Ten o'clock news story

[alitalf]

There was a story on the news tonight about another move to extend the time that terrorist suspects can be held without charge beyond 28 days.

I've read about a few apparently inappropriate cases of people arrested under the prevention of terrorism act in recent years. The one that worries me most is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" in response to something in a speech at the Labour Party conference, a year or two ago, was arrested under the prevention of terrorism act after he had been thrown out, apparently with more force than actually necessary, by the bouncers.

Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?

Comments

[muuranker.livejournal.com]

Yes, worries me!

I do understand that in some criminal cases (terrorism, fraud, whatever) the usual terms simply aren't enough. But I also believe that we have magistrates and judges who are perfectly competant (or if not, why not?) in reviewing such cases, so that the police have enough time to gather evidence.

[rustica.livejournal.com]

Does the possible extension of detention without charge, particularly with this politcal context, worry anyone else?

Yep, very much so.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

My understanding is that the old man who shouted "Rubbish" ... at the Labour Party conference did more than just that; though I now can't remember the details. Though I think I remember that he was trying to prevent other people from expressing themselves while he expressed himself, that seemed a good reason to chuck him out. I believe there was more.


One of the problems is that it apparently takes somewhat longer to gather evidence in the very complex cases that terrorism cases often are.

Personally, I'd prefer to not be a victim of a terrorist incident. The balance between a few innocent people locked up without real cause for, say, 90 days, compared to dozens of people killed because the police were unable to lock up the real terrorists for long enough to get the evidence to convict them seems a regrettable but possibly necessary evil.

The more people who get killed and injured by terrorists the greater the arguments for extended periods of detention. Personally, I don't think we have got to the stage of justifying 90 days. But how many people have to die before we do?

We want the benefits of living in this country. We as a collective group need to be prepared to defend them. While I'm not explicitly promoting the argument to extend the period of detention; I am in general favour of the principle behind it: that of defending our values. If the terrorists win and make our country what they want, rather than what we want, then we will have lost a lot more than 90 days in a police cell.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

Politicians should tolerate a certain amount of heckling. If the man who was thrown out went beyond reasonable heckling, which I am not sure of, then I am sure that arresting him as a terrorist goes far beyond reason, and gives me no faith at all about what may be done with extra "anti terrorist" laws.

If I trusted that anti terrorist legislation would only be used in cases where there was a genuine reason to suspect a terrorist act was being organised, and assuming that there was an attempt at an unbiased review every week or so, I'd be happier.

Even then, take someone away from home and work for three months, then find out that it was a case of false information, send him (or her) home. Their home may not by then have been repossessed, but what are the chances of getting another job in time to pay the mortgage and prevent that eventuality. What are the chances ever, come to that?

I am not sure that this price should be paid by individuals even with cases of honest suspicion. To be fair, if the country at large is really being protected by such measures, then adequate restitution would need to be paid from taxes, with again some kind of review to make it work fairly without people taking the piss. I don't think this is being planned, though I hope I am wrong.

I'm really not sure this kind of price should be paid by people who irritate the ruling party, but that seems likely, sooner or later, if the present trends continue.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

If the man who was thrown out went beyond reasonable heckling, which I am not sure of, then I am sure that arresting him as a terrorist goes far beyond reason

I said I believe there was more. That means that I believe the bloke who got chucked out was doing more than just "heckling", probably completely unrelated to the heckling. Also, because neither of us know the full details there is no point in debating the matter.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

OK, I've now checked the facts on the heckling bloke. Firstly the heckling appears to have been a publicity stunt to get him (he was relatively unknown) into the running to be elected to Labour Party's National Executive Council, their governing body. He has now been elected.

Secondly, when he had been chucked out his security pass was withdrawn and the physical item was taken away from him. He then attempted to re-enter the conference. Because of the security that is enforced around all political conferences by attemtping to re-enter he was entering a restricted zone, which should result in the person being detained (not arrested, though I'm not sure of the preciece difference) under the terrorism act. However, within a very short time (within an hour) the detaining officer was told that he should be released.

This was obviously an instance where a terrorist act wasn't being perportrated, and which the police used excessive powers, though that was swiftly addressed. However, I think that the police's action should be viewed from their point of view. This guy was obviously not playing by the rules, he had been chucked out, and as far as the police were concerned he should stay chucked out. I also suspect he had managed to anoy the officer concerned. Anyway, simply be detaining him under the terrorism act would have got him removed from the area which would have been the been the aim.

[sigisgrim.livejournal.com]

It is my understanding that if someone is arrested and detained for a long time and then ultimately not charged that they then have a case for compensation. I see no reason why this would not also be applicable for someone detained under the terrorism act.

