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.

 

WAR: Britains HS Wants Detention Without Charge

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   
Britain's HS Charles Clarke says he is planning to introduce drastic new legislation to help battle the war against terrorists. If approved, the new legislation will allow police to confine suspects for up to thee months without charge. Clarke says these new measures are needed to allow police more time to gather evidence.
 



www.sky.com
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has confirmed he wants to introduce radical new laws in the battle against terrorism.
They include new powers to detain suspects for up to three months without charge.

Mr Clarke said the move was necessary to allow police more time to gather evidence and to ensure the nation's security.

The planned extension to the current 14-day period was one of the most contentious proposals when new counter-terrorism laws were discussed after the July 7 bombings.

The proposed change is included in a set of draft clauses from the upcoming Counter-Terrorism Bill.



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I do believe that Australia is also considering similar legislation and I for one think it is a move in the right direction.

Personally, I would prefer a longer time frame then just ninety days, however ninety days certainly is better then the current fourteen days.

Way to go Mr. Clarke show them terrorists you mean business.




posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 10:44 AM
link   
I agree. The war on Terrorism has dictated that new methods be adopted to track down and catch terrorists. While I understand that many will view such legislation as dangerous, opening the door to wrongful arrests and detainment, we can only hope that those in charge will not abuse this power and use it wisely.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Surely those in power will use this new power wisely. I can't think of any instance when those in charge have abused their power.

Burn your Bibles!! Let's worship our new God "Authority" From now on we should always Capitalize and show proper respect to the new God "Authority."

Be warned all those that question AUTHORITY will be tried for heresy!!

[edit on 15-9-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Be warned all those that question AUTHORITY will be tried for heresy!!


No, the'll just be locked up for months (years?) without charge or legal representation.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Omg I never get out of control but what kind of idiots honestly support this kind of legislation. I mean if you dont have any evidence then you have no right to hold anyone period. I think holding anyone for more than 24 hours is wrong if you have no evidence to support your claims. You think these laws apply only to terrorists you are sadly mistaken. Out in public the politicians claim it, but the actual text in the book is always written differently.

If I say I same some suspicious package being deliveed to a secluded neighbor and report it to the authorities then they have the right to detain you for 3 months until they find evidence?

What happens when they hold an ATS member and then invade their computer and use it as evidence of crimes against the state, without of course clearly defining the crimes. It wont really matter because they can have you for three months anyways and with this vague evidence they may be able to hold you even longer.

I seriously just do not see the sense in these types of laws. If you suspect someone of terrorist activity then have your forces monitor that individual until you can get evidence to charge him/her with something.

I surely hope the English people are smart enough to not let this pass. Then again you guys already gave up guns, have closed circuit cameras all over and your doctors are talking about banning large kitchen knives, so I don't see much hope there.



posted on Sep, 15 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
If the government truly believes that they have a suspect that is that much of a threat then the government can go to the expense of watching them 24 hours a day unmolested until the suspect makes a mistake.

Allowing governments to hold people for 90 days without enough evidence to convict them of anything allows for criminal types within the government to abuse people and destroy lives without valid reason. There is enough of that going on already without giving them more power to abuse.

We've come along way in the free world and it is really stupid to allow the terrorist take our judicial systems back to the Dark Ages. We've fought hard against corrupt governments to give all people rights to keep governments from abusing private citizens, now we have some lazy asses who think we're going to let them take us back down that road again. How many more terrorist do they want to create?

Give them unlimited power then everyone except them will be labeled a terrorist if need be to support themselves. If any elected government official trys anything like that where I live I will do whatever it takes (within our laws) to see that that do not ever get elected again. They will become headline news for the sick bastards they are and will be considered an enemy of the people by all the people.

Of course I'm speaking as an American on American soil, but if that can happen over there it can just as easily spread over here.

[edit on 15-9-2005 by outsider]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
shots you're a terrorist. Lock him up for 3 months! Extend it for another 3 months! Extend it indefinately!

Thats about how the system would work shots. You might not want to look sideways at Mein Fuhrer Klarke or he'll have you locked in the tower of London


[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   
Due process of law is a cornerstone of security for the people.

London has survived years of terrorism from the IRA and along comes 7/7 and suddenly the government decides to implement totalitarian measures and rewrite our unwritten constitution.

Remember the Guilford Four, the Birmingham Six and the Maguire Seven?

en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

Innocent people who were coerced into giving false confessions whilst under police brutality and torture and then wrongly imprisoned for years as terrorists.

Corruption is a historically proven aspect of our justice system and now they want to be able to detain suspects for a period of ninety days without evidence or recourse to legal action?!

Can anyone else hear the jackboots in the distance?

[edit on 16-9-2005 by shanti23]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by shots


I do believe that Australia is also considering similar legislation and I for one think it is a move in the right direction.




Well I'm Australian and I for one dont.

These kind of laws are just open to abuse and corruption.

As shanti23 pointed out, there have been cases already in the UK's past ............ I always thought they sounded like cricket scores

Guilford : 4
Birmingham:6

How many people in World War II died to stop this kind of society?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 07:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
shots you're a terrorist. Lock him up for 3 months! Extend it for another 3 months! Extend it indefinately!

