It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anti-Terror laws ruled illegal

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 02:21 AM
link   
British anti-terror laws which allow suspected terrorists to be detained without trial have been declared 'incompatible with human right legislation'. Charles Clarke has said the govt will push for the legislation to be renewed anyway and will look to see if the law can be modified to allow this to continue.

To me, this law sounds OK as long as it's not for too long, say 3 months. That'd give the police time to get something concrete. My preferred way of dealing with this would be another opt-out, out of the part of the geneva convention which says 'those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland'.

I welcome legitimate immigrants to this country (my wife is one
) but people that come here with plans to harm this country should be sent back to their homeland, persecution or not.




posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 06:18 AM
link   
We need to voerhall the whole immagration system, the way it is at the moment Saddam could have got in. I'd like to chat to the fella TBH, could be interesting.

Yeah, we need to do as much backround checking as we can on Immigrants, and if their reasons for Immigrating here are legit, and they want to start a new life and work, without being secular and making those damned area's of towns you can't go, then let them in.

Their area's, where anyone of another race other than their own, are nothing more or less than Facist. Why can't we all get along and Intergrate? We're all Humans!



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
British anti-terror laws which allow suspected terrorists to be detained without trial have been declared 'incompatible with human right legislation'.


- I think you'll find this is not actually an accurate description of what has been said Chris.

The point is that, having been tested in court, the existing current laws do not actually 'allow' suspected terrorists to be detained without trial indefinitely, according to the Judges new ruling.

The present law cannot be used in the manner it has been used and does not allow for the indefinite detention of foreign nationals.

Precision is all in law Chris.


Charles Clarke has said the govt will push for the legislation to be renewed anyway and will look to see if the law can be modified to allow this to continue.


- Precisely.
So the Secretary of State is to look at either Parliament amending the existing law so that it does or introducing new law which will then allow for this.


My preferred way of dealing with this would be another opt-out, out of the part of the geneva convention which says 'those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland'.


- Nice. Considering the practicalities of what we are talking about in many cases you would be cheerfully send people back to torture or death?
That seems like a really inhuman 'solution' to me Chris.


I welcome legitimate immigrants to this country (my wife is one
) but people that come here with plans to harm this country should be sent back to their homeland, persecution or not.


- .....and when you only have suspicion and zero proof that they have "come here with plans to harm this country" on what do you then base this judgement?

......and where does legitimate asylum come into your ideas Chris?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
- Nice. Considering the practicalities of what we are talking about in many cases you would be cheerfully send people back to torture or death?
That seems like a really inhuman 'solution' to me Chris.


I'd rather send them back to supposed torture and death than have them stay here to kill innocent people.


- .....and when you only have suspicion and zero proof that they have "come here with plans to harm this country" on what do you then base this judgement?


If you have only suspicion and zero proof then you release them and keep an eye on them. I didn't think i'd need to point this out since most people I encounter on this board have at least a double figure IQ.


......and where does legitimate asylum come into your ideas Chris?


'I welcome legitimate immigrants to this country '. Shall I explain the long words to you, matey?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
I'd rather send them back to supposed torture and death than have them stay here to kill innocent people.


- Yeah, who wouldn't?

But here's the thing Chris, we can already eject or refuse entry to those we have evidence about and proof on that makes them 'undesirable' or dangerous.


If you have only suspicion and zero proof then you release them and keep an eye on them.


- ....and this is the point with those that you have no evidence about; which is the whole point about those referred to in the legal case you originally raised on this thread.


I didn't think i'd need to point this out since most people I encounter on this board have at least a double figure IQ.


- Cute.

Well the issue is one of those for whom only suspicion exists about.

As I've already said there are existant laws relating to those we 'know' about. So this matter entirely relates to those for which there is no actual proof.

......can your IQ handle the difference and the intellectual concept, hmmm?



'I welcome legitimate immigrants to this country '. Shall I explain the long words to you, matey?


- Immigration is not the same as asylum.

Granted it is a difference which has been deliberately blurred if not lost by those who wish to make 'use' of the whole idea but nevertheless legitimate normal immigration is an entirely different issue to those seeking asylum in this country.

