when something happens despite "not a shred of evidence"?
What kind of inadmissible suspicion or evidence would be sufficient for me to be locked up for 6 weeks?
Basically the bill delivers authoritarian power for bureaucratic convenience.
So here is a minimum proposal: As this measure is supposed to be on the books "just in case" lets ammend it so that it applies to anyone in custody when it comes into force, and bringing it into force requires a single line enabling bill?
If it is not worth recalling parliament for, it is not an exceptional emergency.
Thom
July 10th, 2008 1:13pmMel,
"First, because of the severe consequences of a successful terrorist attack, the police often need to intervene much earlier in terrorist cases."
Lets exchange a few words and read it again:
"First, because of the severe consequences of a successful assault, the police often need to intervene much earlier in assault cases."
or,
"First, because of the severe consequences of a successful rape, the police often need to intervene much earlier in rape cases."
and finally,
"First, because of the severe consequences of a successful speeding offence, the police often need to intervene much earlier in speeding cases."
It does not matter what you apply that arguement to when a matter of perspective is ommitted - terrorism is bad and requires sophisticated tools to deal with it, but that does not mean it requires a different set of rules that govern its prosecution; journeying down that root will lead to "equality" in that all crimes will be judged as such - we will all become political prisoners for daring to have a dissenting voice.
"
""No they don’t. They want to kill us and take over our country."
Um no Mel; that is a further motive of the Islamists certainly but the primary motive is to cause terror, irrespective of who perpetrates that terror. This is little more than empowering the political class to have yet more power in areas they shouldn't; you need only look at how it has ruined the police force with their innumerable new laws and regulations to know that this kind of scheme leaves the ones we entrust to look after our welfare impotent, meaning the terrorists have won their case without having fired a shot.
Melanie I agree with so many things on here but do you really think we can trust the present powers to use these laws fairly and justly?
Kevyn Bodman
July 10th, 2008 2:13pmJonny Mac at 10.10
Making intercept evidence admissable is one of the possible alternative changes to the law that might help in the fight against Islamist terrorism.
So is post-charge questioning.
I don't think 42 day detention without charge is the best option.
And, very importantly, I simply do not trust the authorities to use these powers only against terrorist suspects.
I think that if these powers are granted then they will be used. Not tomorrow, or next week, but bit by bit they will be used more widely than we are now led to believe.
I do not trust the authorities and I want their powers defined and limited.
There is no admisable evidence against me.(There won't be even if telephone intercepts become admissable, I am an innocent man.) How long should I be detained for?
Orwell Spinning
July 10th, 2008 2:31pmHarriet Said: "Orwell Spinning" - because alleged "climate change" isn't proven, as a number scientists keep saying.
In case you think Islamic terrorism in the UK doesn't exist, something happened a while ago on the underground. Ask your friends about it.[end quote]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Leaving aside what would comprise proof of climate change, the point about the precautionary principle is precisely that it's a means of dealing with "known unknowns". It's erring on the side of caution.
The 42 days rule would mean taking people into custody even though the future terrorist attack isn't proven (since it takes place in the future). This is why I argue that MP is adopting the precautionary principle with regard to the 42 day rule.
The problem with MP's position, is that in erring on the side of caution in certain respects, it risks undermining the notion of habeas corpus, which is itself an important bulwark against the arbitrary restriction of freedoms by the state.
field
July 10th, 2008 2:51pmSome excellent posts here leaving Melanie's arguments in shreds on the floor.
David Raynes' points are all excellent.
K. Bodman (?) makes a similar point to the one I make.
It might seem far fetched now, but I really could see a day in say 2022 when a government led by an ageing Ken Livingstone, with some Respect style Home Secretary, pursued Melanie for her support for Israeli military action on the basis that she was "glorifying Zionist terrorism". She could then be held for 42 days while the government's PC police ransack her files, download her computers and question her about her contacts and her beliefs, all the time building a case that she is part of a wide Zionist terrorist movement.
Civil liberties are far too important to be surrendered just because a few mad Jihadists managed to plant a few bombs. Our forebears suffered far, far more in defence of liberty.
If we ever get to the stage where we in imminent danger of invasion by the mad hordes and all out war then yes, maybe we can consider detention without trial. But the risks we face now do not justify it.
Georgina
July 10th, 2008 3:08pmWhat are you talking about, Orwell Spinning?
What has a scientific debate about so-called global warming got to do with terrorism?
We don't know there's global warming, we know there's a theory that says it exists. That's all.
We do know there's terrorism – and heaps of it. We take preventive measures on other crimes according to their nature, so why must terrorism be exempted from this approach?
Have you seen any melted glaciers running on to the tube with bombs, lately?
What an absurd comparison.
Georgina
July 10th, 2008 3:15pmTelephone intercept evidence. Ah, yes.
What happens you put up CCTV in town centres? The serious criminals avoid being watched by moving their activity elsewhere.
So what would happen when all the transcripts of all this telephone evidence made their way into the newspapers when they cover future terror trials that feature such evidence? Might the terrorist fraternity stop using the phone or use ever more elaborate codes for their communication, thus drying up the supply of information on terrorist plots?
Or would they just merrily carry on conspiring?
