UK Citizens to be held without trial

[Doh_boy]

Didn't the same sort of thing happen in the 70s/80s when the IRA started their mainland bombing campaign? Aside from the 'in the name of the father' type ones I mean people being held as 'suspected terrorists' indefinitatly (or for longer than law would allow)? Also didn't people (amnesty, Irish government etc) get terribly pissed at this and also didn't people say, with hindsight, that it shouldn't have happened and didn't really help prevent bombings?

Also what trem and yuck are saying, didn't Enoch Powell say something akin to this a while back? Ruined his career, something to do with 'rivers of blood'? His went further, probably

/me shrugs.

The whole 'war against terror' is, and always was, a total joke. But hey a man I've never liked who leads a party I never voted for helped start a war I didn't want. :/

 

[rynnor]

No offence, but there is no, no, no reason why the US government would hold these people for so long if they didn't have any proof that they were up to no good.

Actually they were guilty of being repeatedly Muslim at the very least... Plus it makes people in the US feel good to see these 'terrorists' held under an inhumane regime even if it did mean flouting international law...

Personally, I don't want people to wait for some sort of massive tragedy on the UK shores to show everyone that it's not a nice place out there. Not everyone is a fluffy bunny. There are people out there that want to kill every single UK citizen, you and me.

We arent exactly new to having terrorism on our shores (unlike the US) - will detaining UK Muslims without trial not act as a recruiting cause for any UK terrorist organisation? Will we segregate Muslims for our own protection? Build a wall and shove them in ghettos maybe - works well for the Israeli's - nice safe country that...

Fucking media. Liberty and stuff? Great. But just because the general public doesn't know what these four criminals have done, does not mean they have not done anything.Why is everyone so fucking naive?

The Government had the opportunity to stage entirely 'in camera' (secret) trials but didnt take it because they dont have any evidence just conjecture - in the past we have had miscarriages of justice but at least there was an appeals process they could use - with this proposal they dont need evidence they dont have to prove anything and you dont even have a right to know what you are accused of...

Its like that crap tom cruise film where he locked up people who were going to commit offences...

 

[Doh_boy]

Just read the Enoch Powell speech, I think it'd be (is?) grossly unfair for me to say trem and yuck are saying that. But in my defence, he said it in 68 which is way before I was born.

I was always under the impression that the british muslims in g-bay were put there because they were in pakistan or afganistan and didn't have a good enough reason to be there. I've read a couple of articles from known journalists who got picked up. Didn't get to g-bay because someone managed to say 'ffs he's a journalist you tit'

 

[Danya]

The whole 'war against terror' is, and always was, a total joke. But hey a man I've never liked who leads a party I never voted for helped start a war I didn't want. :/

Hear hear!

What I want to know is, if the US or UK governments had so much evidence (as some here like to think), why haven't they just had these people tried in a court of law? We have courts for a reason you know.
Giving the government carte blanche to just pick up anyone from the street and lock them without due process is so blatently close to dictatorship it's astounding people will even consider supporting it. One of the major parts of being a democracy is that the government doesn't have the power to lock people up - that power is given to the courts, and the decision is made by a jury taken from the populace. Removing that just opens the door to a totalitarian government. How long before anyone dissenting with the government is a "terrorist". Do you really want to be locked up because the government passes some law you don't like and locks up anyone who protests?

Don't forget - power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[DaGaffer]

I was always under the impression that the british muslims in g-bay were put there because they were in pakistan or afganistan and didn't have a good enough reason to be there. I've read a couple of articles from known journalists who got picked up. Didn't get to g-bay because someone managed to say 'ffs he's a journalist you tit'

...according to the Americans. One of them was there for a wedding.

The people here who are quite happy to give away their basic civil liberties for 'security' depress the hell out of me. And understand this; this isn't about muslims or any other potential threat, its about YOUR freedoms. Because once they can take away the rights of one group, they can do it for others, and who knows when you might end up on the list.

 

[Trem]

Yeah well, that happened a while back didn't it Gaffer?

 

[Ch3tan]

I have no problem with people being held, as long as their is some proof. The Americans don't wish to divulge their proof, probably because they didnt actually have any. If our government wants to go ahead with this, then they need to be very careful they only do it with a big stack of evidence to back them up -and don't let the media get hold of the names of people being held. It has the potential to ruin many peoples lives.