I'd have thought you were bright enough to have understood this truth Chris.



(By the way, do let me know, if you want to actually debate and chew an issue over like a grown up or just f**k about like an adolescent bore and enter a tedious slagging match.....I think they have rules about that kind of nonsense around here.)

[edit on 17-12-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   
If i'd known you were such a delicate flower I wouldn't have been so hard on you.


Definition of an immigrant is a person moving from one country to another, whether it is for asylum, economic reasons or anything else.

I can see your point about only suspecting someone, but that suspicion must come from somewhere. I presume the police don't just go through a phone book and pick people at random. Why not let the police put there case before a judge who can decide whether or not a person is a threat and if he/she is, deport them?

If there is a legitmate reason to believe a person will be a threat to this country, (note not proof a legitimate reason to believe), then turn down their asylum/visa application and send them back.

I know this sounds like the system already in place, but there is one crucial difference. Under the current system, much of the time we cannot send them back due to the geneva convention. If we can't send them back and we can't release them as they may be a threat, what are we supposed to do?



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Weput them in detention centre's they burn and escape from. Don't mind me, but isn't doing that a good enough reason? They've jsut terrorised one of our centres endangering many lives.


The Geneva convention has alot of very good points, but some ones which need ammending due to current circumstances; Just as it has been written then, doesn't mean it is so now. Whish someone would realise that with the American Constitution...



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
If i'd known you were such a delicate flower I wouldn't have been so hard on you.


- If you think I over-reacted sorry, ok?


Definition of an immigrant is a person moving from one country to another, whether it is for asylum, economic reasons or anything else.


- Yes that's the dictionary definition.

But in terms of the politics and law of this issue it is also true to say that there is a difference between normal immigration and the asylum issue.
The distinction must be made - and maintained - because they are not the same thing at all.


I can see your point about only suspecting someone, but that suspicion must come from somewhere. I presume the police don't just go through a phone book and pick people at random.


- True, but whether those suspicions are justly grounded or not is the whole point isn't it?

Surely the easiest thing for repressive regimes to do is to plant false stories and rumours about individuals opposing them.....and therefore our Police might well have umteen reasons for suspicion with potentially none of them or only part of them justified, in matters relating to a foreign country which by itself muddies the waters considerably......and in fact if we do deport the person(s) we end uphelping the oppressive regime.

It is a total minefield and very far from straight-forward or easy.


Why not let the police put there case before a judge who can decide whether or not a person is a threat and if he/she is, deport them?


- I think that does indeed form part of the current process - although it is now a much reduced part of it all due to the 'streamlining' of the process - but I think you'll find this is part of an appeals process once a decision to eject an individual is made.


If there is a legitmate reason to believe a person will be a threat to this country, (note not proof a legitimate reason to believe), then turn down their asylum/visa application and send them back.


- Well this is where we came, in isn't it?
At the moment people under suspicion are being held until efforts to clarify the situation are concluded.

But what happens when the person cannot be deported back to certain death or torture but allowing them to go free would possibly mean their involvement in possible terrorist activities?

(and in these cases -by far (cos we know this from exiles that have been here for decades already) - the 'terrorist activities' would not be against this country but their country of origin. )


I know this sounds like the system already in place, but there is one crucial difference. Under the current system, much of the time we cannot send them back due to the geneva convention. If we can't send them back and we can't release them as they may be a threat, what are we supposed to do?


- I'd say recognise this imperfect world for what it is and do what we currently do. Detain them under some sort of supervision.

Respecting decent human rights, standards and liberties is something worth doing, not because it is cost free but because not to do so costs a society enormously in the long-term, IMHO.

(Whether that means (m)any large scale concentrated detention centres is another matter entirely.)



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Then we really are back where we started, you say detain them, but for how long? Where? What do we do if we think they're terrorists or planning to commit a terrorist act but don't have sufficient evidence for a trial?

I would not be happy to release them and take the chance they might do nothing or that we could stop them before they do something.



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
Then we really are back where we started, you say detain them, but for how long? Where?

What do we do if we think they're terrorists or planning to commit a terrorist act but don't have sufficient evidence for a trial?


