Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Terror Laws - indefinite detention?
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
zooloo |
Thanks ITK.
You may be you "...can only conclude that people are being detained merely on a 'whim'" and that troubles me.
You could also conclude the opposite given that there is no supporting information/evidence to sustain your view.
Starting out with an obvious bias and no evidence then acting as if this opinion is truth is at best disingenuous.
If we criticise Tabloids for sweeping generalisations, bias confirmation and lack of facts should be we not avoid these things ourselves too? |
|
In The Know (sometimes) |
zooloo wrote:
Thanks for the replies.
I'm still confused, I haven't found a clear reference on why it's "necessary" to keep people in custody for so long.
Anyone know why terrorists are a different case to criminals or can point me to where there is please?
So are we, Zooloo !
I can only conclude that people are being detained merely on a "whim" and that after they are in custody the police then begin a search to try and find some evidence against them.
This is of course against UK law. There should be clear evidence of an offense BEFORE anyone is arrested / detained.
In the case of the recent fire bomb at Glasgow airport, 3 people have now been released without any charge (after more than 2 weeks in detention).
A Doctor (in Australia) has been charged with supplying a sim card. Another man in the UK has been charged with "having evidence and not informing the police" (although its very unclear what this "evidence" is supposed to be). |
|
zooloo |
Thanks for the replies.
I'm still confused, I haven't found a clear reference on why it's "necessary" to keep people in custody for so long.
Anyone know why terrorists are a different case to criminals or can point me to where there is please? |
|
In The Know |
Phil wrote:
This latest request for extra time to hold people without charge until the police can "find" some evidence is just another step down the road to becoming a totalitarian police state.
Fully Agreed
Anyone else remember internment in Northern Ireland? The police jailed anyone suspected of involvement in the troubles. While all these "terrorists" were in jail - Britain was subjected to the biggest bombing campaign ever ! - showing that the police had either got the wrong people - or that thousands of others had "joined-up" outraged at the loss of civil liberties.
OK terrorism is a very serious issue for us all, but indefinite detention ? the police here in the UK already have some of the most draconian powers in the free world, for instance there is no thing thing as false arrest now, the police can arrest anyone at any time for any reason.
Let's not forget WHO brought bombers to our shores.
Did we really expect to go around the world bombing other countries on fake "evidence" and "dodgy dossiers" and expect no response?
For now the police only want indefinite detention for terror suspects but who is to say in the future that they will not say that suspected drug traffickers or suspeceted burglers meet the same criteria for indefinite detention. IMHO we should be very frightened of going down this road and handing out more powers to the police.
Like I said in the original post .... drip, drip !
ONCE your freedoms have gone - you never get them back ! |
|
In The Know |
zooloo wrote:
How much time is enough time?
Hard to say ... in the Philippes they are rioting in the streets over THREE days ! The USA has, I believe, a maximum of 10 days. Here its already 28 days, and the Gov want that increased to 90 (and many police want it to be indefinite !).
Before we even discuss time frames I think that we should look at a French system, where the police have to present the outline of their case (to show they have one !), and the initial evidence, to a Magistrate before ANY period of detention is allowed ! |
|
|
|
