Lock terror suspects up indefinitely say police

Lock terror suspects up indefinitely say police

politics.guardian.co.uk

One of Britain's most senior police officers has demanded a return to a form of internment, with the power to lock up terror suspects indefinitely without charge.

The proposal, put forward by the head of the Association of Police Chief Officers (Acpo) and supported by Scotland Yard, is highly controversial. An earlier plan to extend the amount of time suspects can be held without charge to 90 days led to Tony Blair's first Commons defeat as Prime Minister.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The Association of Police Chief Officers would like the police to be granted the power to detain suspects for an unlimited amount of time without charge. Civil rights groups are understandably worried about this proposal.

politics.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

Worried? They should be down right terrified.

Remember that anyone who takes a stance against a political party can be considered a terrorist.

Heck, even Greenpeace is on the US terror list.

If you try, you can find anyone to be a terrorist, so long as they stand for what they believe in.

Birmingham Six
Guildford Four
Jean Charles de Menezes

Three recent, relevant examples of why indefinite internment is a really bad idea. Just another example of how terrorism is actually giving them the power to destroy our both our legal systems and the basic civil liberties we have spent centuries securing for the common people.

Who am I kidding, indefinite internment is already here in the form of Extraordinary Rendition and 'legal' loop-holes such as Guantanamo Bay.

No 'Harry Buttles' in the house I hope!

This goes along with the whole shift from the authorities having to prove guilt to the suspect having to prove innocence.
Surely, in order to arrest someone, the police or MI5 or whoever it is needs to show evidence of wrongdoing in order to justify their actions. If they don't have evidence then why is the individual being arrested? I have a problem with people being arrested then held indefinitely whilst evidence is gathered or, quite possibly, manufactured to uphold the arrest at a later date.
Remember all the attempted covering of backsides with the Jean Charles de Menenez shooting in London. All the officially touted complete lies used as justification for what was a needless assassination?
If those in charge need to manufacture evidence against someone to cover their backsides or to push an agenda then they will do so. After all, us civilians don't count and are there to simply facilitate their existence, power and salaries.
I also have a BIG problem with the press acting as judge - jury - executioner as soon as someone is arrested, before any actual proof of wrongdoing has been established. But, the authorities work hand in glove with the compliant salivating press to get the people whipped into a frenzy of fear and paranoia, which is what it's all about. Scare the sheeple enough and they'll toe the line and do whatever you want them to do.

Stop the world, I wanna get off

These people can do what they want no matter about the laws. I am just surprised they actually said it in public.

I love the way the police love criminals walking the streets and they go after innocent people.

For the few of you who think the NWO would be just fine, here we have an example of whats to come.



What a beautiful world!!!!!

Shami Chakrabarti, director of human rights group Liberty, said: "We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment."

The Terrorism Act 2006 raised the limit a suspect can be held from 14 days to 28 days - although the 28-day measure has to be renewed by MPs every 12 months.

The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have given their support to the 28-day limit, but both parties say they would prefer a return to a 14-day limit.

The Tories have raised concerns that holding people for long periods before they were charged fuelled media speculation and was risking prejudicing future trials.

Source.

I doubt it will happen, and that is IMO a damn good thing. Obviously, the UK faces a very real threat at the moment. The people who seek to perpetrate acts of terror against the population need to be stopped. However, we must be wary of knee-jerk reactions.

If such a proposal was put into place, who is to say it could not be misused in the future, against any particular group the party in power wanted to demonise.

In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that

“ On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore. 'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism. ”

Source.

The definition of "terrorist" is notoriously fluid, depending on the point of view that those in power hold. A good example of this would be the Nobel Peace prize winner and former President of South Africa Nelson Mandela who spent 27 years of his life in prison labeled a communist and terrorist.

A terrorist by modern standards can be a child who writes on a wall at school.
Some one who J walks
The list in indefinate which is why this is so terrifying.

Even someone who posts these things on ATS.

If you're a member of Greenpeace, or ever have been a member of Greenpeace, I suggest you see if you are on the no-fly list.