- To a degree this is true Chris.
We will never be absolutely secure or 100% safe in every circumstance. Such is life and anyone suggesting otherwise is just deluding themselves and others.

Some (those we have the best grounds to think of as genuinely dangerous) I suppose we have little option but to remove from society.

Others we might well keep under observation, in secure accomodation, insist on tagging or daily reporting to Police stations - basically the range of other methods we use for those we believe not specifically dangerous but we wish to be aware of (and have them constantly aware of their observed state) etc.


I would not be happy to release them and take the chance they might do nothing or that we could stop them before they do something.


- At some point we all have to trust that the vast bulk of us are not actually dangerous and that the law and the forces of law are sufficient to maintain our society.
We can give ourselves over to a never-ending unsatisfiable quest for 'complete security' but that is a cruel lie and a sick place for our society to go to.

We can play what if 24/7 and worry ourselves sick...where is the sense in that?

I'd rather we just didn't waste our resources, time and efforts trying to chase after every possible 'what if' and concentrated on the most likely.

We have never (to the best of my knowledge) ever suffered a terrorist attack in the UK done by asylum seekers or illegal immigrants.

Unless you can show otherwise....... (and even then it would have to be completely exceptional, wouldn't it?)



posted on Dec, 17 2004 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
Some (those we have the best grounds to think of as genuinely dangerous) I suppose we have little option but to remove from society.

Others we might well keep under observation, in secure accomodation, insist on tagging or daily reporting to Police stations - basically the range of other methods we use for those we believe not specifically dangerous but we wish to be aware of (and have them constantly aware of their observed state) etc.


That's my point. How long are we supposed to do this for? The rest of their lives?

How do we remove them from society without deporting them? Put them in a detention center without trial for the rest of their lives?

Keeping them under observation might be a good idea until you realise that this could potentially mean thousands of individuals being observed indefinitely. I don't think we can afford the resources for that kind of operation.


At some point we all have to trust that the vast bulk of us are not actually dangerous and that the law and the forces of law are sufficient to maintain our society.
We can give ourselves over to a never-ending unsatisfiable quest for 'complete security' but that is a cruel lie and a sick place for our society to go to.


Yes, the vast bulk are good, honest people but it only takes a couple of nutters to cause many deaths. No-one is looking for 'complete security', we can all accept that dream will only be realised at a great cost to ourselves and will be a pyrrhic victory. I do question the wisdom of allowing people to remain in this country who have no right to be here and who the security services have classed as a potential threat to the well-being of the nation. We may not get complete security but we can at least remove any threats we find.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
That's my point. How long are we supposed to do this for? The rest of their lives?


- For some maybe, most I'd guess not but you must be aware that 'indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure' is hardly a new concept in British justice now is it?


How do we remove them from society without deporting them? Put them in a detention center without trial for the rest of their lives?


- For some that may be the only option, or for as long as it takes for the situation to have moved on enough to render their ideas redundant or until they are too old to threaten anybody.


Keeping them under observation might be a good idea until you realise that this could potentially mean thousands of individuals being observed indefinitely.


- But this idea of "thousands" is just a guess from out of thin air Chris, isn't it?

I doubt you could find a single serious expert commentator who'd really back that idea up for a moment.


I don't think we can afford the resources for that kind of operation.


- But if you are going to give yourself over to that kind of paranoia we haven't the resources to watch 'our own' scary people.....

....and yet for all that life in the UK is not one serious terrorist outrage after another.
Even when the troubles here were over Ireland and much closer to home.

You just can't let yourself go down that road.


Yes, the vast bulk are good, honest people but it only takes a couple of nutters to cause many deaths.


- Hmm. That's the theory but it turns out the practise is far from that simple.
Even the bogey idea of a 'dirty nuclear bomb' turns out to be a really poor and very low capability 'weapon'.


No-one is looking for 'complete security'


- I don't know about that Chris.
The way some people talk you'd think total security is not that hard to attain.


we can all accept that dream will only be realised at a great cost to ourselves and will be a pyrrhic victory.


- .....and this side of the debate is almost never heard in our 'mainstream' media.
Even the world's most repressive Police states have had terrorist problems.


