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.
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.