90 day's detention in the Uk

Stevee

What are people's toughts on 90 day detentions of terror susspects. It sounds like it's going to do more harm then good to me. It reeks of Internment. I'am also concerned how we have still heared very little uot of the Met about sackings and people stepping down after the tube murder, why hasnt Ian Blair stepped down yet

cruiserweight

Well it did not pass! Labour losing a vote in the house of commons that will not go down well!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1109/terror.html

A Dub in Glasgo

Good thing although they did extend the detention without charge to 28 days!

No real surprise to see my spineless Blair brown-noser MP vote for the 90 day one.

growler

it was good to see this being rejected today but there is widespread popular support for this on the streets ( yesterday's Sun headline was " Tell tony he's Right" ) of the UK.

The 7 days detention during the IRA days was seen as extreme, but I, personally, have some sympathy with the cops on this one.In the 80's the arrest and questioning of terrorist suspects was largely concerned with catching the perrpetrators after the act, suicide tactics negate the threat of imprisonment as a possible punishment. How does a democracy cope with the new threat of terrorists who have no concern for their own lives ? The problem has switched from being one of catching terrorists after the act to catching them before they have an opportunity to cause random civilian casualties. Given the new-found sophistication, encryption techniques, training, indoctrination etc. of islamic terrorists i can understand why more than 14 days might be necessary, 90 seems like a very large number but it is difficult to equate the threat with the possible consequences.


Of course the problem, as with any law, will be in its application particularly in unforseen scenarios .. as with the heckler at the Labour conference. It's open to abuse of course, but then so is much of the law if you cannot trust the police. I would hope that the police / goverment have learnt their lessons from the prior miscarriages of justice in the name of anti-terror but you never know.

Hobbes

It is 14 days without any rights. Sure it sounds great on paper until you pull someone innocent in. But that would never happen right? :rolleyes:


I think the issue is more reaching for Tony. At least its being spun that way. Watching him on TV he is "I am right, everyone is wrong" attitude.

A Dub in Glasgo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Good thing although they did extend the detention without charge to 28 days!

No real surprise to see my spineless Blair brown-noser MP vote for the 90 day one.

I thought it amusing but Geofrey Donaldson was on the last word on today fm and said the DUP's 9 mp's were voting against Blair.
This was because they said he was a hypocrite by asking for these 90days yet releasing terrorists under the GFA... blah blah blah

Diorraing

Earthman wrote:

I thought it amusing but Geofrey Donaldson was on the last word on today fm and said the DUP's 9 mp's were voting against Blair.
This was because they said he was a hypocrite by asking for these 90days yet releasing terrorists under the GFA... blah blah blah

Yeah it is surprising seeing the DUP opposing it seeing as they were strong advocates of Internment during the 70s and 80s.
Anyway, its bye-bye blair at this stage.

poddymackel

growler wrote:

it was good to see this being rejected today but there is widespread popular support for this on the streets ( yesterday's Sun headline was " Tell tony he's Right" ) of the UK.

The 7 days detention during the IRA days was seen as extreme, but I, personally, have some sympathy with the cops on this one. In the 80's the arrest and questioning of terrorist suspects was largely concerned with catching the perrpetrators after the act, suicide tactics negate the threat of imprisonment as a possible punishment. How does a democracy cope with the new threat of terrorists who have no concern for their own lives ? The problem has switched from being one of catching terrorists after the act to catching them before they have an opportunity to cause random civilian casualties. Given the new-found sophistication, encryption techniques, training, indoctrination etc. of islamic terrorists i can understand why more than 14 days might be necessary, 90 seems like a very large number but it is difficult to equate the threat with the possible consequences.


Of course the problem, as with any law, will be in its application particularly in unforseen scenarios .. as with the heckler at the Labour conference. It's open to abuse of course, but then so is much of the law if you cannot trust the police. I would hope that the police / goverment have learnt their lessons from the prior miscarriages of justice in the name of anti-terror but you never know.

Yeah, like they did with the Guildford Four and Birmingham Six. The decade makes no difference, the focus of the investigations are to catch people. Not necessarily people who were involved, but people you could implicate.

Given the new-found sophistication, encryption techniques, training, indoctrination etc. of islamic terrorists i can understand why more than 14 days might be necessary

You believe this propoganda, yet you don't believe the police's propoganda that they are ahead of the "terrorists"? Interesting.

It's open to abuse of course, but then so is much of the law if you cannot trust the police.

Absolutely. And do you trust a police service that has imprisoned countless people on false charges?

I know I don't. The British police service have proven themselves incapable of dealing with people who disagree with their government's foreign policy.

Do you really think that, after 90 days of interrogation, torture, and solitary confinement that Mohammed (or Paddy) is going to tell you he didn't do it?

Don't be silly.

Hobbes

Diorraing wrote:

Yeah it is surprising seeing the DUP opposing it seeing as they were strong advocates of Internment during the 70s and 80s.
Anyway, its bye-bye blair at this stage.