I do question the wisdom of allowing people to remain in this country who have no right to be here and who the security services have classed as a potential threat to the well-being of the nation.


- I think you'll find the security services are nowhere near as powerless in this area as you seem to imply.

The new powers together with the existing ones actually worry me in terms of our state going too far.

So long as we have a proper democratic ethic in government we are ok but were we ever to get away from that we could have major problems with all the necessary levers of power set up and ready for an abusive gov. to come along and take us back to a pre-democracy (absolutely necessary for our own good and safety of course.....isn't it always
) .


We may not get complete security but we can at least remove any threats we find.


- I don't believe for one moment that our security services would not nullify any genuine threat in this country one way or another.

Like I said, this has been going on for some time and we have not been deluged with terrorism from around the globe despite British involvement in much of the 'problem spots' historically.

It seems we are actually more capable than people give us the credit for, hmm?

(and my bet is that is exactly how the services prefer the perception to be for all sorts of reasons, some perfectly desirable and understandable and some not quite so.)



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
For some maybe, most I'd guess not but you must be aware that 'indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure' is hardly a new concept in British justice now is it?


So you're in favour of holding people without trial for their entire lives. I noticed in another thread you were also for curtailing the freedom and number of press outlets, i'm starting to get an idea of your politics, Mr Stalin.

Indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure is not a new concept, but indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure without trial certainly is, although I think a guy called Joe experimented with it in the Soviet Union.


But this idea of "thousands" is just a guess from out of thin air Chris, isn't it?


No, it isn't. 600 suspects were arrested up to Dec 2003. That's the number arrested, 300 per year since 2001. In 4 years you will have 1200 suspects. I actually research my figures, you might want to try it rather than just spouting off your increasingly irrelevant opinion.


But if you are going to give yourself over to that kind of paranoia we haven't the resources to watch 'our own' scary people.....


The fact remains we'd have more resources to watch our own 'scary people' if we didn't have to watch someone else's aswell.


You just can't let yourself go down that road.


No, you'd rather go down the road that leads to the government imprisoning people for the rest of their lives without trial (and curtailing press freedom
).


Even the bogey idea of a 'dirty nuclear bomb' turns out to be a really poor and very low capability 'weapon'.


science.howstuffworks.com...


Even the world's most repressive Police states have had terrorist problems.


So turning us into a repressive police state is bound to help, right, matey?


I think you'll find the security services are nowhere near as powerless in this area as you seem to imply.


The terrorists only have to get past them once.


The new powers together with the existing ones actually worry me in terms of our state going too far.


Glad to hear it, there may be hope for you yet.


So long as we have a proper democratic ethic in government we are ok but were we ever to get away from that we could have major problems with all the necessary levers of power set up and ready for an abusive gov. to come along and take us back to a pre-democracy (absolutely necessary for our own good and safety of course.....isn't it


So imprisoning people indefinitely without trial isn't going against a proper democratic ethic?


I don't believe for one moment that our security services would not nullify any genuine threat in this country one way or another.


I agree, after all, the IRA never successfully bombed us once did they?


[edit on 18-12-2004 by Chris McGee]



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
So you're in favour of holding people without trial for their entire lives.


- Did you miss the phrase "for some maybe". That is exactly the situation as it is now. What are you quibbling about? Do you think those 3 words encapsulate an entire 'policy'!?



I noticed in another thread you were also for curtailing the freedom and number of press outlets, i'm starting to get an idea of your politics, Mr Stalin.


- It was about expanding the number of outlets actually Chris and about encouraging a move away from the distillation of the media into the hands of a few.

Jayzuss if you're going to try and characterise what I've said before at least you could try and get it right.....or maybe do some of your amazing 'research' and quote properly, hmmm?


Indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure is not a new concept, but indefinitely detained at H.M.'s pleasure without trial certainly is, although I think a guy called Joe experimented with it in the Soviet Union.


- Sorry Chris; I didn't realise that by expressing a few thoughts on the subject you have decided I'd formulated an entire and complete 'policy'.



No, it isn't. 600 suspects were arrested up to Dec 2003.


- Yes and how many were asylum seekers and how many born here but lifted by the Police in those actions?


