PDA

View Full Version : Disgrace; 42 days passed to Lords...


jonathan7
06-11-2008, 02:03 PM
So this is how liberty dies...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4115300.ece

Here's to due process, a thing of the past.

Fortunately I have a feeling the House of Lords (which is unelected) actually have common sense and I'm sure they will reject.

Litofsky
06-11-2008, 02:10 PM
Yay! Another Government trashing our civil liberties in the name of "National Security." :) Of course, (we) could go over the benefits of such an act, and I've no doubt that (we) will, at some point, but I have a feeling that by the time we reach an accord, almost every government will have some form of National Security Plan, which sacrifices most, if not all, of our liberties.

Go Britain!

Astor
06-11-2008, 02:10 PM
It's scary. I was watching BBC Parliament this afternoon - I didnt actually realise that it meant someone could be held without charge. I thought that the 42 was so that they had more time to question someone who *had* been charged.

And why the hell should it take 42 to question a terror suspect in the first place? Surely they question them as soon as they are arrested?

Not long now till we have Government agents kicking down our doors and taking us away in the night...

mur'phon
06-11-2008, 02:20 PM
I agree, the law is terrible, the reason it's created has more to do with the dificulty of preventing suspects from fleeing the country. So instead of trying to untangle the legal mess to prevent it, Brown pushes through a band-aid law. Pushing it through with the torries having an electable leader for once makes it even worse.

Totenkopf
06-11-2008, 02:25 PM
Well, even with all the furor over here about the Patriot Act, few people who push the nightmare scenario of jack booted federal thugs breaking into your house in the middle of the night can ever point to the numbers of innocents that have had their civil rights massively violated (or even really violated). Mostly seem to be engaged in polemics. Looks like they only 2xed the detention time. I'm guessing that if your hand at "persuasion" is tied behind your back, a suspect could probably keep from cracking indefinitely.

mur'phon
06-11-2008, 04:43 PM
Alternatively the innocent suspect could crack open because of the "persuasion". And yes, there are many people who have had their rights abused by such laws, I'll see if I can find those numbers. As to the nightmare scenario, infringments far less severe than that can be painfull. A neighbour who once wrote an article for a far left newspaper was wire tapped for years, and before he realized it (thanks to the discernible *click* when the police hang up after a call ended) he had given them countless juicy details of his private life.

SilentScope001
06-11-2008, 05:11 PM
Alright, um, those who hate torture, I am wondering:

What are legitimate interrogation techniques that can be used on suspects? If we know what interrogation techniques are moral, then we can easily use them instead of using immoral techniques.

Astor
06-11-2008, 05:13 PM
Alright, um, those who hate torture, I am wondering:

What are legitimate interrogation techniques that can be used on suspects? If we know what interrogation techniques are moral, then we can easily use them instead of using immoral techniques.

Now that just opens a whole other can o' worms... :lol:

Achilles
06-11-2008, 05:34 PM
So this is how liberty dies...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4115300.ece

Here's to due process, a thing of the past. Not being a citizen or having an in-depth understanding of how your country does things, I don't know that we can say that due process is dead.

Reading the first page of your source, it appears that they've merely extended the amount of time that someone can be held without charge. Do I agree with you in priniciple that this a bad thing? Absolutely.

But this isn't like the U.S. where the President or the Secretary of Defense can simply decide that someone (even a U.S. citizen) is an enemy combatant and then imprison them indefinitely without due process.

Fortunately I have a feeling the House of Lords (which is unelected) actually have common sense and I'm sure they will reject.I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, sir.

Totenkopf
06-11-2008, 05:43 PM
Fortunately, polemics aside, the SecDef can't just wake up one morning and decide you're an enemy combatant on a whim. Problem with all laws is that even with due process, innocent people have been imprisoned anyway.

mur'phon
06-11-2008, 05:55 PM
But if due process reduces the number of innocent prissoners, then that's surley a good thing. What you wrote sounded akin to "lets legalize drunk driving because people die in the traffick anyway".

jonathan7
06-11-2008, 05:58 PM
Not being a citizen or having an in-depth understanding of how your country does things, I don't know that we can say that due process is dead.

I was being slightly dramatic; my concern is that neither MI5 or the Police either needed or wanted this law. With regard due process they brought in a 28 day holding period and have now extended it to 42. I personally don't agree with the 28 day holding period either. As such them extending it here, makes me think they will try and extend it later, and eventually the time frame will be indefinate.

Reading the first page of your source, it appears that they've merely extended the amount of time that someone can be held without charge. Do I agree with you in priniciple that this a bad thing? Absolutely.

I think the old law was someone could be held for 3 days without charge, I do not for any reason think it should ever be any longer than that - if someone is guilty charge them!

But this isn't like the U.S. where the President or the Secretary of Defense can simply decide that someone (even a U.S. citizen) is an enemy combatant and then imprison them indefinitely without due process.

That would concern me greatly.