They had a northern Ireland MP on Sky TV and asked him why he voted no. He said he saw a friend of his killed by the IRA and vote for this will just act as a recruitment tool for the terrorists and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring history. (referring to Internment).

Diorraing

Hobbes wrote:

They had a northern Ireland MP on Sky TV and asked him why he voted no. He said he saw a friend of his killed by the IRA and vote for this will just act as a recruitment tool for the terrorists and anyone who thinks otherwise is ignoring history. (referring to Internment).

Then there's the point that it is completely wrong to detain someone without a trial as was done to many many nationalists/catholics in Northern Ireland. You're correct in saying that internment was a recruiting tool. The IRA didn't have to prove that the establishment was biggoted, they were making that patently clear themselves. Internment showed that the IRA's campaign had an element of legitimacy during the 70s. The same would happen if the Brits were to start detaining arabs because...well because they're arabs.

stephenoleary

growler wrote:

it was good to see this being rejected today but there is widespread popular support for this on the streets ( yesterday's Sun headline was " Tell tony he's Right" ) of the UK.

I'm not sure if the Sun headline was a reflection of popular support on the streets, but rather a sign that Blair has Murdock in his back pocket. The Sun was one of the only papers to support the proposal, and it will be interesting to Sunday Times editorial on the issue (another Murdock paper).

bonkey

growler wrote:

it was good to see this being rejected today but there is widespread popular support for this on the streets ( yesterday's Sun headline was " Tell tony he's Right" ) of the UK.

Did the article clear up the headline to clarify if Right meant "correct" or "Right Wing, heading towards police-state fascism"?

jc

BuffyBot

but rather a sign that Blair has Murdock in his back pocket

More likely the other way round. Murdoch will support Blair just as long as it suits him.

Frank Grimes

growler wrote:

it was good to see this being rejected today but there is widespread popular support for this on the streets ( yesterday's Sun headline was " Tell tony he's Right" ) of the UK.

OT but there was an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday about this, they interviewed the guy in the picture - to quote from the article: "...he is angrier with the politicians than the bombers"
Link

Hagar

I think it's funny the way the Indo is always run down in this forum and then people come along quote the Sun as if it were a real newspaper and no-one raises an eyebrow. Bizarre.

Thomond Pk

The Sun launched a singular 7metre high version of that issue on Guinness World record day as the biggest newspaper ever.

On a train yesterday I got to read a copy of the Sun and they reserved particular bile for Ian Paisley whose motivation for voting against Blair was that he (Blair) had coverted with terrorists and he (hot line to the saviour) wanted pay back.

Long live peace in Northern Ireland as the sooner that idiots like Paisley are sidelined the better.

Hobbes

I had to laugh at sky news. They were asking various MPs why they voted wrong (thier words). Each MP explained they didn't and explained the reasons for it. But the reporter was saying "I have a handful of emails here from various people saying you are wrong! what do you say to that?", the last MP just gave him a weird look and tried not to laugh at him.

growler

bonkey wrote:

Did the article clear up the headline to clarify if Right meant "correct" or "Right Wing, heading towards police-state fascism"?

jc

too deep for the Sun I'm afraid. Don't want to confuse their readership.

I think it's funny the way the Indo is always run down in this forum and then people come along quote the Sun as if it were a real newspaper and no-one raises an eyebrow. Bizarre.

I wasn't quoting the rag as a definitive source of high brow journalism, I was simply stating what it said (big letters, small words) . BUT the fact is that a significant number of Sun readers get their political opinions from said "paper" / the Sun reflects the popular voice of the "not very bright".


.[/QUOTE]Absolutely. And do you trust a police service that has imprisoned countless people on false charges?

I know I don't. The British police service have proven themselves incapable of dealing with people who disagree with their government's foreign policy.

Do you really think that, after 90 days of interrogation, torture, and solitary confinement that Mohammed (or Paddy) is going to tell you he didn't do it?

Don't be silly..[/QUOTE]


thats pretty much the central theme of the debate. silly.

Cronus333

I would hate to see this internment abused.....

Spacedog

Remember that 80 year old man at the last Labour Party Confrence who was smacked around and dragged out after saying 'nonsence' during one of the speeches. He, a member of the labour party since before Tony Blair was born, was charged under the terrorism act. He (and the guy who said to 'go easy on him, he's an old man') would still be behind bars today if this law was in effect at the time!

Cronus333

Spacedog wrote:

Remember that 80 year old man at the last Labour Party Confrence who was smacked around and dragged out after saying 'nonsence' during one of the speeches. He, a member of the labour party since before Tony Blair was born, was charged under the terrorism act. He (and the guy who said to 'go easy on him, he's an old man') would still be behind bars today if this law was in effect at the time!

Can they do that?! Who said Britain isn't a police state??