Thats about how the system would work shots. You might not want to look sideways at Mein Fuhrer Klarke or he'll have you locked in the tower of London


[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]


You are just guessing subz, how do you know it will work that way? I realize you are a pesimist versus an optomist and that is not my fault. I think it is a good thing.

I know you say you do not like terrorist, however at times I have my doubts. Yet it is also obvious you are against stopping them to a point by the statements you have made.

Being the self proclaimed world expert that you think you are; can you perhaps give the world your solution to the problem of terrorists? And please be specific, there will be no moving of the goal posts after you make your first reply, anyone can win arguements that way:shk:

[edit on 9/16/2005 by shots]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Shots - could you explain why you think these laws are a good thing?

Your reasoning isnt coming across in your posts very well. You've stated your opin that they are a good thing, I'd like to hear your reasoning why?



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by mulberryblueshimmer
Shots - could you explain why you think these laws are a good thing?

Your reasoning isnt coming across in your posts very well. You've stated your opin that they are a good thing, I'd like to hear your reasoning why?



I think it is a good thing because 14 days is just not enough time to truly establish the true identity of terrorists. They go by many names and use many passports and it takes time to track all that information down.

I am however open to suggestions if you have proof you can do it faster.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots

I think it is a good thing because 14 days is just not enough time to truly establish the true identity of terrorists. They go by many names and use many passports and it takes time to track all that information down.

I am however open to suggestions if you have proof you can do it faster.



Oh give me a friggin break shots! I can be anywhere on the planet within a day or two, so it's not that difficult to gather information on a terrorist suspect. Being too lazy to get up from your desk to get the neccessary info is not an excuse to lock people without evidence. Last time I checked it only takes a couple minutes to send a picture or fingerprint file anywhere on the planet. There's absolutely no excuse to hold anyone for more than a few days.

I propose that anyone who suggest we lock up people without evidence for 90 days should be immediately executed for crimes against humanity.

[edit on 16-9-2005 by outsider]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by outsider

Oh give me a friggin break shots! I can be anywhere on the planet within a day or two, so it's not that difficult to gather information on a terrorist suspect. Being too lazy to get up from your desk to get the neccessary info is not an excuse to lock people without evidence. Last time I checked it only takes a couple minutes to send a picture or fingerprint file anywhere on the planet. There's absolutely no excuse to hold anyone for more than a few days.



Well if it were as easy as you assume then please explain why it took Britain so long to identify the suspects that attacked the UK? And while you are at it explain why it took so long to identify those involved with 911.

One can only assume you think you have all the answers to this problem, so might I suggest you get a job with any high level government agency that tracks terrorists and show them the right way to do it.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You are just guessing subz, how do you know it will work that way? I realize you are a pesimist versus an optomist and that is not my fault. I think it is a good thing.

Im only pesimistic when it comes to trusting governments with our civil liberties. You know they dont have a good track record, dont you? Our civil liberties were enshrined in law precisely because politicans cannot be trusted to ensure they are respected of their own volition.


Originally posted by shots
I know you say you do not like terrorist, however at times I have my doubts. Yet it is also obvious you are against stopping them to a point by the statements you have made.

Not true. I just dont believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water with regards to "protecting our way of life". If we allow for detention without any legal recourse for the detainee we lose a major cornerstone of our way of life. One that I am not prepared to sacrifice for my personal saftey.


Originally posted by shots
Being the self proclaimed world expert that you think you are; can you perhaps give the world your solution to the problem of terrorists? And please be specific, there will be no moving of the goal posts after you make your first reply, anyone can win arguements that way:shk:

Okedokey, I would be interested in seeing you quote my self proclamaition that im a "world expert"
But I'll let that slide.

What would my solution be instead here? Not entirely too much different than what is proposed by the Home Secretary. Except for one extremely important modification: Present the evidence of suspected terrorist activity to a judge and hold a public hearing within 48 hours of arrest. If there is no evidence to show to a judge then we should not arrest any one, period.

If the judge accepts that there is sufficient evidence to suspect the individual of terroristic activity he should be able to authourize a variable amount of time for further detention. The Crown should be required to asks for a specific amount of detention, not exceeding 3 months, and the judge should either agree or shorten the detention based on the evidence.

Let me reiterate that point, if there is no evidence to corroborate the Crown's case of terroristic activity the individual should be released, immediately!

This is important because the prevention of most crimes would benefit from holding some one indefinately until the police could build a dossier of enough evidence to prosecute. It also could be argued that suspected murderers, rapists, bank robbers, car theives, fraudsters, illegal downloaders, jay-walkers, breakers of speed limits etc should require the same treatment as being proscribed by the Home Secretary for terrorists.

If you suspect some one of planning a murder but do not have enough evidence to warrant a trial/sentencing via traditional means i.e. the courts and jury system, then you could theorhetically prevent the murder by holding them for 3 months to secure the evidence. Why should the rules be any different for terrorists when the same reasoning would apply equally well against a plethora of suspected criminal activity? Then we would truly be in a police state and the old chestnut of "dont do anything wrong and you've got nothing to worry about" just bit the dust. You could be held for 3 months or more for being suspected of ANY crime.