Tommo
July 10th, 2008 3:33pmSays field: "Why not make it 43 days? Come to think of it - why aren't you arguing for 96 days like Tony Blair did originally? No make that 100 - oh s*d it, 365 days will do, a whole year sounds good."
Tell you what, field, why don't just do absolutely nothing, mate?
Why don't we just let the bodies pile up and pat ourselves on the back each time a bomb goes off that at least we went along with bien pensant cant of the cosseted elite?
Never mind the dead, let's just all bow and scrape at the feet of Shami Chakrabarti and "Liberty"?
"Hey, yah, right, we might be blown to bits, but we're good liberals, yah? Do I get a biscuit and a pat on the head now, Shami?"
Charles
July 10th, 2008 3:42pmThere's an old medical adage about treating symptoms not causes. Catching and prosecuting would-be terrorists is but a temporary solution so long as the causes remain.
42 day detention may stop some plots, but it won't stop the plotting.
paul hill
July 10th, 2008 7:33pmWell said, David Raynes
Fred Millar
July 10th, 2008 7:43pmHas anyone in the UK discussed the problem, subject to a national debate in the US and (weak)new federal regulations, of the routing of dangerous chemical cargoes like chlorine, ammonia, etc. through major target areas instead of well around such areas on non-target routes? If so, I cannot find any such discussion nor any public alarm at the astonishing risks...
David Raynes
July 10th, 2008 9:33pmI will be travelling with no further opportunity to comment. What Melanie says about my post (and she has said plenty and I have responded) is private because she chooses to have it that way. I have received substantial favourable comment outside the site. I have made the point that investigation leading to charge is a creeping process but that as soon as there is enough evidence for a significant charge, a charge MUST be preferred. That is the legal position. It is the duty of the Custody Officer to constantly examine the evidence. Would post charge questioning help? Yes it might, it is allowable now in precise circumstances, widening that might be useful. If it had to be done in front of a Judge or Magistrate with conclusions being drawn about refusal to answer it brings us nearer to an inquisitorial system (the debate we really SHOULD be having). Would intercept evidence make a difference? Most unlikley, (here the Tories have got their blind faith in this wrong-especially David Davis who I have high regard for otherwise). What is said is rarely almost never explicit, it can be heavily coded, it may be subject to interpretation of language and of meaning. Long arguments under our system, leading nowhere, with the defence wanting to make wild fishing efforts about everything that was ever said. Our judicial system does not lend itself to use of intercepts. A big downside is that revealing intercepts warns those NOT arrested that they may so to speak, have "come up in despatches", the prosecuting/investigating authorities might end up giving lots of information away.
field
July 11th, 2008 12:29amTommo -
Well you haven't answered the question have you?
Do you want to stick at 42 or are you going to go beyond that. There is no principled argument to prevent you going beyond that once you have conceded the notion that civil liberty must be sacrificed to obtain security.
You say:
"Tell you what, field, why don't just do absolutely nothing, mate?
Why don't we just let the bodies pile up and pat ourselves on the back each time a bomb goes off that at least we went along with bien pensant cant of the cosseted elite?
Never mind the dead, let's just all bow and scrape at the feet of Shami Chakrabarti and "Liberty"?"
"Hey, yah, right, we might be blown to bits, but we're good liberals, yah? Do I get a biscuit and a pat on the head now, Shami?"
It's nothing to do with Shami, or David Davis (hardly the most convincing representative or our elite).
My response to you is this:
How long can you detain someone without charge in the USA? Answer: two days.
How many people died on 9/11? Answer 2,000.
How many people have died in US terror attacks since 9/11? Answer: NONE.
Security has nothing to do with this curb on the civil liberties of citizens.
Melanie ends up her argument by noting that we are in effect at war. Well I agree (Al Queda declared war on the US and its allies in 1998 - well before 9/11). But we have in our history been at war on numerous occasions. Only when we have been in all out global war with horrendous casualty levels have we countenanced compromising on our civil liberties. We are nowhere near that situation. To pretend otherwise is to dishonour the memory of the millions who died in defence of liberty.
Barry Larking
July 11th, 2008 9:27amThe case for 42 days is as sound as that for 90 days. The 42 day limit is a compromise. If terror suspects need to be investigated (several have had multiple identities and some are actually "unknown" in reality) for a longer period then I feel that justifies application to the Court. Further detention beyond 28 dyas would have to be granted by a Court, a point overlooked by many.
Inter alia, Dame Pauline Neville-Jones at last receives attention from Ms Philips. Lady Neville-Jones, the Conservatives Security adviser, felt moved to announce on BBC TV's Newsnight programme some months ago that where British foreign policy 'provoked' Muslims in Britain it should be reviewed (I paraphrase slightly). I take this to mean if British national interests or our friends need to be sacrificed for a bit of peace and quiet at home, then so be it. I repeat, Lady Neville-Jones is the Conservative spokesperson on these matters.
Colin
July 14th, 2008 9:20amRemember, this law will not only be used to lock up swarthy gentlemen with beards - innocent or not. It has the capacity to be extended way beyond that remit, with few safeguards. In the hands of a political class, with an ideological background very predisposed to eliminating dissent, this law could be catastrophic for liberty.
If you're stupid enough to think that you'd be happy, as an innocent person to be locked up for 42 days without any evidence or indeed justification, then I pity you. For in fact, those supporting this law are in effect saying just that.