British Expatriate Network

This is considered a big blow for Blair who was trying to extend the period a terror suspect could be held from 14 days to 90 days.

http//www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1864619,00.html


This is the sort of issue I have very mixed feelings about. You want the country to be protected. The police say they need more time to question suspects. In some parts of Europe - France, Germany, terror suspects can be held for years! What Blair was asking for in this context seems quite reasonable.

In this country, Canada, foreign terror suspects are languishing in jails indefinitely without even being charged as a result of "security certificates", that have to be signed by the Canadian Prime Minister and approved by cabinet, if it's felt national security is threatened.

On the other hand, questioning can be code for old-fashioned cracking of suspects and we could well see the same miscarriages of justice similar to The Guildford Four and The Birmingham Six, when the police had those wide-ranging powers before.

I've also heard it pointed out that this proposal would have done nothing to prevent the July London bombings and that perhaps what authorities should be doing is getting out and gathering better intelligence.

I also wonder how much this was personally directed against Blair.

I'm also in two minds about this one. The police were asked for a recommendation and they gave three months. I think they tend to be the experts on this one.
My question is how long does it take for the labs to process all the evidence. That would appear to be what counts and sad to say three months seems to be the time.
I feel the need to be politically correct has gone overboard here, although I also think there's a tendency to defeat Blair at all costs now. I think he tied the knot when he got so upset about Iran's leader quoting Aytollah Khoumeni.
The only people who now seem to want another war are the politicians, and neither they nor their children in the UK or here attend these killing fields.
To add to the confusion it would appear the police have foiled two further plots to blow up areas of London.
We'll see what happens, unfortunately I think it will involve more deaths.

I don't have any doubt, if I was living there I would have been working to defeat the ninety days. The civil rights movement has taken a long time and many lives to get to where it is now. I would take the risks rather than give up a freedom. The first milestone in civil rights was back in 1215.

I think I quoted Ben Franklin in another thread, "He who gives up some liberty to gain a little security, will lose both. How long before the police say, "That is so much better, we could double our conviction rate if could use it on the ordinary criminal."

The police are there to serve the public, not vice versa.

The way things get spun these days, I am more than a little cynical about claims that plots have been foiled, I would expect some exageration.

Well it has gone up to 28 days from 14 so that is some sort of movement. Like others Im in two minds.

As for Blair, I give him a year before the Labour Party "Thatcher" him.

Shame about Blair. I liked him and had respect for the man until he appeared to sell-out to the American war in Iraq, without getting any concessions or using the leverage that Britain possessed to modify the US "plan" (actually lack thereof).

Still, it is heartening to see British politicians stand up and reject laws that could be used to restrict the liberty of their citizens. The same could not be said for here, although that all seems to be changing nowadays.

Under the proposed 90 day detention law the case would have been reviewed every 7 days by a judge. Therefore if the police were dragging their feet, clutching at straws, etc, the judge would have freed them. Therefore the mounting evidence against a suspected terrorist would have to be reasonable to warrant holding them for the full 90 days. Given the codes and secrecy that a terror organisation uses I think that 90 days is pretty reasonable. Seems like a political motive to try and defeat the government by voting against 90 days, if you ask me; after all what does a politician know about investigating terrorism. If the police suggest 90 days, you've got to listen, its supposed to be a war on terrorism.


The proposed law would also introduce penalties for trying to justify terrorism. Do you remember Blair's missus' comments in Israel or Palestine a few years ago? She'd be nicked, bang to rights under this new law.

You'd think that the British government would have learnt their lessons after the fiasco of internment and the special 5 categories of integration (euphemism for torture) that was adopted in Northern Ireland in the early 70s.

Some of them clearly haven't learnt any lessons from 7 july.

Well there's the bombing in Jordan to take into consideration. OK for us here in the US it's 11.9.05. But in the civilised world it is once again 9.11. 05.
We're not dealing with your grandaddies terrorist. We're dealing with kids who want to die cos they can't get laid. bring back the 60's. There's no plan behind most of this that can be pinned on one person. We're screwed. We have no choice but to be the heavy handed keep the masses alive government.

Could you imagine Blair declaring that the UK does not torture, and then having Gordon Brown hassle the HofC to allow MI5 to continue to torture.

Apparently it isn't just Cheney who thinks that's ok.

Did you expect anything less from Fox? :wink:
Murdoch would probably administer the torture personally whilst having lunch...... :roll:
He'll make them watch a loop of Fox And F®iends and The O' Reilly Factor :shock:

Do you really think that the ninety days would have prevented the 7th of july bombings? They had no idea that was coming, and the ninety days would have had no effect because there was no one to question.

neutral yea know this is a hard one really. the rules have changed since all this kicked off and it goes back to alot of questions that have been asked on this board and others.

Its a fundimental problem with intelligence and crime. The fact you cannot arrest and charge someone (really) without the crime being committed. So even if you had information that 911 was going to happen, just imagine the reaction of folks if they placed a bunch of extra security and arrest a group of people that it would appear done nothing wrong, after all no crime had been committed up till that point.

The time that all the information has gone through on a house search, could take 90 days, most probably more.

I do not feel that it would result in whole sale round ups of people, reason being that the system could never cope with it.