I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, sir.

Thanks :) Although I don't think this will ever effect me for a variety of reasons, however; it is something that does concern me for fellow human beings.

Achilles
06-11-2008, 06:36 PM
I was being slightly dramatic Ah, okay. My apologies for not picking up on that.

That would concern me greatly. Yep :(

El Sitherino
06-11-2008, 06:55 PM
if someone is guilty charge them!


Except you can't charge someone for the same crime twice (as far as I'm aware of in any court, save for developing nations). As well it may take time for a case to be built up that won't simply be overturned in a court.

I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time.

jonathan7
06-11-2008, 07:02 PM
Except you can't charge someone for the same crime twice (as far as I'm aware of in any court, save for developing nations). As well it may take time for a case to be built up that won't simply be overturned in a court.

I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time.

Nah, I think your referring to double jeopardy. As far as I know you can be charged for the same crime twice (or three times). You can arrest someone and hold them for 3 days, and then have to release them without charge. If you can't get together enough evidence to charge them, why shouldn't they be let out? If they are that much of a threat to security follow them; if they're stupid they will only lead you too there mates.

Achilles
06-11-2008, 07:20 PM
I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time. Do you think that being held for 28 days without charge might have some impact on a person's ability to maintain employment, a stable family life, or complete an education?

Some people (if they are lucky) might be able to get a leave of absence from their employer, but there are many more that would be released only to find out that they no longer have a job. Food service employees that survive off tips would have to figure out how to survive after 4 weeks without pay.

Two parent families would probably be disrupted by even a minor incarceration, but 28 days? What about single-parents (like myself)?

Most college courses are 16 weeks long. Do you think missing 25% of a course might have a lasting impact on someone's grades (let's hope they aren't trying to maintain a scholarship)?

mur'phon
06-11-2008, 07:24 PM
If they are that much of a threat to security follow them; if they're stupid they will only lead you too there mates.

If they are smart, they'll board a plane headed for *insert country that won't cooperate with Britt police*.

EnderWiggin
06-11-2008, 07:59 PM
If they are smart, they'll board a plane headed for *insert country that won't cooperate with Britt police*.

And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late.

_EW_

Achilles
06-11-2008, 08:04 PM
And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late.Come on, people, we're talking about charging people with a crime, not obtaining proof of their guilt.

Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)?

mur'phon
06-11-2008, 08:20 PM
Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)?

I agree, the law is terrible, the reason it's created has more to do with the dificulty of preventing suspects from fleeing the country. So instead of trying to untangle the legal mess to prevent it, Brown pushes through a band-aid law

In short, no

jonathan7
06-11-2008, 08:30 PM
And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late.

_EW_

Then perhaps the Government in Britain should frigging well sort out its immigration and emigration computers so that they can't leave; these days with computers it should be at all hard, not that many of our governmental departments could organise a drink up in a brewery. Addendum; if your following them; and they are trying to leave the country you can then charge them for trying to escape justice.

Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)?

No, nor do I think there is a government on the planet that would warrant being trusted with such powers; there is a judicial process so it should be used...

What happened to presuming someone was innocent until proven guilty?

EnderWiggin
06-11-2008, 08:32 PM
Come on, people, we're talking about charging people with a crime, not obtaining proof of their guilt.

Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)?

No, it's not reasonable at all. I see both sides, don't get me wrong :)

I would hate to be on the other side if I was innocent. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says 'Better 10 guilty men let go rather than 1 innocent man wrongfully imprisoned?'

_EW_

Achilles
06-11-2008, 11:00 PM
No, it's not reasonable at all. I see both sides, don't get me wrong :) Are you really telling me that some small part of you actually thinks this is justified?

I would hate to be on the other side if I was innocent. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says 'Better 10 guilty men let go rather than 1 innocent man wrongfully imprisoned?'There are quotes for lots of things, but quotes in and of themselves aren't terribly meaningful. What is important is whether or not the quote says something worth supporting.

Back to the point: guilt or innocence really has very little do with what we are talking about here. Guilt is established via the trial. Delaying charges is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get away with wanting to throw anyone you want to in jail (presumably so that the police can have more time to find something to charge you with).

jawathehutt
06-12-2008, 12:05 AM
Hey look at the bright side, at least when you Brits are arrested without charge, you get to stay in your own country. In the glorious freedom filled US, we get free trips to 3rd world countries with lax torture laws where nice men in suits ask us questions about our affiliations to groups that no one has ever heard of, get a confession or make one up and then shred all records of everything but the confession. I love countries founded on the basis of liberty, dont you all? I myself am thinking of doing some unamerican things like being tolerant of Muslims so I can win a free trip to Eastern Europe.

Achilles
06-12-2008, 12:08 AM
*adds jawathehutt to friend's list*

EnderWiggin
06-12-2008, 12:36 AM
Are you really telling me that some small part of you actually thinks this is justified?