As for being able to eject people like Abu Hamza from this country, yes it shouldn't even be up for discussion. What he does is not free speech, it is inticing trouble.

 

[throdgrain]

Indeed Ch3tan. To me you're either British , or you're not British. You're with us, or you're not. I dont care what colour you are, or what religion.
People like this openly encourage religeous war, and we do nothing.

 

[nath]

How fucking obvious does it have to be before you realise that he is guilty. He stands in the streets preaching to young muslims about the stuff hes being accused of.

I wasn't sticking up for him, I was making the point that it's about innocent until proven guilty. There are strict rules on what qualifies as proof of guilt and I don't think they should be bent in order to make it easier to eject fuckrods such as this guy from the country. Liberals are not worried about the freedoms of terrorists and criminals, but the freedoms of innocent people - unfortunately that means keeping the people in power firmly in check so that they don't go and lock up someone who's done nothing wrong. The problem is, people often see this as them sticking up for fellas who clearly don't have britains best interests at heart, but that's because this issue only comes up when civil rights are being bent in order to sort them out.



edit: it's late, I'm tired and I'm not sure any of that made any sense. However, it did in my head so take it from me - it's all genius stuff if you can work out what the hell I'm trying to say

 

[-J-]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4210685.stm

I did wonder what the government would do after detaining foreign nationals indefinately without trial was found to be discriminatory but I never really believed that they would go so far...

The so called 'war on terror' is a bloody convenient excuse to trample over the rights of the individual. Does anyone else find the prospect of the Home Office minister picking fellow citizens at his own whim to be detained without any evidence or any right to a trial a bit scary?

I think its particularly telling that the government didnt decide to make the phone records admissable in court - the most likely interpretation's I make from that is that the phone records were either A - completely innocuous and unconvincing or B - completely made up!

The most fundamental civil liberty is the right to Liberty! This isnt just a case to worry the lefty liberals - everyone should be concerned by this.

Look at it this way:-

If the government knew and did nothing to stop an attack, people would ask why didn't they do something. From the other side of the picture, if they did do something the human rights people would ask why they've done it.

It's one of those things that you hope you never have to deal with in your lifetime, imagine making that kind of decision! Can you decide between putting people in prison for something they have yet to do, or do you allow them to carry out an act of Terrorism?

Most people would probably choose to inprision them and deal with the problem later, ( kind of smells like what is happening at the moment in this country ) if you put things into context with the US and 9/11.

I'm not saying that putting people behind bars is the right thing, I just want to point out that at the moment it's illegal to use taped phone calls when you don't have a warrant for such things. But how do you get a warrant to listen into suspects phone calls when the time it takes a terrorist organisation a matter of hours to carry out a life threatening operation?

Before you start replying to this post, please bear in mind that I didn't read all of the posts here. I'm just replying to the initial post

 

[Ch3tan]

Nath, I understand what you are saying, and far be it for me to suggest our government is capable of any wrong doing, but if they can't pin something on him, they should manufacture something.

If they haven't already checked every minute detail of his life, to find out if he is breaking any laws, no matter how small, then they should make sure they can proove something that will ruin the benefit driven life he leads.

As for protecting basic human rights and keeping the police and authorities in check, human and civil rights mean sweet fuck all when you can be mugged, assaulted and abused with the police in most cases powerless to actually do anything. We live in a country where kids run riot because they know nothing will happen to them, and criminals know what they can reasonably get away with. What a joke.

 

[throdgrain]

Ch3tan for MP tbfh

 

[Alliandre]

Nath, I understand what you are saying, and far be it for me to suggest our government is capable of any wrong doing, but if they can't pin something on him, they should manufacture something.

If they haven't already checked every minute detail of his life, to find out if he is breaking any laws, no matter how small, then they should make sure they can proove something that will ruin the benefit driven life he leads.

As for protecting basic human rights and keeping the police and authorities in check, human and civil rights mean sweet fuck all when you can be mugged, assaulted and abused with the police in most cases powerless to actually do anything. We live in a country where kids run riot because they know nothing will happen to them, and criminals know what they can reasonably get away with. What a joke.

It's a fine line as to when you take it to far, and civil liberties are abused, and how far you're doing it to lock up the true criminals though. And as this thread has proved, that lines in a different place for different people.

The government has to also take into account that this will incite more people to become terrorists, which will mean they may not actually be gaining anything from this contravertial decision.

