It doesn't happen very often - but I (partly) agree with Byron on this one. These actions seem very harsh. Locking someone up for 3 months without being charged of anything (so in effect without proper proof on which to hold them) seems a very very long time. I would say a month should be more than enough to find proper evidance.

Wonder how you would like to implement the total abolition of the right to silence though as I don't see how (short of torture) If you are a "real terrorist" you won't break under police interrogations. Although you might be held in contempt of court or something but if you really are a terrorist that probably is the least of your worries and you just keep your mouth shut or bluntly lie as what is perjury in comparison to a terrorisme charge. If you are going to be put away for life in a high security prison what do those 2 extra years for perjury matter......

Very worried though that if you apply these things to terrorist they will easily be implemented on "other crimes" not too far down the line and we'll get a guantanamo bay like prison for tax evaders and one for people with too many speed tickets

(Edited by Chambler 22/07/2005 16:22)

---

by Chambler
It doesn't happen very often - but I (partly) agree with Byron on this one. These actions seem very harsh. Locking someone up for 3 months without being charged of anything (so in effect without proper proof on which to hold them) seems a very very long time. I would say a month should be more than enough to find proper evidance.

Wonder how you would like to implement the total abolition of the right to silence though as I don't see how (short of torture) If you are a "real terrorist" you won't break under police interrogations. Although you might be held in contempt of court or something but if you really are a terrorist that probably is the least of your worries and you just keep your mouth shut or bluntly lie as what is perjury in comparison to a terrorisme charge. If you are going to be put away for life in a high security prison what do those 2 extra years for perjury matter......

Very worried though that if you apply these things to terrorist they will easily be implemented on "other crimes" not too far down the line and we'll get a guantanamo bay like prison for tax evaders and one for people with too many speed tickets

---

Two equally rare events coincide as I find myself agreeing with Chambler.

From a cold, practical point of view, this makes no sense. If you lack the minimal amount of evidence needed to justify a charge, why waste three months on someone? It's well documented cops can easily become convinced they've "Got the right man" and just have to break him, proceeding to waste valuable resources going in the wrong direction. Having tight restrictions on the police ensures better investigations as well as protecting the innocent.

Where this law is going to be useful is intimidating anyone the government doesn't like. Existing terrorism laws have already been used to stop legitimate protests. Hardened terrorists might not be worried, but ordinary people should be.

There used to be a common law rule that no one was ever held for longer than 48 hours without charge, and just as importantly, interrogation had to stop if the suspect remained silent. And of course, silence couldn't be used against them in court. Every other common law country (America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc) retains it or even tighter restrictions. How pathetic that the founder of that system is the first to abandon it.

Personally my fear is that we're walking further and further down the road of losing our civil liberties, without the majority questioning it, in the name that we want protection from these evil terrorists. After all fear is a very powerful weapon. What completely and utterly amazes me is that we have what is supposed to be a Labour government behaving in a manner more extreme than Thatcher did in '80s. After all they didn't bring in legisltion like this even AFTER there was the Brighton bombing when they tried to assasinate the Conservate government. If any time you'd think these sort of laws would be bought in it would be after something like that. Never thought I'd agree with Norman Tebbitt but he was against detention without trial too.

In a depressing update from the Grauniad, 68% of the population support banging terrorism suspects up for 3 months without charge, compared to 19% who oppose it. Just as dispiriting is that 73% of the population agree with the statement "it is right to trade civil liberties for security", with only 17% rejecting it outright.

I can't decide what's worse: that fact we've become so cowardly we're prepared to flush away centuries of hardwon freedom the second we're faced with a handful of religious fruitcakes, or that 73% of people were unable to spot the blatent logical flaw in the second statement.

(Edited by Byron 25/08/2005 10:33)

---

by Byron
73% of people were unable to spot the blatent logical flaw in the second statement.

---

That security is spelt wrong??

Suppose it is a logical flaw not to use a spellcheck if you're dyslexic.

Slightly ironic considering the nom de guerre you used for the Guardian, really

I don't have a team of sub-editors on call (although it's always possible they've taken right-on equality a bit too far).