That's not even close to what I said ;) I said I see it from both sides - I understand why the government thinks it's a good idea. I never said I thought it was justified.


There are quotes for lots of things, but quotes in and of themselves aren't terribly meaningful. What is important is whether or not the quote says something worth supporting.

Yet why would I post it if I didn't think it was worth supporting? :)


Back to the point: guilt or innocence really has very little do with what we are talking about here. Guilt is established via the trial. Delaying charges is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get away with wanting to throw anyone you want to in jail (presumably so that the police can have more time to find something to charge you with).

However, the measures that the government are taking are done (from their point of view) in order to give them more time to charge criminals. My quote (which is worth supporting) explains what I think - It is better for them to err on the other side and allow those who are wrongly being held to be free.

Thanks for reading :)

_EW_

Totenkopf
06-12-2008, 12:45 AM
But if due process reduces the number of innocent prissoners, then that's surley a good thing..

Problem is that you don't know that due process is actually keeping more innocent people out of jail or just more efficient police work. You can use due process and still imprison a lot of innocent people, as all you need to do is follow an established procedure.

Achilles
06-12-2008, 01:33 AM
That's not even close to what I said ;) I said I see it from both sides - I understand why the government thinks it's a good idea. I never said I thought it was justified. That thing on the end is called a question mark. It denotes that a question is being asked :xp:

I do appreciate your attempt to clarify, but you're still not telling me where you stand.

Yet why would I post it if I didn't think it was worth supporting? :) Then support it. :) It isn't doing a terribly good job of supporting itself. :D

However, the measures that the government are taking are done (from their point of view) in order to give them more time to charge criminals.
"You're coming with me."
"Why? What did I do wrong?"
"I have 28 days to decide that."

Please help me understand why the police need 28 days to charge (not try) someone.

My quote (which is worth supporting) explains what I think - It is better for them to err on the other side and allow those who are wrongly being held to be free. Your quote, because it deals with guilt and innocence, is only applicable to the trial. Within it's applicable context, I would argue that the reasoning is horribly flawed but that's another argument for another thread.

Thanks for reading :)My pleasure. Take care, sir :)

jonathan7
06-12-2008, 08:53 AM
Much as I hate to praise a member of the Conservative party good on David Davis;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4120459.ece

David Davis full resignation statement;

The name of my constituency is Haltemprice and Howden. Haltemprice is derived from a Medieval proverb meaning "noble endeavour". Up until now I took the view that what we did in the House of Commons was a noble endeavour.

That is, what we did up until yesterday.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of Magna Carta, which guarantees the right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason.

Yesterday the House decided to lock up citizens for 42 days without charge.

The Counter-Terrorism Bill will in all probability be rejected by the House of Lords. But as the Bill and the impetus behind it is political, the Government will be tempted to use the Parliament Act to overrule the Lords.

Its legal basis is uncertain, to say the least, but purely for political reasons the Government is going to do this.

Next we will see 56 days, 72 days, then 90 days. But in truth, 42 days is just one example of the insidious and relentless undermining of fundamental British freedoms.

We will soon have the most extensive Identity Card system in the world. We have seen the extension of CCTV cameras, and of DNA databases holding the details of millions of innocent citizens. We have seen an assault on jury trial, shortcuts introduced into our justice system to make it neither firmer nor fairer, and a database set up that exposes our personal data to careless civil servants and computer hackers. We have seen the state clamp down on public demonstrations, while those who incite violence get off scot free.

This cannot go on, it must be stopped. And therefore today I have decided it is incumbent on me to take a stand. I am resigning from this house, and intend to force a by-election in Haltemprice and Howden.

I am just a piece in this great chess game. But I will fight this, I will argue this, by standing against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this Government.

That may mean that I have made my last speech to this great House, and of course that would be a cause of deep regret to me. But at least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of the day: the intrusion of the state into our lives, loss of liberties and the state's undermining of law.

If they do send me back, it will be with a single, simple message: that the monstrosity of a law passed just yesterday will not stand

EnderWiggin
06-12-2008, 12:57 PM
That thing on the end is called a question mark. It denotes that a question is being asked :xp:


I do appreciate your attempt to clarify, but you're still not telling me where you stand.


:D
I agree with you. I see what the government is trying to do, and I disagree with the logic behind it.

Clearer? :xp:

Then support it. :) It isn't doing a terribly good job of supporting itself. :D


"You're coming with me."
"Why? What did I do wrong?"
"I have 28 days to decide that."

Please help me understand why the police need 28 days to charge (not try) someone.


I agree with you. I can't argue against that viewpoint because I also hold it.


Your quote, because it deals with guilt and innocence, is only applicable to the trial. Within it's applicable context, I would argue that the reasoning is horribly flawed but that's another argument for another thread.


I applied it to the rationale that the lawmakers are using. You may disagree as to how I used it. It wasn't really a good argument.


My pleasure. Take care, sir :)

To you as well, my friend. :)

_EW_