 

[Trem]

Ch3tan for MP tbfh

I second that.

What Ch3t said is what was in my head. Unfortunately as soon as I type I forget stuff.

 

[Driwen]

Nath, I understand what you are saying, and far be it for me to suggest our government is capable of any wrong doing, but if they can't pin something on him, they should manufacture something.

If they haven't already checked every minute detail of his life, to find out if he is breaking any laws, no matter how small, then they should make sure they can proove something that will ruin the benefit driven life he leads.

no it proves that the law is wrong and should be changed, yes it means that certain idiot remains longer in your country. However it also means when someone who is doing the exact same 2 years later will also have to be thrown out by bending the law, because now the law is adjusted.
Bending the law, because you want someone out of your country is imo really something you shouldnt be start doing. Because you might/will end up doing it more and more often for less obvious cases.

 

[OblongChicken]

I think you have to bear in mind that these guys locked up without trial probably do have links to terrorists. But the government doesn't have conclusive proof. That's what 'proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt' means; the doubt is there. Obviously there's a fairly strong principle against locking people up without trial, even if the person in question is likely to be guilty. Perhaps MI5 or whoever should be given more powers to survey these people, although then you get issues of privacy. Although i'm certainly not an advocate of detention without trial, i wonder how comforting it would be to know that at least no one's rights were abused after Canary Wharf is bombed to smithereens... I don't really have a point here, other than to say that arriving at any point on solid ground is very tricky.

Reminds me of when i was watching The Untouchables, and ol' Costner and Connery were trying to bring down Al Capone on tax evasion, and i was like 'just fricking arrest him ffs for being a bigass gangster, don't fanny around with these technicalities'.

Also, the slippery slope argument is mostly bollocks scaremongering. There is absolutely no valid reason for thinking that if we permit what is going on now, before long Herr Clarke will be sending the thought police round to the houses of Freddy regulars for expressing uncondoned opinions. I'm afraid we just don't live in revolutionary - or even radical - times here in mainstream Britain.

 

[gmloki]

Also, the slippery slope argument is mostly bollocks scaremongering. There is absolutely no valid reason for thinking that if we permit what is going on now, before long Herr Clarke will be sending the thought police round to the houses of Freddy regulars for expressing uncondoned opinions. I'm afraid we just don't live in revolutionary - or even radical - times here in mainstream Britain.

Ever heard of the RIP act Oblong ? Maybe even the governments plans to bring in a national ID card system. How on earth is an ID card going to stop somebody being a terrorist. As Da Gaffer says once the civil liberties of one group has gone what is to stop the liberties of those considered innocent being taken in the future

As for the rhetoric of them abusing our benefits system and living in our land and deport the lot of them its BS to be honest. Spoon fed from a biased press and people are prepared to swallow it.

 

[Tom]

Detaining people without charge is plain wrong. WRONG WRONG WRONG.

If you don't have the evidence upon which to try them, then let them go, and accept the fact that they're innocent, or spend more money on intelligence and do the job properly.

I don't mind people like Abu Hamza being in this country, the vast majority of normal people think hes a lunatic. Thats fine with me, the only people listening to his rants are plainly delusional. If his presence in this country encourages debate, no matter how distasteful, then let him stay, and let him serve a purpose.

As for the detainees at the various camps in the Americas, again, if they don't have enough evidence to try them, then let them go. Sometimes the price of freedom is that inherent risk. I met one of them released a few years ago, he was travelling across the continent, got arrested by the Taliban for straying a little too closely to Afghanistan, locked up, and then arrested by the Americans for basically being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Oh, and the bollocks anti-terror laws? Just have a look and see how effective they've been. Perhaps if you're an IRA member, but certainly not if you're a Muslim Fundamentalist.

 

[OblongChicken]

Ever heard of the RIP act Oblong ? Maybe even the governments plans to bring in a national ID card system. How on earth is an ID card going to stop somebody being a terrorist. As Da Gaffer says once the civil liberties of one group has gone what is to stop the liberties of those considered innocent being taken in the future

No, what's the RIP act?
The point is, why would the liberties of those considered innocent be taken? After all, those detained are 'considered' to be guilty, in a particular sense of the word, the government just isn't certain. When the government starts doing evil things like setting up concentration camps, then i'll worry about what this all might lead to. Otherwise i'll take this on its own merits.

