Rejected Terror Bill

[Conor]

To find out who voted try;
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/search.php?query=terrorism

So, having tried Internment in Northern Ireland in the 70's, which caused more Catholics to become nationalist, grew support for the (P)IRA and swelled its ranks and coffers, Mr TB thinks he knows how to do it right.

It's bollocks, why should this be ok and people suspected of armed robbery or gun crime etc not be locked up for 90 days? Ah pass this law and wait a couple of years and they might.

Or, alternatively its ok, cos the the people that will be locked up will have brown skin and funny names, same reason that interment could be an option in Northern Ireland. The fact that the majority will be British citizens is ignored. All this legislation does is feed the terrorists and the media, tell you what, if we keep fanning the flames we can alienate minorities to the extent that we can have rioting all over the UK in a French stylee, that'll keep the terrorist, Media and MP's provided with years of fodder.

Sorry to rant, touchy subject

[Ding Dang Doo]

Originally Posted by Lou

I want my civil rights observed and I do not want to be locked up for 90 day with no charge.

Sorry Lou, I'm not sure I agree with you here... terrorists are highly sophisticated people, it can take ages to piece together what, why and hows... if you knew that an offence against someone's life was about to take place, but you didn't have all of the evidence at the time, would you want to allow that person/those people free reign to carry on? Or would you do everything possible to stop it from happening... I know what I do...

3D

[Conor]

Common sense says you can't KNOW and not have evidence

[MATTBIN]

On second thought perhaps not.

Matt

[Lazlo]

Originally Posted by Ding Dang Doo

Surely, if you are a law abiding citizen, this law wouldn't affect you.

Right, I'm off to install CCTV cameras in every room in my house directly linked to the police station. After all, I'm not doing anything wrong.

Originally Posted by Ding Dang Doo

If however, you are involved in any way with the terroist community, you are a suspect...

What's that exactly? Does anybody know what this is?

Originally Posted by Ding Dang Doo

FFS look what happened in London back in July... are you telling me that NO ONE other than those involved with the bombings knew what was going on?

Not at all - what's the solution - internment? Think that's been tried before. And the US solution of locking up everyone in sight in Iraq is really working well.

Originally Posted by Ding Dang Doo

Come on, stand up and face the music, this law would not be an infringemnet of human rights... it would be a sensible measure to introduce after such a devistating event.

Okay, maybe there will be the occaisional wrong arrest, and if you are on the receiving end, this would feel like like you were being victimised, but why were you in a situation where you could be seen to be invovled in the first place?

This is our National Security we are talking about here, things have changed, certainly since 9/11 in the U.S, then Bali and London.

It certainly is an infringement of human rights by any measure - legal and otherwise. I have perfect respect for those who say that these laws will make us safer. I just don't happen to agree with that view. What I don't have respect for is the idea that it's ok to remove hard-won rights from everybody because of a minority. Occasional wrong arrests are ok?

Originally Posted by Ding Dang Doo

Don't we want to feel safe walking down the streets of our towns and cities?

Sure do. This law would have done the opposite in my view.


I apologise for going off on one - in the end this is just MHO

[Gavin Yates]

It has to be pointed out that if the Conservatives had voted with the government on this issue then the subject of "Labour rebels" would never have come up.

I agree with Bren - I sincerely hope that this doesn't come back to bite us in the future. If it does then the Tories, LibDems, Scot Nats and Labour rebels will have to examine their own actions.

[SoggyFox]

It would be a tiny minority of this country that could be affected by this law yet we pander to their needs while forgetting the safety of the majority. Its time to level the playing field against these people and give the hard working security forces in this country the ability to do their jobs.

When a terrorist considers the human rights of the victims then it'll be time to consider the human rights of the terrorist.

[Ding Dang Doo]

Conor,


I said 'All of the evidence'...

This Bill was nothing to to do with race, class or creed... it was/is a means of giving those people we have put in charge of protecting us, as honest, law abiding citizens, the opportunity to do their jobs, without giving the purpotrators of some evil crime the chance to hide and cover up their actions.

3D

[Conor]

Originally Posted by SoggyFox

It would be a tiny minority of this country that could be affected by this law yet we pander to their needs while forgetting the safety of the majority. Its time to level the playing field against these people and give the hard working security forces in this country the ability to do their jobs.

When a terrorist considers the human rights of the victims then it'll be time to consider the human rights of the terrorist.

FFS

a) define this minority please?

b) A terrorists aim is to create terror, they are by definition outside of the norms of society and even warfare, but by moving to meet them we prove them right

[Mark Davies]

Originally Posted by Lou

The answer is to allow the police to continue to question suspects once charged, but to follow the normal judicial procedure - not to just let them hold them for longer without access to the possible charges they may face.

And here displaying very little understanding of the problems at hand and the reasons why extended detention was requested. The simple issue is that the very limited time currently available isn't enough to gather sufficient of the kind of evidence necessary to charge these terrorists.

So now we are left with the problem of arresting them (necessary to get access to the evidence) and then releasing them on bail while we complete the detailed forensic work (such as looking for traces of explosives, interrogating computers, cracking coded documents) which can take weeks. Of course now the terrorist is on notice that we are onto them and obviously by the time all the evidence is available to charge them they have dissappeared. Or do you honestly think they are going to answer bail?

The bill provided for regular detention reviews every 7 days throughout the maximum period of 90 days, allowing arguments to be put as to whether the continued detention was justified. It was never a case of locking people up for 3 months and throwing the key away. Protections for liberties were there. The detention would not have been allowed unless there was very convincing evidence that charges were likely.

Sadly I think this vote had very little to do with civil liberties arguments. The opposition parties recognised that the Labour government regularly suffer rebellions on votes relating to the Iraq war or terrorism matters. They saw it as an opportunity to force an issue (any issue) into defeat for the government. It was a cynical ploy to undermine Tony Blair, nothing more. A pity that party politics was allowed to get in the way of such an important matter - especially as there's every chance that people will now die as a result. Shameful.