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.

 

Britain's Proposed Anti-Terror Laws Under Attack By Civil Rights/Law Experts

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Britain's proposed anti-terror legislation would be largely unnecessary and ineffectual if implemented according to civil rights groups and legal experts. The plans call for extending the period of time police can hold suspected terrorists without charge, from two weeks to three months. "Britain has the most extensive terrorism code in Europe. Failings are from intelligence services, police and politicians, not the law," said Leeds University law professor Clive Walker.
 



uk.news.yahoo.com
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's planned anti-terror laws are largely unnecessary and would be ineffectual if implemented, rights groups and legal experts said on Friday.

The government unveiled plans on Thursday to extend the time police can hold terrorism suspects without charge to three months from two weeks as part of a package of measures to tackle militancy.

The proposals follow July's suicide bombings which killed 52 commuters on London's transport network. Britain has since detained 17 foreigners for deportation on the grounds they are threats to security and barred a Muslim cleric.

Civil rights groups and lawyers said the latest plans are draconian compared with other countries


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



"Britain has the most extensive terrorism code in Europe. Failings are from intelligence services, police and politicians, not the law," said Leeds University law professor Clive Walker.

That quote is so important I felt I should reiterate it. It is so spot on as to be iconic of the whole opposition to the War-on-Terror sham our governments are perpetuating.

There is no justification or legal basis for erroding our civil liberties. When Tony Blair says we have no "untrammelled right" to human liberties and that "It's always been qualified by some sense of duty or responsibility," he really means we have rights only because our government gave them to us. Mr. Blair views our civil liberties as not rights, but privileges that can be taken away at his discretion.

News flash Mr.Blair, you do not have the right to take away any of our human rights. There is no justification for the abridgement to our civil liberties and the excuse that its necessary for our own protection, is too, a sham.

The failings with combating terrorism lie squarely at the feet of the government and its intelligence agencies, not with our laws. Why should we have to forgo rights secured for us by our forefathers so as to make life easier for lacklustre, plutocratic jobsworthies?

The rules havent changed Mr.Blair, you're just breaking them.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
WAR: Britains HS Wants Detention Without Charge

[edit on 16/9/05 by subz]

[edit on 20-9-2005 by asala]




posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Thing is subz, when do we draw the line?
The public cries for a safe country, yet without surrendering liberties. How do you do that?
A)Increase defence budget.
B) Increase the laws.

A) is outa the question and frankly B is cheaper.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
We dont need new laws. We dont need to lose liberties. Its all crap. The government is assembling the basics of a police state and the media is happy to go along with it.

Not good at all!



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Well, as Rumsfeld said, the war on terror could take a hundred years, or possibly never end.
When you give up your civil liberties for security, eventually you live not only in fear of these invisible enemies, but also in fear of your own government, as the grip gets tighter. Do you want to live in fear for the rest of your life?

I am quite sure there will be more terrorist attacks in the west, even though the government "beefed up" domestic security, and then after the next attack want even more anti-terrorism legislation and funding, or perhaps martial law if the attack is big enough, like a suitcase nuke in a fairly large city or in several cities. But when that happens, you've got to ask yourself who benefits from all of this?



posted on Sep, 21 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uncle Joe
We dont need new laws. We dont need to lose liberties. Its all crap. The government is assembling the basics of a police state and the media is happy to go along with it.

Not good at all!

Then what do we do to appease the masses or sort the problem?
Invade a country?



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join