UK Anti-Terror Bill

[Mughi]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4327993.stm
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,11026,1433990,00.html

For those not in the UK, or not keeping track of it, this is tonights latest story on it.

The UK is in the process of introducing legislation that will allow a politician the ability to jail someone on the suspicion of being a terrorist.

They dont have to tell the person why they are being locked up, or what evidence there is to do this.

They can - rather than jail them - place them under house arrest, restrict who they are allowed to speak to by letter, phone, in person, or on the internet.

Restrict or prevent internet access.

And do all this (and probably more) indefinately to someone.

Basically, the UK government is trying to push through the ability for the Home Secretary to lock people up for being accused of being a terrorist, without a great deal of proof, to prevent them speaking to a lawyer, or the press, or family and prevent them from being allowed a trial. Without limit of time.

Now, for me, if someone can be shown to be a terrorist and the government wants to lock them up or whatever, I dont care. If someone is suspected of being a terrorist, thats a very different matter. Try them, and see if you can persuade others that they are a terrorist. This removes the requirement for a trial.

As examples of this ... last year there was a peaceful protest outside an MOD arms fair. The protestors were arrested as terrorist suspects. These people could be under house arrest still, without being told the charges or being allowed a trial.

There is a man whose trial was happening last week (didnt see if its ended, or how it turned out) but he was being tried as a terrorist because on a flight that was delayed for a long time, he got out his laptop and phone and refused to put them away. He said to the person on the other end of the phone "they are looking at me as if I had a bomb on board". Stupid - yes, possible breach of the peace or something ... probably. Right to restrict his movements and who he can talk to indefinately ... hell no.


Now, I am not one for taking at face value any sensational journalism.
Please, someone point out to me where I have picked this up wrong and that its all actually OK that we are being told that the UK will have to ignore parts of the Human Rights act as it stops Charles Clark being able to restrict people's freedoms.

I would dearly love to be completely wrong here.

Someone, please show me that I am wrong.

 

[Player-63]

what freedom?? we are nothink but puppets now in this world.

 

[Lex_Mortis]

Human Rights

 

[auriel]

UK goes same way as USA. goodbye human rights.. the rich peeps will welcome it

 

[Cutter]

Yes, Mughi is right. Yes, it derogates from the ECHR. Yes, it suspends Habeus Corpus (In England, coz we don't have it in Scotland). And yes, it's precisely what everyone who was fool enough to vote for Labour deserves.

Interesting mind experiment:

Look up Tony Blair's first speech as an MP. Then look up all his speeches on Immigration, Civil Liberties and Human Rights up until about, oh, a totally random date like, say, May 1997. Then compare with those after that date.

Oh, and then, for further amusement, compare Tony Blair's comments about Michael Howard's policies on Immigration, Civil Liberties, Crime and Human Rights from before a totally random date like, oh, say May 1997, and those after that date.

Finally, ask yourself why this legislation was not needed during over 60 years of Irish Republican Terrorism bombings, shootings and general mayhem in mainland Britain. And if you're really feeling adventurous, ask yourself why there is no proposal to have control orders imposed on Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness and all their wee pals, despite the fact that they would, prima facie appear to be prime candidates for these orders?

 

[foxy]

Bush has his flaws but he has done good on some issues I think. In the past the American administration has granted IRA and Loyalist groups special visas so they can raise money there, even though the money would no doubt help fund militant groups back in the UK and Ireland. Clinton was happy enough for that to happen. Bush at least put a stop to that after he refused visas and fund raising rights when the likes of Gerry Adams came knocking.

Thur: yep I'd say if you look at most parties’ agendas before and after being in power there would be a big difference. Just with Blair's party it has been particularly blatant!

 

[Martz]

I was very pleased to hear about the previous Terror Laws being found illegal by the House of Lords, or whomever it was. (Someone update me on this!)

This has been an embarrassment to the Labour Party, with the Blunkett fiasco and now Charles Clark has been thrust into the role of Evil Law Maker - and it doesn't quite suit him imo.

Although, I must say it is better than inprisoning people without trial, their basic rights or without even bringing charges.

Let's just hope that these new laws are found to be illegal very soon.

