42 day detention without trial

[Walsingham]

Today witnessed the UK (unelected) House of Lords standing firm against the (elected) House of Commons over detention without trial. That is 42 days detention without trial.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...ote-960249.html

 

I agree with the assertion that the legislation was 'not just unconstitutional it was contemptible'.

 

As soon as my cold lifts I will be celebrating this. Nice to see the 'old duffers' earning their keep.

[Killian Kalthorne]

The question I have is why 42 days? Why 42? It seems like an odd number to set the amount of time. Is it a Douglas Adams reference?

 

It is good that it did not pass.

[Meshugger]

The question I have is why 42 days? Why 42? It seems like an odd number to set the amount of time. Is it a Douglas Adams reference?

 

It is good that it did not pass.

 

The 'original' anti-terror law allowed people to be detained for 28 days, which was a compromise, since Blair wanted 90. '42' is simply a numerical raize by 50%, claiming that anti-terrorism is very complicated and requires special treatment.

 

And I ever how guys survived the IRA-years with these laws.

[Gorgon]

What is meant by incarceration without trial. Judges can already imprison suspects while an investigation is being held, to keep them from meddling with witnesses and evidence gathering. That can go on for months in a high profile case.

 

The police have to convince a judge first though.

[Walsingham]

The premise that modern terrorism is complex and often covers three or more countries is no my objection. An IRA case would almost never cover more than two. However, the sacrifice required is that we spend more time and treasure and effort improving our ability to work within the time available. not to tie all concept of civil liberty in a sack and toss it out a window. Detaining people for 42 days on no more 'evidence' than the whim of the Home Secretary is either:

 

1. Totalitarian

2. Misguided and pointless

 

I say this because at some point the HS will imprison someone innocent for a long time. It will either be deliberate, and totalitarian, or it will be accidental, and the entire system will be a publicity coup for the opposition and be torn down. Neither outcome is worthwhile, when we should be building raw capability that is less likely to go wrong.

[Hildegard]

42 says? So what? Compared to the patriot act you can be held in custody under the suspicion of being a terrorist indefinitely. So 42 days, it ain't so much.

[Gorgon]

Well yes, that's just more wrong. I believe Walsh was hinting at getting it right. There has always been a loophole when it comes to national security and cloak and dagger stuff, they have oversight supposedly, but can probably bend the limits of the law a lot more. So now we are considering supplanting this leeway given to spies into the criminal justice system proper.

 

That is not wise.

Edited October 14, 2008 by Gorgon

[Hurlshort]

I'm usually pretty willing to side with government on this stuff, but suspension of Habeus Corpus always freaks me out a bit.

[random n00b]

Eh, I don't see what's all the fuss about. There seem to be some misconceptions, too.

 

Mesh hit the nail earlier; this proposed measure is only a 50% increase on the already mind-boggling 28 day-detention limit, that is, detention at the police's exclusive discretion. Sorry Wals, but I think they already tossed civil liberties out the window sometime ago...

 

The UK is notoriously heavy-handed in its legislation regarding this. Elsewhere, the limit is usually never more than 3-4 days. Yes, that includes the US. Elsewhere, suspects need to be charged with something before a magistrate can order more prolonged imprisonment.

 

It's a good thing this bill or whatever it is wasn't approved. But considering how things are already set up, it's hardly a victory or something to celebrate.

Edited October 14, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

I know someone personally who was held 2 months on trafficking suspicion without trial. If nothing comes of it you can sue for wrongful imprisonment and be pretty confident of a settlement, hardly makes it worth the while though.

 

There is a case to be made that this violates human rights conventions, especially when the reason that nothing happens for so long in the investigation is lack of manpower.

[random n00b]

I know someone personally who was held 2 months on trafficking suspicion without trial. If nothing comes of it you can sue for wrongful imprisonment and be pretty confident of a settlement, hardly makes it worth the while though.

The fact that he didn't go to trial doesn't mean he hadn't been charged. Charges can be dropped.

 

My point is that there's a fundamental difference in how that power is applied - laws make it so there's a very clearly defined way of doing things in judicial proceedings. When it's the police that's entrusted with that... not so much.

[Gorgon]

No evidence is required with the 42 day incarceration, all you get is oversight from the home secretary. The cops don't have to stand before a judge and show cause.

[random n00b]

Er, yes. That's what makes it so abhorrent.

 

I don't think I've said the contrary?

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

42?

 

 

As in, THE answer?!

Edited October 15, 2008 by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

[Gorth]

Trust the Brits to come up with 42 as the answer to their problems

[Walsingham]

It's a good thing this bill or whatever it is wasn't approved. But considering how things are already set up, it's hardly a victory or something to celebrate.

 

I don't see why it is unreasonable to hold a suspect for a certain amount of time before levelling charges. I simply don't believe it is acceptable to hold people for more than a certain length of time.

 

If circumstances arise (and they do) where a suspect is held on rather tenuous allegations from foreign intelligence, but we can't afford to have them running around loose, then there should be an actual trial/tribunal where just cause can be openly demonstrated. It certainly can't be put down to whichever random yahoo happens to be Home Secretary.

[random n00b]

I don't see why it is unreasonable to hold a suspect for a certain amount of time before levelling charges. I simply don't believe it is acceptable to hold people for more than a certain length of time.

So, 28 days under police custody is "reasonable", but 29, 33, or 42 isn't? Please explain what's the difference.

 

 

If circumstances arise (and they do) where a suspect is held on rather tenuous allegations from foreign intelligence, but we can't afford to have them running around loose, then there should be an actual trial/tribunal where just cause can be openly demonstrated. It certainly can't be put down to whichever random yahoo happens to be Home Secretary.

And if the allegations are tenuous and possibly unreliable, why can't you afford to have said person running loose? That sounds awfully like police state-reasoning to me. If you absolutely can't have said person at large, then arrest him and formally charge him. Or is it that the justice system should apply for everyone but whomever happens to be conveniently labelled a "terrorist"?

 

Also, you don't like this power on the hands of whoever happens to be the HS at the moment. It just so happens that I don't like it on the hands of the police chief or any other non-judicial officer either.

Edited October 15, 2008 by random n00b

[Gorgon]

I think you can't help but factor in that Britain actually has a very vocal Muslim extremist environment that they use an awful lot of time keeping tabs on. That's not quite so obvious in the US despite their more extreme measures. There have already been cases where the police needed to jump to an arrest to prevent terrorist action. Used sparingly, detaining suspects without trial can be necessary.

 

There should be proper judicial procedures for this though, not just a 42 day charte blanche whenever the cops use the world 'terrorist'

[Walsingham]

Gorgon's hit on it, really. Some characters are 'known' to be important. Organisers, fixers, ideaologues etc. But there's often not much to hold them on, besides secondary evidence. The sort of thing which would not secure a conviction, but which constitutes reasonable suspicion. Building a case takes time and effort. You can't just tell them to stay put, because they'll disappear. And we're not talking about a bail jumper who might break a few windows. They might kill a few hundred people.

 

My point is really that if a case takes time and effort, but time can't reasonably be extended, then we need to increase our 'effort'. We need more officers and better liaisons. because apart from anything else even 90 days might not be enough in some cases.

 

But I need to think about this some more. I don't feel like my viewpoint is very deep.