As I've detailed elsewhere this price wasn't paid by somebody "who irritated the ruling party". Indeed, (a) they didn't pay the price you mention, (b) I would suggest that it was a single member of the police they irritated, rather than the "ruling party", (c) they are now a managing person withint the "ruling party".

I would suggest that if the detained and released person did have their house reposessed simply because of their detention they would then have a strong case for complaint to the FSA, because their mortgage provider should have taken that into consideration when reviewing their case.

Also, it is my understanding that one can't be sacked for being arrested, one has to be found guilty to get fired.

[estiel.livejournal.com]

I am solidly in favor of removing anyone (suspected terrorist or not) who attempts to deny another's lawful right to free speech.

As for arresting someone who is under suspicion for terrorism: If Bill Clinton had done that, thousands of lives could have been saved on 9/ll, not just "dozens." Also, since then, there have been (as a result of just such arrests) two incidents that I recall of plots having been discovered that would have resulted in thousands of deaths.

An argument over how long someone may be detained on suspicion of terrorism is a valid argument, but ultimately, one has to trust that law enforcement officials have public safety at heart. If one is detained unfairly, I'm sure that even one day is too long, but detaining someone a single day longer than some arbitrary limit could mean the lives of thousands of innocent people. I see no alternative but to allow those who are in a position to know the validity of detention to decide the issue.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

I am not sure that arresting people suspected of planning terrorism would have helped in that instance, because I don't believe that the perpetrators were under suspicion.

It is reported that there was suspicion about possible terrorism that was not acted on, but to the best of my memory the actual people involved were not not the ones suspected. If you had some faith in the authorities, you might think that perhaps there ws so much speculation that it was not easy to distinguish wild rumours from genuine informatino.

If the right people could have been found, even if a number of completely irrelevant people were also arrested, that would have been a good thing. Better still if it had been possible to identify the real terrorists and release the irrelevant people quickly, but for any of that to have happened it would have been necessary to have had better information about who might be planning something.

Why I don't trust any of it is that the police in the UK have been seen to try to make the evidence fit whoever they have available, at least some times. In a case of a mother being convicted of killing her own child, evidence showing that the most likely cause of death was a medical problem unconnected with any actions of the mother, was simply buried (to the best of my memory - I can't remember the details). The evidence came to light - I think that one possible witness was surprised not to have been called and eventually asked questions about it. Of course, that was not proof that murder had not been committed, it simply showed that on the balance of probability it probably had not. We shall never know for sure...

I can't help thinking that the temptation to do this kind of thing would become stronger the longer someone had been in custody, whether or not the facts really supported the case they wanted to make.

[estiel.livejournal.com]

Even before Bin Laden was deported from Saudi Arabia, Oliver North reported his activities in detail and said that he was the most dangerous man (to the west) in the world. I actually heard this on tape. It's a shame that some law enforcement people are not trustworthy, but still, I don't think we have a choice. If UK police try to make evidence fit, there may be something wrong with the system, something that would give incentive for doing that. The problem here seems to be fear of offending somebody.

[freddiethetroll.livejournal.com]

Freddie the Libertarian Troll is with you Alitalf. Fight the good fight.

This is the least libertarian government in decades. Fighting terrorism is certainly important, but it seems to be a pretty weak excuse for increasing state control over many aspects of the lives of ordinary people. Identity cards, extended emergency powers for police, CCTV on every street corner...

[muninnhuginn]

28 days is too long. (But then M is (not_quite) introducing me as his wife, the anarchist. At parents' evenings.)

[romancinger.livejournal.com]

In an ideal world, no-one should be detained for 90 days on suspicion, or even 28.

But this is not an ideal world, and I do not want me or mine to be blown up because of a liberal principle. The safety of the innocent majority has to be paramount.

[the-marquis.livejournal.com]

At present in criminal matters an arrested person can only be held for 24 hours without a Superintendent's considering the matter, and then if so reviewed detention may be extended by another 12 hours, plus they have access to legal representation. Usually this allows for evidence and statement gathering and a whole bunch of interviews plus of course the suspect can 'dry out' from any drugs or intoxicants taken and receive medical treatment/assessment if needs be - and of course they have to have 8 hours rest (so that if you nick someone at 10pm you waste a lot of the time you could use to interview them in, compared to noting where they are and coming back to arrest them at 7am).

With Terrorism the issue is muddier and sometimes the evidence harder to gather as I suppose after any actual physical evidence like chemicals etc, it is down to looking at travel movements, emails, mobile phone calls etc and some of these require third parties (such as other countries) to be willing to divulge stuff and for it to be decoded.

On the whole I support the idea of a longer period for investigation (so long as the bod has access to legal representation), such as 28 days, but if that's not long enough I'm suprised that 90 is the figure chosen after 28 rather than say 60.

[alitalf.livejournal.com]

I think it was/is to be 56 days at this stage, so you are right.