 

[foxy]

I thought the whole reason laws like that existed were so that in special cases people could be detained without trial, in cases of national security or threat to the public for example. Surely it would be a bad idea to just let a suspected international terrorist with a bomb plot out on bail for example. I think we are already in a position where there is so much bureaucracy involved in the law that often in certain situations action comes too late or not at all. My opinion is that for special situations, special powers must be available. The decision to invoke these powers must be carefully monitored and reviewed but stripping the law of any effectiveness in certain situations will not do us any good I would say.

 

[Martz]

I thought the whole reason laws like that existed were so that in special cases people could be detained without trial, in cases of national security or threat to the public for example. Surely it would be a bad idea to just let a suspected international terrorist with a bomb plot out on bail for example.

Conspiracy to cause harm or to murder, and for plotting to do many other things is against the law already. If these people were plotting to do so, they would be arrested, tried and sentanced accordingly by a court with a judge and trial, if they plead not-guilty.

There is no evidence against these people, they are innocent until provden guilty, which is the way all human beings arrested or extradited to the UK should be treated.

I think we are already in a position where there is so much bureaucracy involved in the law that often in certain situations action comes too late or not at all. My opinion is that for special situations, special powers must be available. The decision to invoke these powers must be carefully monitored and reviewed but stripping the law of any effectiveness in certain situations will not do us any good I would say.

We have effective laws. If we take away our own liberties and rights to defend ourself from terrorists, haven't the terrorists won? Isn't their objective to remove the freedom of the people in the West and to cause major disruption? Should these organisations even be called terrorists since they do not hold anyone or anything to randsom, do not make demands or even allow negotiations to take place. They are attacks on major financial and military targets.

We also have plenty of experience in dealing with bad situations such as the IRA and other paramilitary groups known as terrorists. We've had mortars fired at our capital city into Downing street. We've had car bombs go off for decades, yet even the current goverments at the time didn't remove the UK citizens of their rights and remove justice from the justice system. We coped in those times and we didn't lose the majority of the population. Now our peers talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction to the point where Joe Public is scared by the fact that any religious nut can do something to harm every single individual in the country before anyone can do anything about it.

Fear, Uncertainly, and Denial. FUD. It's what all major corporations and our goverments use to talk to their citizens or consumers. It's hardly surprising given the major blur between the 2.

We cannot hold people, forever, without trial, a lawyer or even a reason for their detention - just because we guess that they may be a danger to the public. I'd like to see people who break our laws brought to justice by courts. I do not want to see pre-emptive justice being carried out by politicians.

Pretty soon this law will extend to other areas and to encompass more and more people who we'd like to exploit.

 

[foxy]

I wasn't trying to put across that I agree with the concept pre-emptive justice all I mean is that I am sympathetic to the idea that special powers may sometimes be necessary. It's very easy to sit back in your armchair and be idealistic but the reality of it is that politicians may sometimes have to take action to ensure the safety of our nation, whether it be a popular idea or not. Better to stop another 911 from happening, rather than sit and contemplate who is guilty after 1000s of people have died. As for already having very effective laws....is that really true Martz? I'd say there are many repeat offenders out there that would laugh to hear you say that.

We also have plenty of experience in dealing with bad situations such as the IRA and other paramilitary groups known as terrorists. We've had mortars fired at our capital city into Downing street. We've had car bombs go off for decades, yet even the current goverments at the time **didn't remove the UK citizens of their rights** and remove justice from the justice system.** *We coped in those times*** and we didn't lose the majority of the population. Now our peers talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction to the point where Joe Public is scared by the fact that any religious nut can do something to harm every single individual in the country before anyone can do anything about it.

I have several Nothern Irish friends one of which has had friends murdered by ira, his family business destroyed by a bomb, death threats. He left the country becasue he was so scared and sick of it all even though his father remained. "We coped in those times" = I coped! What you really mean is it never affected you so you don't see it as a problem.

"didn't remove the UK citizens of their rights", I'm sure there are several irish people from militant groups who would disagree there. You are right in a sense though as indeed plenty of criminals from militant groups get special considerations by the law since they have supposed links to political groups. "Normal" murderers and mass murderers aren't afforded the same leeway!

If you had freinds dying, houses getting blown up etc I'm sure you would soon change your tune about how much power you would like the police and politicians to have.

 

[foxy]

Most people are the same though Martz, regarding issues in all walks of life. Take animal rights activists demonstrating against scientists testing on animals to try and find a cure for cancer...I bet none of them have any family or friends affected by cancer!