As for the rhetoric of them abusing our benefits system and living in our land and deport the lot of them its BS to be honest. Spoon fed from a biased press and people are prepared to swallow it.

Perhaps. But why do you say that?

 

[Driwen]

No, what's the RIP act?
The point is, why would the liberties of those considered innocent be taken? After all, those detained are 'considered' to be guilty, in a particular sense of the word, the government just isn't certain. When the government starts doing evil things like setting up concentration camps, then i'll worry about what this all might lead to. Otherwise i'll take this on its own merits.

the goverment finds alot of people guilty though and some of them are actually innocent. Hell in cases were they actually do go to court, because they are reasonably certain they can win they can still loose. So here they arent even certain enough to go to court, which means that they most likely dont really have that much "proof".
Besides the intelligence agencies can surely act without proof? Sure they cant actually punish someone, but they can find out what he wants and prevent him from succeeding and then arrest him or point the police to where the evidence is/find it themself?

 

[OblongChicken]

Besides the intelligence agencies can surely act without proof? Sure they cant actually punish someone, but they can find out what he wants and prevent him from succeeding and then arrest him or point the police to where the evidence is/find it themself?

I'm thinking that is probably the best option available, if we don't like letting potential terrorists go about their business freely or locking them up without trial. But to make that effective, you'd have to give the intelligence services some fairly invasive powers, and people wouldn't like that either.

 

[gmloki]

No, what's the RIP act?
The point is, why would the liberties of those considered innocent be taken? After all, those detained are 'considered' to be guilty, in a particular sense of the word, the government just isn't certain. When the government starts doing evil things like setting up concentration camps, then i'll worry about what this all might lead to. Otherwise i'll take this on its own merits.


Perhaps. But why do you say that?

RIP Act= Regulation of Investegatory powers act. Bascially gives the state the license to intercept your correspondence be it email, letters telephone calls et al. OK it brings up the whole argument of if you have nothing to hide what have you to be afraid of. Who makes the rules and for whose beenfit ?

Details found here

Liberties being taken well let's consider the conditions that the detainee's are in. Limited access to legal council. Limited opportunity to pursue their religion. It's interesting you say you will only worry when the concentration camps are set up.

My comments surrounding the paranoid media. Well if the evidence is so undeniable and tangible that the people detained are a threat to the state then why not just charge them. If they can't charge them with anything god forbid that they might just be innocent. Worse yet they could actually release them back into the public get some real evidence and crack the terrorist ring they belong to. But Britain always loves a scapegoat

 

[maxi]

bleh

 

[DaGaffer]

Also, the slippery slope argument is mostly bollocks scaremongering. There is absolutely no valid reason for thinking that if we permit what is going on now, before long Herr Clarke will be sending the thought police round to the houses of Freddy regulars for expressing uncondoned opinions. I'm afraid we just don't live in revolutionary - or even radical - times here in mainstream Britain.

You think so? Imagine if these kinds of laws were on the statute books during the poll tax riots a few years back. We were absolutely right to protest and a bad law was removed. With these powers, 'ringleaders' could have been locked up without trial. After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

This Government gets scarier by the day. The latest wheeze? They are going to stop protests within 1Km of Westminster as part of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Bill. The justification? On the grounds of 'destroying the view'! We've had the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest for hundreds of years; longer than anyone else in Europe, and these f*ckers are trying to take it away at the stroke of a pen.

 

[Tom]

Its worth mentioning that under the current proposed laws, Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Scargill might both have been 'detained'.

 

[Paradroid]

This blind trust in government makes me puke you fekin sheep!

Is your memory akin to a goldfish? Don't you remember WMD? The US & UK intelligence services, combined with those oh so trustworthy governments ... LIED to everyone that Iraq had WMD. Donald fekin Rumsfeld was talking about Iraq from day 1 (ie 9/11/2001). Billions of dollars/pounds spent on the best intelligence gathering the world has ever seen...the result? A big fat fuck-you lie.

What about the counterfeit radioactives-purchase from Africa? Does that come under the "lets just fabricate some shit, 'cause we know they're guilty"?

If the armies of intelligence workers from the US & UK can't fekin establish if a whole country had a scary weapons programme, how the hell can you trust what they say about lowly individuals or minority groups? It's just silly.

Here be wisdom.

