Blair loses vote on Terror legislation

[Michael Z]

All law-abiding citizens, who abhor terrorism, should be appalled

The question is not about abhorring or condoning terrorism. It is about whether any person should be condemned for terrorist activities after a fair and impartial trial, or at the whim and pleasure of the government.

The view that the government may label anyone a "terrorist" and proceed to deprive him of all liberties and protections without a trial is an extremely dangerous one. If Parliament accepts this position, it might as well burn the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right.

Agreed. Plus who's to say that every future government will treat such a law responsibly? Lest we forget, Hitler was able to ostracise many of his political opponents through laws which existed long before he came to power. Laws like this make it very easy for somebody to stand up and label anyone they don't like as a terrorist and lock them up for 90 days - and then perhaps indefinitely? After all, the terrorist threat might be so great we should just lock them up for as long as we like with absolutely no trial or evidence whatsoever, just suspicion or hearsay. It's easy to see how you can get the ball rolling here and slowly but surely rid people of more and more of their civil liberties.

Besides, who's to say these laws will be implemented responsibly (witness what happened to the old fella at the Labour conference), or that the police really know for sure they know a terrorist when they see one, given what happened to Jean de Menezes?

In a way I can't help but feel that the government simply wants to be seen as doing something about the terrorist threat, so they try to implement a bunch of hasty policies which aren't thought through in the slightest, and only serve to create impressive newspaper headlines.

The bottom line is, I am yet to hear a convincing argument for the 90-day period, as opposed to the given alternative of 28 days. Charles Clarke stumbled over his words everytime he tried to draw out the "compelling case" for it, and all Tony Blair was able to do was resort to black-and-white portrayals of anyone who disagrees with the law as somehow being a soft touch on national security. I'm glad the majority of MPs were able to see through this attempt at insulting their intelligence.

[Democratic Hawk]

I'm afraid I do not believe the Conservative party was trying to woo Muslim voters at all

It's possible. They may be be targetting marginal Labour seats with significant Muslim populations, though they'd be competing with that LD lot

I don't think their opposition for opposition's own sake stance has done them any favours. Most people, I've spoken to, including several Pakistani Muslims, agree with 90-day detentions - and not all are Labour voters

I have an even grimmer opinion of the Labour awkward squad allowing themselves to play straight into their hands

I don't think 90-day detentions are unreasonable when it takes a long time to dicipher encrypted codes because many terrorists are computer masterminds these days. It's a dangerous world we live and, sadly, tougher cautionary and preventative measures are a matter of necessity rather than choice

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm afraid I do not believe the Conservative party was trying to woo Muslim voters at all

*cough* Bradford West *cough*

O/c when Singh retires methinks they'll give up the ghost there

[Bono]

I'd figured that, if there was no Tory or LD rebel, 16 Labour and 14 Opposition MPs did not vote. Change that to 17 Labour and 13 Opposition, now...

I saw a list of M.P's who didn't vote somewhere...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nope

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No it didn't; but there have been plenty of demands for tough anti-terror policies ever since the bombings. Methinks that if flat-out internment was suggested, a majority of people would probably support it. It's just the way things are right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The specific demand won't (unless the Sun goes completely nuts over it) but general demands for draconian legislation and a general feeling that most M.P's are a bunch of pansies won't go away for quite a while (interestingly enough there are several Labour M.P's who I thought might vote against 90 days but didn't; almost all representing working class constituencies and likely not immune to deselection bids. Up to a point the reverse is the case for a certain M.P for an East Birmingham seat with a very large Asian population who only escaped deselection last time round via his usual Union block-vote trick).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Depending on how things pan out over the next few days it could be more than just a minor mistake; mind you if there is political capital to be gained from being strongly in favour of this sort of legislation (and there clearly is) there probably is some (not as much but still some) to be gained from going the other way.
Depends what sort of voters you're chasing and what sort you are prepared to lose to get them...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Using that sort of language would have backfired pretty badly IMO; certain tabloid newspapers would have a lot of fun with that...

What is deselection?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

What is deselection?

Being dropped as a candidate for the next election; similer to losing a primary but it hurts even more.
Usually it means the end of an M.P's political career (although not always; the famous exception is S.O.Davies back in '70).
There was a wave of deselections in the '80's (the Bennite surge) as Right Labour M.P's (including former cabinet ministers) were deselected by Left CLP's, but not much since then.