In summary, the burden of proof is on the Crown. If they cant secure an arrest and application for extended detention from a judge then they MUST release them. That could apply to any crime as far as I am concerned.

Also the London bombings wouldnt of been prevented by this legislation. Nothing could of stopped the London bombings as the perpetrators were not discovered by police before hand. So trying to justify this latest abridgment to our civil liberties as some how being something that would of prevented 7/7 is erroneous.

Im not out to protect terrorists, im actually advocating that we protect our civil liberties from both terrorists and from our own governments which time and time again have proven themselves incapable of respecting the civil rights of average citizens of their own accord. We can combat terrorists whilst adhering to civil liberties, our society has faced greater threats than terrorists and there is never a threat great enough that necessitates placing our very civil and human rights in the hands of politicians.

[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz.

What would my solution be instead here? Not entirely too much different than what is proposed by the Home Secretary. Except for one extremely important modification: Present the evidence of suspected terrorist activity to a judge and hold a public hearing within 48 hours of arrest. If there is no evidence to show to a judge then we should not arrest any one, period.


48 hours is hardly enough time to determine their real name let alone gather sufficient evidence, they are not dealing with the normal criminal element here like you seem to assume.

I sure am glad you are not part of the government; if you were Britain would be worse off then it is now.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
48 hours is hardly enough time to determine their real name let alone gather sufficient evidence, they are not dealing with the normal criminal element here like you seem to assume.

I sure am glad you are not part of the government; if you were Britain would be worse off then it is now.

And the ATS award for the most pleonastic use of emoticons goes to...

Was I wasting my time explaining my position to you, as requested, only to have it poo-poo'ed in such a trollistic manner? Should I refrain from trying to have a civil exchange of ideas with you in future?

If "48 hours is hardly enough time to determine their real name" applies to terrorists how doesnt it apply to all criminals? Wouldnt the prevention of all murders save the lives of vastly more people than from terrorism? Why would terrorism take precedence over ordinary murders if the purpose of the police is to save peoples lives? More people die at the hands of ordinary murderers than from terrorists! The prevention of ordinary murders should take precedence over terrorism.

You are right in saying that holding people for 3 months will be a more effective way of preventing terrorism than currently employed, but its akin to smashing a peanut with sledgehammer.

The only thing that differs between a normal murderer and a terrorist is their aim. A murderer seeks to kill and a terrorist seeks to kill to achieve a goal. If the modern Islamic terrorist's goal is to destroy our way of life why on God's green earth are we giving them a helping hand by sacrificing our way of life? Doesnt that strike you as a somewhat backward logic?

"Yeah I'll show these darn terrorists that they cant destroy our way of life! They wont because our government has beat them to it! Yeah that'll stop em!"


[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Was I wasting my time explaining my position to you, as requested, only to have it poo-poo'ed in such a trollistic manner? Should I refrain from trying to have a civil exchange of ideas with you in future?



The reason I replied in the manner I did was because what you propose would reverse laws that are on the books at this time that to me was downright laughable, ergo I used the lol icon since I was rolling on the floor over that. The thumbs down speaks likewise what you propose is esentially going back into the stone age pre 2000 when they made the new laws in the UK for terrorists.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
The reason I replied in the manner I did was because what you propose would reverse laws that are on the books at this time that to me was downright laughable, ergo I used the lol icon since I was rolling on the floor over that.

What? What 'law on the books' would be reversed by showing evidence before holding some one in indefinate detention? What country do you live in? Myanmar?


Originally posted by shots
The thumbs down speaks likewise what you propose is esentially going back into the stone age pre 2000 when they made the new laws in the UK for terrorists.

Wheres the "huh?" emoticon when you need it? Did you even read what I said? The only difference between what Charles Clarke has proposed and what I suggested as my alternative is that a suspect be given a chance to go before a judge before being locked in a friggen gulag. If you think having a political appointee dictate who gets locked up indefinately is more advanced than having a judge make that decision then send me back two millennia!



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

What? What 'law on the books' would be reversed by showing evidence before holding some one in indefinate detention? What country do you live in? Myanmar?


First there you go changing the goal posts again. :shk: You are real good at that. :shk:


What I said was what you proposed would reverse the laws already in place. So again stop with moving the goal posts and insert words I did not say OK.


and that law that would be reversed is


Anti-terrorism legislation

Police powers have been widened by the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, for example, you now have extra powers at ports and airports. All of these powers apply in the investigation of terrorism and some are set out below:

You can be stopped and searched and arrested without warrant, if a police officer suspects you are a terrorist

Terrorist suspects can be detained without charge for a maximum of 14 days and access to a solicitor can be delayed for 48 hours

www.bbc.co.uk...


As you can see what you suggested would be over turning laws that are already in place that allow terrorists to be detained for longer then 48 hours. i.e, returning to the stone age.

Edit to add
Now using your own words What country do you live in? Myanmar?

here I will answer that for you.
[sarcasm] Obviously it is not England you do not even know your own laws. /end sarcasm/








[edit on 9/16/2005 by shots]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join