That's the number arrested, 300 per year since 2001. In 4 years you will have 1200 suspects. I actually research my figures, you might want to try it rather than just spouting off your increasingly irrelevant opinion.


- Sorry Chris but you're just playing with numbers here and it has nothing to do with any actual 'research' and is utterly irrelevant.

The 'suspects' were not all newly immigrated to the UK - and go on, surprise me (
) how many were born in the UK, how many were charged and how many released with no further action pending at all, hmmm?
That if you knew the answers would be actual and relevant research.

You do realise one of the well known stories at the time (remember the supposed plan to attack Old Trafford.....sorry, do you need a reference or do you actually know anything about any of this, I presume a basic level of general knowledge but it appears you need everything proved?) turned out to be an ordinary asian guy, born here, who had an old footbal match ticket in his house.

That's exactly what I'm talkning about. Paranoid imaginations running amok.


The fact remains we'd have more resources to watch our own 'scary people' if we didn't have to watch someone else's aswell.


- Er, yeah Chris. Ifs buts and maybe, great game.
Just think of everything else it applies to.



No, you'd rather go down the road that leads to the government imprisoning people for the rest of their lives without trial (and curtailing press freedom
).


- We already have people detained indefinitely (I don't recall discusing trials or hearings - so you just assumed I would not want them?
) and I didn't say anything about curtailing press freedom.....would you care to show where I suggested that, ever?


science.howstuffworks.com...


- There is much dispute over whether a dirty bomb would be actually 'effective' as any kind of weapon beyond the panic and 'PR' it would generate. www.newsmax.com...


So turning us into a repressive police state is bound to help, right, matey?


- Where have I suggested this?

In fact the entire tenor of what I said was about not going down that road as it guaranteed nothing.


The terrorists only have to get past them once.


- Yes, of course.
......and?
Talk about state the obvious.
Since when was that not ever the case?


Glad to hear it, there may be hope for you yet.


- Are you drunk or something?
This is exactly what I have been saying - so where does your notions about my supposed approval for repression come from?


So imprisoning people indefinitely without trial isn't going against a proper democratic ethic?


- I still would love to know how come you decided I was into locking people away with any legal recourse or established proceedure.


I agree, after all, the IRA never successfully bombed us once did they?


- There were several incidents of course, what are you on about? Did I say otherwise?

But life in the UK was never grossly disrupted in the manner some fear possible now.

I find those fears unfounded especially in view of our recent history with dealing with a much more present threat.

You disagree, great. Knock yourself out.

By the way, go play at being a smart arse with someone who can be bothered Chris.



posted on Dec, 18 2004 @ 08:42 PM
link   
OK, let's cool it down and get back to the point.

How can it be right in a free and democratic society to hold someone (or have the power to hold someone) indefinitely without trial. They may not be held for their entire lives, but the fact the government has this power at all strikes me as wrong.

To me, it feels like the prisoners are being put in a kind of limbo, we can't release them but we can't get rid of them. My preferred solution would be to deport them and let them appeal any decision from where they end up.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on how we sort this mess out?



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chris McGee
OK, let's cool it down and get back to the point.

How can it be right in a free and democratic society to hold someone (or have the power to hold someone) indefinitely without trial. They may not be held for their entire lives, but the fact the government has this power at all strikes me as wrong.

To me, it feels like the prisoners are being put in a kind of limbo, we can't release them but we can't get rid of them. My preferred solution would be to deport them and let them appeal any decision from where they end up.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on how we sort this mess out?


No, they are enemies of the state and should be dealt with. If evidence points to the immigration system, then do what the Netherlands are doing, freeze immigration.



posted on Dec, 20 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
That might not be such a bad idea (at least for a short time). At the least it'd give us some time to get a decent system in place. The system we have now is way too open to abuse.

Whatever happened to that european rule about asylum seekers being taken back to their point of entry into the EU to apply there?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
From what i understand, the guys that are being held without trial (including the guy they let go last week) do have evidence against them, but the government do not want the evidence heard in court as it may jeopardise the position of our security service. For example, phone-tapping evidence, which is in the news at the moment.

www.guardian.co.uk...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join