"As terrifying as terror is..."
Jul. 26th, 2007 10:57 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, Gordon Brown has announced that there will be a consultation on whether to extend the period a person can be held without charge to 56 days. This comes two years after Tony Blair's proposal to extend it to 90 days was defeated in the Commons (it's currently 28 days).
I appreciate that the whole global terrorism thing is a bit of a threat, and people nowadays seem rather keen on the blowing-people-up plan, but to be honest, that's been the case for years. And yes, the kind of terrorist networks which apparently are flourishing now make evidence-gathering tricksy. But that should NOT mean that we abandon some of the most basic tenets of law. In this country, we do NOT bang people up without telling them why. We do NOT keep them in prison for months on end without bringing charges. Apparently, the first duty of the Government is security. Take a look at Guantanamo Bay and the concepts behind it, people. If that's "security", I'm not sure I want it. I do not wish to be secure in the knowledge that my country denies people their basic human rights.
There must be better ways to deal with the problem of finding evidence and what have you. Denying bail to terrorist suspects, for example, which is at least principled, and presumably has more or less the same outcome.
I appreciate that the whole global terrorism thing is a bit of a threat, and people nowadays seem rather keen on the blowing-people-up plan, but to be honest, that's been the case for years. And yes, the kind of terrorist networks which apparently are flourishing now make evidence-gathering tricksy. But that should NOT mean that we abandon some of the most basic tenets of law. In this country, we do NOT bang people up without telling them why. We do NOT keep them in prison for months on end without bringing charges. Apparently, the first duty of the Government is security. Take a look at Guantanamo Bay and the concepts behind it, people. If that's "security", I'm not sure I want it. I do not wish to be secure in the knowledge that my country denies people their basic human rights.
There must be better ways to deal with the problem of finding evidence and what have you. Denying bail to terrorist suspects, for example, which is at least principled, and presumably has more or less the same outcome.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-26 10:33 am (UTC)Another problem - and it's one which many people aren't happy to face up to - is that anyone suspected of, accused of, or even found guilty of terrorism is (or at least should be) entitled to a fair and honest trial. But not everyone seems to agree with this notion - or at least they'll pay it lip service, but in the final analysis we end up with places like Guantanamo Bay.
Some people (and disturbingly, some Christians, in a Christian chat room I used to frequent until I gave it up for my sanity...), when the terrorist arrests were taking place last summer, were adamant that the solution was simply to bomb the living daylights out of all countries harbouring terrorists. I pointed out that this would mean bombing the US and the UK...
All things being considered, whilst I'm definitely not happy with the notion of detaining people without charge, I do feel a lot happier with pursuing suspected terrorists through police procedure than through gung ho militarism which causes more problems than it solves.
David.