[afleitch]

My old MP was George Robertson. My mum said to me she always paid attention during the early to mid 80's as to what Labour were doing in my area . If they had ever deselected him, she would not have voted for them, as she preffered the MP over the party. Apparently they met when she was donating tinned goods to striking miners families (Two of my great-grandfathers were miners, we've always had a soft spot)

[Bono]

What is deselection?

Being dropped as a candidate for the next election; similer to losing a primary but it hurts even more.
Usually it means the end of an M.P's political career (although not always; the famous exception is S.O.Davies back in '70).
There was a wave of deselections in the '80's (the Bennite surge) as Right Labour M.P's (including former cabinet ministers) were deselected by Left CLP's, but not much since then.

Oh, yea, that happened to my Mayor these elections.

[Democratic Hawk]

There is a first time for everything

This morning I contacted the House of Commons to thank Sir Peter Tapsell (Conservative MP - Louth and Horncastle) for voting for the 90-days detention and putting the interests of both the nation and the general public over petty partisan politics

Meanwhile, I still have plenty of bones to pick with the Labour 'traitors' but they are not beyond redemption yet. I'm a reasonable man

Dave

[Peter]

I don't think 90-day detentions are unreasonable when it takes a long time to dicipher encrypted codes because many terrorists are computer masterminds these days. It's a dangerous world we live and, sadly, tougher cautionary and preventative measures are a matter of necessity rather than choice

You've clearly been reading the tabloids too much.

The fact is that nobody was actually able to give any evidence or hint of suggestion that extending the detention period in this fashion would actually have any real effect in fighting the terrorist threat. Add to that the fact that it was openly conceded that 7/7 could not have been stopped with this law.

The suggestion that it would take up to 90 days to crack a security encryption with the equipment that MI5 and MI6 should have access to is laughable -- if that's genuine, we ought to consider launching an investigation into *that*. With the expertise and equipment the security services should have access to, anything the relatively low-tech terrorist cells can come up with should fall within a day.

I watched This Week on BBC1 last night, and Ken Clarke put it quite well:  Nobody has given an actual reason why the 90 day detention would help fight the terrorist threat, and once Parliamentarians began to scratch away at the surface, it soon became evident that we were talking about something that was merely a feel good measure, designed to make it look as if something was being done about the situation.

[Democratic Hawk]

Michael Z,

Cripes - any one would think we were on the verge of becoming a police state . The government wasn't proposing internment at whim or detention without the due auspices of the judiciary

Dave

[Peter]

Cripes - any one would think we on the verge of becoming a police state . The government wasn't proposing internment  at whim or detention without the auspices of the judiciary

Actually, thats exactly what it was proposing until the opposition/rebels pushed the government into adding judicial oversight into the equation.

[Democratic Hawk]

This gentleman is not for turning . Nothing you, or Ken Clarke, can say is ever going to convince me otherwise. I'm a populist on issues like national security and I tend to think and do what I feel is right for, and in touch with, the people. I also value the rights and liberties, that terrorists don't. Isn't it better to be safe, than sorry?

Were I a Labour MP, I'd have voted for 90 days with sound mind and, more importantly, a clear conscience.  The police, surely, had their reasons for wanting 90-day detentions and, at  the end of the day, it is them, along with our security services, who are charged with the day-to-day prevention of terrorism. Terrorism is a real threat and requires a realistic approach to it

I can only imagine the anguish the House of Commons must have caused most, if not all, of the families of those who died on July 7

Dave

[Emsworth]

I also value the rights and liberties, that terrorists don't. Isn't it better to be safe, than sorry?

The argument is that terrorists should not be entitled to these rights and liberties. But what of the presumption that everyone is innocent until proven guilty? How can it be concluded that someone is a terrorist in the first place, unless that fact is actually proven?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I highly doubt that the House of Commons can either increase or diminish the anguish of the victims or their families by passing or not passing a dangerous measure such as this.

[Democratic Hawk]

The public deserve nothing but the maximum effort to ensure that atrocities like July 7 don't happen again. The right of us to live without the threat of terrorist atrocities trumps all else

Generally speaking, only those who are up to no good who have anything to fear . After all, detentions will be subject to judicial review and due process of the law. Of course, errors can be made but as I've said it's better to be safe than sorry. It is partly for this reason, that I oppose the death penality as miscarriages of justice can, and do, occur

If liberals/libertarians had their way, they'd be running amok. There is a fine line between civil liberties and taking (i.e. abusing) liberties

Dave

[Emsworth]

Generally speaking, only those who are up to no good who have anything to fear.