 

[foxy]

sorry for multiple post. Reading our posts again Martz and taking away the padding it looks like your opinion is that institutions with power have enough already and we have an effective system of law. Your main concern seems to be that these institutions gain more power at the expence of our rights. Although I agree that is an issue, I would say that I am more concerned about the fact that our system of law is far from perfect and that often institutions with power and the responsibility that comes with it do not or can not act effectively in many situations. That was really all I wanted to say.

 

[Martz]

I wasn't trying to put across that I agree with the concept pre-emptive justice all I mean is that I am sympathetic to the idea that special powers may sometimes be necessary.

OK, but having a special power which is pre-emptive justice? Thats what we had.. "special powers" are given to politicians/people placed in charge of the Home Office. I disagree that any politician who hasn't proven himself credible through a profressional legal experience to the level of a Judge, shouldn't be making the same decisions as a Judge.

It's very easy to sit back in your armchair and be idealistic but the reality of it is that politicians may sometimes have to take action to ensure the safety of our nation, whether it be a popular idea or not. Better to stop another 911 from happening, rather than sit and contemplate who is guilty after 1000s of people have died. As for already having very effective laws....is that really true Martz? I'd say there are many repeat offenders out there that would laugh to hear you say that.

In that 2 parts, I think we do need take action to prevent any action which may cause the loss of life. If the reduction in the loss of life is the number one priority, there are a lot more worthy projects where £X will save more lives than if we had a terrorist attack ever day.

I believe that more people die from AIDS per year in the US alone, than were killed in the Sept 11th bombings. I don't personally believe that a millionaires life is more valuable that your average citizen who hasn't been educated in the dangers of sexualy transmitted diseases.

It's an emotional arguement, and in Bush words - "You're either with us, or against us". If you appose the anti terror laws you welcome terrorist into the country to bomb and destroy us.

Part 2.. effective laws? These people you refer to petty criminals who are repeate offenders? Robbers, car theives and violence? Maybe thats a seperate topic altogether, "Does a prison term prevent reoffending". We have laws in place, which are effective (as they are used and work) which stop people plotting or conspiring to do something evil. From murder to robbery. To create a law where we can arrest people we suspect are terrorists, but we have no information to prove that, we used to be able to arrest them and deport them to Bellmarsh or even worse Guantanamo.

I have several Nothern Irish friends one of which has had friends murdered by ira, his family business destroyed by a bomb, death threats. He left the country becasue he was so scared and sick of it all even though his father remained. "We coped in those times" = I coped! What you really mean is it never affected you so you don't see it as a problem.

Ah, me too. I also have a Catholic Northen Irish girlfriend who has taken me around some of the notorious areas in Belfast, and I've drunk in pubs with her relatives during the afternoon - which had more security on the doors, windows and fire exits than any other place I have visited on earth. Their family has seen and felt it's fair share of devistation caused by the NI situation over the decades. They have coped, they haven't packed their bags and moved the entire family out of Ireland.

When I say "we coped", I am talking from a British or English perspective - I cannot comment on the other side as I wasnt there. I was considering any paramilitary movement that wants or wanted to attack England or the UK, and I was thinking more along the lines of the IRA bombing in the UK: London and Warrington to mention just 2.

We did cope, as a nation. We didn't melt into the sea and cease to exist. I'm not ignorant to the loss of life, the pain and grief causes by these actions, nor do I support them. What I am saying is that throughout the whole period of the "troubles", the UK didn't take away the rights of it's own citizens or anyone elses. That is my point. We coped with the current laws through a bad time, and changing those laws wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference when the reason for the problem is a political choice gone bad.

"didn't remove the UK citizens of their rights", I'm sure there are several irish people from militant groups who would disagree there. You are right in a sense though as indeed plenty of criminals from militant groups get special considerations by the law since they have supposed links to political groups. "Normal" murderers and mass murderers aren't afforded the same leeway!

If you had freinds dying, houses getting blown up etc I'm sure you would soon change your tune about how much power you would like the police and politicians to have.

Indeed, everyone should be treated the same way regardless of their Nationality, religion or opinions. Sure the personal part of it makes a difference to how people perceive things. Again your point is very emotional on death and friends and family being killed. I am no terrorist, but that doesn't matter because if I was arrested I would never be able to defend myself at all. I take this as an attack of mine, and everyone elses liberties at my expense. So i am indirectly a victim of terrorism? hrm..

