Guilty Without Charge?
20/11/06 13:05 |
Personal
So
Tony Blair is still pushing for a 90 day detention
period before suspected terrorists need to be charged
while his Attorney General is saying he can see no
evidence to support a period that long.
Surely,
if you have not found an offence with which to charge
someone within three months - the current limit is 28
days - then you must have been acting on pretty thin
evidence in the first place.
I guess I am old fashioned, but the tactics used by both Britain and the US in the oft used expression 'fight against terrorism' are starting to remind me too much of those of the old Soviet Union or the 'disappeared' of South America.
Without doubt, there is a serious threat from 'terrorism' but I am still of the belief that the odds are more in favour of me being run over by a naked nun on a bicycle than bumping into a real life terrorist or of being the victim of an act of terrorism.
I might be wrong, but at the moment I am suspicious of the reasoning for ever increasing restrictions on personal freedom. Part of that suspicion stems from the government doing nothing to provide proof to the contrary. Instead, the Home Secretary and the Head of the Security Services make statements about x no. of active plots that are known but leave the question "why have they not arrested these suspects if they know about them?"
Could it be that the UK's prisons have 'no vacancy' signs due to overcrowding or have they already kitted the 'suspects' out in orange boiler suits and hoodies and sent them for a stay to the US run holiday camp in Cuba?
I guess I am old fashioned, but the tactics used by both Britain and the US in the oft used expression 'fight against terrorism' are starting to remind me too much of those of the old Soviet Union or the 'disappeared' of South America.
Without doubt, there is a serious threat from 'terrorism' but I am still of the belief that the odds are more in favour of me being run over by a naked nun on a bicycle than bumping into a real life terrorist or of being the victim of an act of terrorism.
I might be wrong, but at the moment I am suspicious of the reasoning for ever increasing restrictions on personal freedom. Part of that suspicion stems from the government doing nothing to provide proof to the contrary. Instead, the Home Secretary and the Head of the Security Services make statements about x no. of active plots that are known but leave the question "why have they not arrested these suspects if they know about them?"
Could it be that the UK's prisons have 'no vacancy' signs due to overcrowding or have they already kitted the 'suspects' out in orange boiler suits and hoodies and sent them for a stay to the US run holiday camp in Cuba?
|