What a horrifying thought! Should the government be able to search any home it desires, without a warrant, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear? Should the government be able to eavesdrop on private telephone conversations at its whim, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear? Should the government be able to install monitoring devices in each individual's house, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The point still stands. Those whom you accuse of taking liberties have not in fact been convicted of doing so.

[Peter]

The public deserve nothing but the maximum effort to ensure that atrocities like July 7 don't happen again. The right of us to live without the threat of terrorist atrocities trumps all else

Nobody has shown to my satisfaction (or a number of Parliamentarians, Ken Clarke included) that 90 days will do anything towards achieving your stated goal.

Problem is that this measure looks like its strong on terrorism because we're saying "Lets bang them up and then they can't do bugger all for 90 days", but really there's little to nothing that is actually gained by the proposal.

If the police are not able to construct a case in 28 days against somebody that they suspect of terrorist offences given the wide range of offences that have now been legislated into Law, then frankly, they're either grossly incompetent or the man is innocent, and giving them another 62 days to go on a fishing expedition accomplishes nothing but detaining an innocent man longer than is necessary.

It seems utterly counter-intuitive to me to suggest that the Police cannot possibly investigate a person in 28 days to the point of exhaustion, but that in an extra 62 days, they might actually be able to turn something up. Of course, the police should have time to thoroughly question a suspect and to follow up any leads they might have, but that simply doesn't take more than 28 days if you have the resources.

If the police are having a resources problem, then raise that with the politicians, I'm sure they'll write the cheque.

[Bono]

BTW,time topress charges here is 6 months in general, but can be extended to one year, IIRC from the Code of Criminal Process. This to Lewis, to rectify my last mistake.

[Democratic Hawk]

Generally speaking, only those who are up to no good who have anything to fear.

What a horrifying thought! Should the government be able to search any home it desires, without a warrant, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear? Should the government be able to eavesdrop on private telephone conversations at its whim, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear? Should the government be able to install monitoring devices in each individual's house, because law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear?

Why's it frightening? If, at the end of the day, it avoids events like 9/11 and 7/7 reoccuring. Blame the people who inacted those atrocities not the governmentm, police or security services trying to prevent them

Dave

[Emsworth]

If, at the end of the day, it avoids events like 9/11 and 7/7 reoccuring

How would detaining someone for 90 days rather than 28 days have prevented either of these terrorist attacks?

[Јas]

I think The Guardian lists those MPs who didn't vote. Do you know who the real hypocrite was in this vote? The Rev. Ian Paisley of the Democrratic Unionist Party. I've just gone right off that dude

Dave

1. What did Paisley do?
2. Were you a strong supporter of his before?
3. What is the maximum period of detention you would have been willing to vote for?

[Peter]

1. What did Paisley do?

Paisley, along with the whole DUP voted against the 90 day stuff. Whilst I'm not 100%, I'd be willing to put money on the assertion that they supported internment, and probably wouldn't mind it back now, thus making them hypocrites.

[Bono]

For once, I agree with Peter Bell.
I always find it interesting that upon every terrorist act, governments always sieze rights from the people.
I came to find it is a strategy. Since what is purported is that "they hate us because we're free", the objective is to make "us" no longer free, thus leaving them no reason to hate.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I always find it interesting that upon every terrorist act, governments always sieze rights from the people.

Actually it was the police that demanded 90 days; the Government just went along with it.

[Bono]

I always find it interesting that upon every terrorist act, governments always sieze rights from the people.

Actually it was the police that demanded 90 days; the Government just went along with it.

I should probably have said states.

[Democratic Hawk]

Let's just say over the weekend and getting plenty of love from a good woman , I've somewhat cooled down on this one

I still think 90 days would have been better - but the House of Commons voted for 28 days and in doing so sent a message of weakness to our terrorist enemines

I only pray that so terror suspect held for 28 days and then released due to lack of evidence, doesn't go on a bombing spree killing and maiming possibly tens or hundreds of people - because, as well, as the terrorists, the British people will rightly blame the feckless parliamentarians - all 322 of them - who waved the white flag

Nuff said

Dave