You may be classified as a former member of a terrorist organization. I know a few people who are... all because they wanted to save a whale here and there.


Basically, if you stand for a cause, the government will label you a terrorist.


Oh well... I'd rather be labeled a terrorist, and stand for freedom, than sit down, and play nice.

You can go F*** yourself Bush, and anyone else trying to pull our rights...

Say it with me now...
WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT STAND DOWN, WE WILL NOT BE OPPRESSED,
THESE ARE OUR COUNTRIES, OUR RIGHTS, YOU BELONG TO US!

[edit on 15-7-2007 by johnsky]

[edit on 15-7-2007 by johnsky]

Johnsky,

That is very interesting. Is there a place you can find out if you're on the
"no fly list"?

I thought this thread was about a statement from the British police...

How has it all of a sudden become a Bush and U.S. bashing thread?

I found a place that due to overwhelming response isnt functioning anymore.

www.huffingtonpost.com... b_42443.html

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I thought this thread was about a statement from the British police...

How has it all of a sudden become a Bush and U.S. bashing thread?

What happens over here usually happens over there too.
I believe the US government and it's various alphabet agencies already have the power to lock up people indefinitely without charge or access to legal representation?

Then there's the no-fly lists, which innocent people have found themselves on for the heinous crime of writing a critical article about government policy.

So, it's all interconnected in a way. Feel free to post something naughty about Brown (or Blair) and the UK in general to keep it balanced.

It won't pass in parliament, jeebus.

If 90's cannot get past the Commons, then indefinite internment won't.

Also, i haven't read this guys whole blurb yet, but does he provide any Judicial review? Even the "Control Orders" they have now need a Judge to review it every 30 days or so.

We already have the power, it would seem. No need to go through Parliament...

Internment was last used in Britain during the Gulf war against Iraqis suspected of links to Saddam Hussein's army. It has also been used against terrorist suspects in Northern Ireland and Germans during the Second World War.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Johnsky,

That is very interesting. Is there a place you can find out if you're on the
"no fly list"?

I was told by the group that the best way to find out is NOT to call the Flight Agency, the best way is to actually attempt to book a flight. If it passes, just say, you changed your mind. Unless you actually do want to go on that flight.

If you're on the no fly list, the travel agency will inform you of this when they try to book your flight.

Best of luck.


As for US bashing? Bush was the one who started the recent trend... so it really all boils back to him.

And notice I said "OUR COUNTRIES"... as in plural?

Please people, actually read that which you are about to flame.

Johnsky,

I was under the impression that you would get stopped at the airport- so a travel agent can do the job?
Its good to know these things. I have done work for the Democratic party and i could very well be "flagged"

Thanks.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
I thought this thread was about a statement from the British police...

How has it all of a sudden become a Bush and U.S. bashing thread?

Where is Bush mentioned?

I see it now, and its relevant.

[edit on 15-7-2007 by dgtempe]

Originally posted by stumason
We already have the power, it would seem. No need to go through Parliament...

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed.

Part 4 of the Act provided for the indefinite detention without charge of foreign nationals certified by the Home Secretary as "suspected international terrorists" where such persons could not be deported on the grounds that they faced a real risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if removed to their home country.

Part 4 did not create new detention powers - under the 1971 Immigration Act, the Home Secretary has the power to detain a foreign national pending deportation. Instead, Part 4 removed a limitation on detention powers imposed by the requirements of Article 5(1)(f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (which provided, among other things, that someone could only be detained for a short period prior to deportation).

Source.

That is an outline on the current state of the law concerning internment. It seems that these proposals would be a form of "extended questioning" such as the current 28 day rule, rather than internment per se.

Regarding the 90 day proposal:

Shami Chakrabati, director of pressure group Liberty, welcomed the phone intercept proposals but said Mr Brown was making "a grave mistake" in proposing to extend questioning without charge beyond 28 days.

"Twenty-eight days is already the longest period to hold a person without charge in the free world. If you go beyond 28 days it is internment," she told BBC News.

Source.