Government debates 42 day detention limit...

[afleitch]

...but it appears the Cabinet is set on a further extension to over 50 days.

Two good items on the BBC.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6729027.stm

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7142685.stm - which is older.

Bear in mind that Spain was able to convict the Madrid bombers on a 72 hour limit with a legal extension to 13 days. I agree with Liberty in the need for alternate measures such as phone tap evidence (backed by the Tories) and detaining suspects on a lesser charge while investigations take place. To hold people for 42 days without charge is inexusable and bearing in mind that anti-terror sweeps can 'lift' people who associate with those targeted (attending the same mosque, family members etc) the possibility of them being held without charge even for as little as a week does nothing for maintaining good relations with Muslim communities.

[Јas]

Where in the blue blazes do they come up with 50 days or even 42 days as either necessary; reasonable; or prudent?

Is there any logical basis for their conclusions or is this just a case of 'look how tough on terror we are'?

[afleitch]

Is there any logical basis for their conclusions or is this just a case of 'look how tough on terror we are'?

That's how I see it, simply because alternatives are not being considered nor put on the table - it's 'extend or else.' Considering we are also in the process of re-defining what constitutes 'terrorism', (for example animal rights extremists) the scale of those who could be affected by the legislation is also wider. The potential for people who are 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' being lifted and detained with few rights and no formal charge is deeply worrying.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Not comfortable with the idea (for obvious reasons) but prefer it to allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in court. In fact I'm not happy with the use of phone-tapping at all, though I guess it might/is be necessary in exceptional circumstances.

Explanation: basically I don't trust the police and would rather have someone unjustly locked up for 42 days than someone unjustly convincted via entrapment and so on and getting life. Of course ideally I'd have neither.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Where in the blue blazes do they come up with 50 days or even 42 days as either necessary; reasonable; or prudent?

Is there any logical basis for their conclusions or is this just a case of 'look how tough on terror we are'?

Most things to do with anti-terrorism legislation is based on political posturing and this is no different (though it is less than the number Blair wanted. What was that; 72? Or longer? Can't recall actually). There are Tory M.P's who were happy with internment in Northern Ireland who are opposed to this and there are, I think, Labour M.P's who were opposed to internment in Northern Ireland but who support this.

[Јas]

Where in the blue blazes do they come up with 50 days or even 42 days as either necessary; reasonable; or prudent?

Is there any logical basis for their conclusions or is this just a case of 'look how tough on terror we are'?

Most things to do with anti-terrorism legislation is based on political posturing and this is no different (though it is less than the number Blair wanted. What was that; 72? Or longer? Can't recall actually).

90, IIRC *shudder*

There are Tory M.P's who were happy with internment in Northern Ireland who are opposed to this and there are, I think, Labour M.P's who were opposed to internment in Northern Ireland but who support this.

Doesn't surprise me a great deal; it's just all very unfortunate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

90, IIRC *shudder*

I'm sure there was a "2" in there somewhere. 92?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

True. But then issues like this bring out the worst in politicians. Mainly because they also bring out the worst in ordinary people.

[afleitch]

Not comfortable with the idea (for obvious reasons) but prefer it to allowing phone-tap evidence to be used in court. In fact I'm not happy with the use of phone-tapping at all, though I guess it might/is be necessary in exceptional circumstances.

Explanation: basically I don't trust the police and would rather have someone unjustly locked up for 42 days than someone unjustly convincted via entrapment and so on and getting life. Of course ideally I'd have neither.

That's understandable, but phone tapping is only one of the options put out there as Liberty have pointed out. There are other methods including the use of lesser charges etc, utilised across the rest of the western world and shown to work effectively (particularly in Spain). My main gripe is that these other options are not up for discussion - that debate has been shut down. Secondly, that aside, there is no justification nor evidence for increasing the current punitive 28 day limit to 42 days.

I can understand prefering 42 days over phone tapping, but not 42 days over 28.

[afleitch]

Is there any logical basis for their conclusions or is this just a case of 'look how tough on terror we are'?

That's how I see it, simply because alternatives are not being considered nor put on the table - it's 'extend or else.' Considering we are also in the process of re-defining what constitutes 'terrorism', (for example animal rights extremists) the scale of those who could be affected by the legislation is also wider. The potential for people who are 'in the wrong place at the wrong time' being lifted and detained with few rights and no formal charge is deeply worrying.

^^^^
Bumped as this is creeping back into the public eye. We have had the example of one local authority using anti-terror laws to snoop on parents to see if they live within the catchment area of their childs school, now Staffordshire CC evokes the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to spy on kids buying alcohol.

We also have the 'backbench blacklist' for the actual 42 limit vote in the spotlight too.