IRA prisioners being released early as part of a political negotiation is the same as a terrorist organisation saying "Release person X from prison and we'll not blow something up." I don't agree with it at all, I don't agree with the death penalty or that anyones death should be authorised. It's every humans right to live if they choose to do so.

Of course, there isn't such thing as a miscarriage of justice? The Birmingham 6 had a major trial, were found guilty and then released 16 years later. These people were deemed to be a major danger to the UK population at the time. Yet the police got it wrong. Why would it be any better to have held those people under the same anti-terror laws we have (had) today, but 30 years go? Without a trial, without evidence or without basic human rights their situations would have been even worse - yet there wouldn't be the embaressment to the country over false imprisonment.

See what I am getting at now? At best, some laws are abused and cause suffering in themselves. At worst, they wreck lives and give those in power and control the gift of a complete justice system.

As I said already, remove the justice from the system and you just have a system. And if we have our leaders inprisoning people for crimes they will never be charged with, will never face trial over, and without their human rights - how can we not call ourselves a totalitarian country ruled by dictators?

 

[Martz]

Most people are the same though Martz, regarding issues in all walks of life. Take animal rights activists demonstrating against scientists testing on animals to try and find a cure for cancer...I bet none of them have any family or friends affected by cancer!

hrm... I understand your point, but I'm not sure how you can back that up at all, it is pure speculation and nearly impossible to find out the facts. Most of the animal rights campaigns I am aware of are all focused on high profit industries such as shampoo and makeup etc.


However, I think we should do our human testing on convicted rapists and peodaphiles.

 

[Martz]

sorry for multiple post. Reading our posts again Martz and taking away the padding it looks like your opinion is that institutions with power have enough already and we have an effective system of law. Your main concern seems to be that these institutions gain more power at the expence of our rights. Although I agree that is an issue, I would say that I am more concerned about the fact that our system of law is far from perfect and that often institutions with power and the responsibility that comes with it do not or can not act effectively in many situations. That was really all I wanted to say.

No laws are perfect, but that is why they work on precedent of other cases, and law (as a court sees it) changes with verdicts of prosecutions and appeals made. It does work very slowly, but we cannot rush through these things. We also shouldn't piss off other nations or discriminate in the rest of the world, but thats another story. However, we do and end up in these situations where we back people into a corner so much they want to kill us because we give them a gun...

"Pick it up." "I don't wanna pick it up mister, you'll shoot me." "Pick up the gun." "Mister, I don't want no trouble, huh. I just came down town here to get some hard rock candy for my kids, some gingham for my wife. I don't even know what gingham is, but she goes through about 10 rolls a week of that stuff. I ain't looking for no trouble, mister." "Pick up the gun." Boom, boom. "You all saw him. He had a gun."

I've enjoyed debating this part of the law, and I am probably incorrect in some of the things I have said. When I read other peoples input it helps to balance or reenforce my own opinion and views. I'm repeating myself in posts, so I'll leave it there unless theres anything new to saw

 

[foxy]

However, I think we should do our human testing on convicted rapists and peodaphiles.

Sounds like a good plan to me!

I see your point more clearly now you've written more. Thing is surely it is unlikey that someone would be detained unless there was at least some idea of their guilt if not evidence. Would these laws ever effect the average Joe on the street as you suggest it may lead to, and "If you fly with the crows, you get shot down with them" in my opinion. I doubt a government that started taking liberties with our rights would last long anyway. Look how long the smoking ban is taking to come in and that's something that's good for everyone. The reason for the hesitation is that govenments know the voters won't be too happy voting for parties that want to control their lives be it for the better or worse.

 

[ProPain]

Sounds like a good plan to me!

I see your point more clearly now you've written more. Thing is surely it is unlikey that someone would be detained unless there was at least some idea of their guilt if not evidence. Would these laws ever effect the average Joe on the street as you suggest it may lead to, and "If you fly with the crows, you get shot down with them"

Although i agree with almost everything mentioned above, it is still very dangerous to assume somebody is involved. Problem seems to be the period of time between detaining these persons and actually investigating if they are innocent or not. Apparently those ppl are denied lawyers and do no qualify as human anymore. Don't you think detaining one innocent person for months and months sometimes even years is one too many?