...with controversy, of course:

In Ruppert's highly controversial new book "Crossing the Rubicon" he names Vice President Dick Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and with copious footnotes works to prove that not only was Cheney a planner in the attacks but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate command, control and communications system which was superseding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room. He provides evidence that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was put in direct command and control of all war-game and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations. Ruppert finds evidence that the interceptors that should have protected America were instead over the Atlantic and elsewhere involved in the TRIPOD II exercise conducted by Cheney. He also provides evidence that a number of public officials at the national and New York City levels including then Mayor Rudolph Giuliani were aware that flight 175 was heading for lower Manhattan for twenty minutes and issued no warning.

If true, it doesn't paint a good picture of trustworthy leaders.

 

[leggy]

Its worth mentioning that under the current proposed laws, Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Scargill might both have been 'detained'.

Unlikely, they are both white british.

 

[~Yuckfou~]

Its worth mentioning that under the current proposed laws, Ricky Tomlinson and Arthur Scargill might both have been 'detained'.

Fair enough tbh.

 

[OblongChicken]

You think so? Imagine if these kinds of laws were on the statute books during the poll tax riots a few years back. We were absolutely right to protest and a bad law was removed. With these powers, 'ringleaders' could have been locked up without trial. After all, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

As leggy just said, i don't think white British people have much to fear from the government. I see no reason to think anyone is making some kind of bid for totalitarian power, we don't have that kind of culture. Not to seem complacent, i keep an eye on things, but here in Britain i don't think the motivation for any of these acts is to erode civil liberties and enhance government power just for the sake of it. I'm far more suspicious of what's going on in the USA.

This Government gets scarier by the day. The latest wheeze? They are going to stop protests within 1Km of Westminster as part of the Serious Organised Crime & Police Bill. The justification? On the grounds of 'destroying the view'! We've had the right to freedom of speech and peaceful protest for hundreds of years; longer than anyone else in Europe, and these f*ckers are trying to take it away at the stroke of a pen.

The difference between something like this example and the suspected terrorists being detained without trial is that your example regards the majority public and not national security, and i don't think the government would fuck with them. But they will fuck with minorities such as suspected terrorists because, well, they're seen as outsiders who pose a threat to this country from within. I don't think you can conflate something like the poll tax riots of the white mainstream with abuses of supposed 'outsiders' in a national security issue. This would be different if they started detaining white-skinned Bob and Mary Smith. And that's just the way it is.

This isn't to say i condone or support what the government is doing, i just don't see it in the paranoid terms of people who have been reading too much conspiracy literature and think they have a moral duty to launch some kind of freedom loving crusade at the slightest mention of 'erosion of civil liberties'. Times have changed.

 

[DaGaffer]

As leggy just said, i don't think white British people have much to fear from the government. I see no reason to think anyone is making some kind of bid for totalitarian power, we don't have that kind of culture. Not to seem complacent, i keep an eye on things, but here in Britain i don't think the motivation for any of these acts is to erode civil liberties and enhance government power just for the sake of it. I'm far more suspicious of what's going on in the USA..

Actually, the law lords have said specifically that if they bring in this law, they have to make it applicable to 'white British people' as well as ethnic minorities. Once the law is on the statute books it can be applied to us all, and the temptation to use such wide ranging powers, once available, become inevitable in the long run. This is precisely why, when we've had similar internment powers in the UK in the past, like in WWII, they were specifically created only to last for the duration of the emergency.

The difference between something like this example and the suspected terrorists being detained without trial is that your example regards the majority public and not national security, and i don't think the government would fuck with them. But they will fuck with minorities such as suspected terrorists because, well, they're seen as outsiders who pose a threat to this country from within. I don't think you can conflate something like the poll tax riots of the white mainstream with abuses of supposed 'outsiders' in a national security issue. This would be different if they started detaining white-skinned Bob and Mary Smith. And that's just the way it is..

That's my point. They are fucking with the rights of the 'majority public' by doing this. If they can ride roughshod over us on this, it's a strong indicator of a wider anti-liberty attitude by the government to all its so-called citizens.

This isn't to say i condone or support what the government is doing, i just don't see it in the paranoid terms of people who have been reading too much conspiracy literature and think they have a moral duty to launch some kind of freedom loving crusade at the slightest mention of 'erosion of civil liberties'. Times have changed.

I'm not claiming any consiparcy, this lot are far too incompetent for that. The point is, once laws like this exist, they can be abused by future governments.