jonathan7 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 So this is how liberty dies... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4115300.ece Here's to due process, a thing of the past. Fortunately I have a feeling the House of Lords (which is unelected) actually have common sense and I'm sure they will reject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litofsky Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Yay! Another Government trashing our civil liberties in the name of "National Security." Of course, (we) could go over the benefits of such an act, and I've no doubt that (we) will, at some point, but I have a feeling that by the time we reach an accord, almost every government will have some form of National Security Plan, which sacrifices most, if not all, of our liberties. Go Britain! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 It's scary. I was watching BBC Parliament this afternoon - I didnt actually realise that it meant someone could be held without charge. I thought that the 42 was so that they had more time to question someone who *had* been charged. And why the hell should it take 42 to question a terror suspect in the first place? Surely they question them as soon as they are arrested? Not long now till we have Government agents kicking down our doors and taking us away in the night... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I agree, the law is terrible, the reason it's created has more to do with the dificulty of preventing suspects from fleeing the country. So instead of trying to untangle the legal mess to prevent it, Brown pushes through a band-aid law. Pushing it through with the torries having an electable leader for once makes it even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Well, even with all the furor over here about the Patriot Act, few people who push the nightmare scenario of jack booted federal thugs breaking into your house in the middle of the night can ever point to the numbers of innocents that have had their civil rights massively violated (or even really violated). Mostly seem to be engaged in polemics. Looks like they only 2xed the detention time. I'm guessing that if your hand at "persuasion" is tied behind your back, a suspect could probably keep from cracking indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Alternatively the innocent suspect could crack open because of the "persuasion". And yes, there are many people who have had their rights abused by such laws, I'll see if I can find those numbers. As to the nightmare scenario, infringments far less severe than that can be painfull. A neighbour who once wrote an article for a far left newspaper was wire tapped for years, and before he realized it (thanks to the discernible *click* when the police hang up after a call ended) he had given them countless juicy details of his private life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilentScope001 Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Alright, um, those who hate torture, I am wondering: What are legitimate interrogation techniques that can be used on suspects? If we know what interrogation techniques are moral, then we can easily use them instead of using immoral techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astor Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Alright, um, those who hate torture, I am wondering: What are legitimate interrogation techniques that can be used on suspects? If we know what interrogation techniques are moral, then we can easily use them instead of using immoral techniques. Now that just opens a whole other can o' worms... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 So this is how liberty dies... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4115300.ece Here's to due process, a thing of the past. Not being a citizen or having an in-depth understanding of how your country does things, I don't know that we can say that due process is dead. Reading the first page of your source, it appears that they've merely extended the amount of time that someone can be held without charge. Do I agree with you in priniciple that this a bad thing? Absolutely. But this isn't like the U.S. where the President or the Secretary of Defense can simply decide that someone (even a U.S. citizen) is an enemy combatant and then imprison them indefinitely without due process. Fortunately I have a feeling the House of Lords (which is unelected) actually have common sense and I'm sure they will reject.I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, sir. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 Fortunately, polemics aside, the SecDef can't just wake up one morning and decide you're an enemy combatant on a whim. Problem with all laws is that even with due process, innocent people have been imprisoned anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 But if due process reduces the number of innocent prissoners, then that's surley a good thing. What you wrote sounded akin to "lets legalize drunk driving because people die in the traffick anyway". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Not being a citizen or having an in-depth understanding of how your country does things, I don't know that we can say that due process is dead. I was being slightly dramatic; my concern is that neither MI5 or the Police either needed or wanted this law. With regard due process they brought in a 28 day holding period and have now extended it to 42. I personally don't agree with the 28 day holding period either. As such them extending it here, makes me think they will try and extend it later, and eventually the time frame will be indefinate. Reading the first page of your source, it appears that they've merely extended the amount of time that someone can be held without charge. Do I agree with you in priniciple that this a bad thing? Absolutely. I think the old law was someone could be held for 3 days without charge, I do not for any reason think it should ever be any longer than that - if someone is guilty charge them! But this isn't like the U.S. where the President or the Secretary of Defense can simply decide that someone (even a U.S. citizen) is an enemy combatant and then imprison them indefinitely without due process. That would concern me greatly. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you, sir. Thanks Although I don't think this will ever effect me for a variety of reasons, however; it is something that does concern me for fellow human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I was being slightly dramatic Ah, okay. My apologies for not picking up on that. That would concern me greatly. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Sitherino Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 if someone is guilty charge them! Except you can't charge someone for the same crime twice (as far as I'm aware of in any court, save for developing nations). As well it may take time for a case to be built up that won't simply be overturned in a court. I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 11, 2008 Author Share Posted June 11, 2008 Except you can't charge someone for the same crime twice (as far as I'm aware of in any court, save for developing nations). As well it may take time for a case to be built up that won't simply be overturned in a court. I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time. Nah, I think your referring to double jeopardy. As far as I know you can be charged for the same crime twice (or three times). You can arrest someone and hold them for 3 days, and then have to release them without charge. If you can't get together enough evidence to charge them, why shouldn't they be let out? If they are that much of a threat to security follow them; if they're stupid they will only lead you too there mates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 I think 28 was a reasonable amount of time. Do you think that being held for 28 days without charge might have some impact on a person's ability to maintain employment, a stable family life, or complete an education? Some people (if they are lucky) might be able to get a leave of absence from their employer, but there are many more that would be released only to find out that they no longer have a job. Food service employees that survive off tips would have to figure out how to survive after 4 weeks without pay. Two parent families would probably be disrupted by even a minor incarceration, but 28 days? What about single-parents (like myself)? Most college courses are 16 weeks long. Do you think missing 25% of a course might have a lasting impact on someone's grades (let's hope they aren't trying to maintain a scholarship)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 If they are that much of a threat to security follow them; if they're stupid they will only lead you too there mates. If they are smart, they'll board a plane headed for *insert country that won't cooperate with Britt police*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 11, 2008 Share Posted June 11, 2008 If they are smart' date=' they'll board a plane headed for *insert country that won't cooperate with Britt police*.[/quote'] And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late.Come on, people, we're talking about charging people with a crime, not obtaining proof of their guilt. Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)? I agree, the law is terrible, the reason it's created has more to do with the dificulty of preventing suspects from fleeing the country. So instead of trying to untangle the legal mess to prevent it, Brown pushes through a band-aid law In short, no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan7 Posted June 12, 2008 Author Share Posted June 12, 2008 And then, when you are ready to charge them it will be too late. _EW_ Then perhaps the Government in Britain should frigging well sort out its immigration and emigration computers so that they can't leave; these days with computers it should be at all hard, not that many of our governmental departments could organise a drink up in a brewery. Addendum; if your following them; and they are trying to leave the country you can then charge them for trying to escape justice. Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)? No, nor do I think there is a government on the planet that would warrant being trusted with such powers; there is a judicial process so it should be used... What happened to presuming someone was innocent until proven guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Come on, people, we're talking about charging people with a crime, not obtaining proof of their guilt. Is it really reasonable to say that the government should be able to throw you in jail and not tell you why for a month (or longer)? No, it's not reasonable at all. I see both sides, don't get me wrong I would hate to be on the other side if I was innocent. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says 'Better 10 guilty men let go rather than 1 innocent man wrongfully imprisoned?' _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 No, it's not reasonable at all. I see both sides, don't get me wrong Are you really telling me that some small part of you actually thinks this is justified? I would hate to be on the other side if I was innocent. Isn't there a quote somewhere that says 'Better 10 guilty men let go rather than 1 innocent man wrongfully imprisoned?'There are quotes for lots of things, but quotes in and of themselves aren't terribly meaningful. What is important is whether or not the quote says something worth supporting. Back to the point: guilt or innocence really has very little do with what we are talking about here. Guilt is established via the trial. Delaying charges is nothing more than a blatant attempt to get away with wanting to throw anyone you want to in jail (presumably so that the police can have more time to find something to charge you with). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jawathehutt Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 Hey look at the bright side, at least when you Brits are arrested without charge, you get to stay in your own country. In the glorious freedom filled US, we get free trips to 3rd world countries with lax torture laws where nice men in suits ask us questions about our affiliations to groups that no one has ever heard of, get a confession or make one up and then shred all records of everything but the confession. I love countries founded on the basis of liberty, dont you all? I myself am thinking of doing some unamerican things like being tolerant of Muslims so I can win a free trip to Eastern Europe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Achilles Posted June 12, 2008 Share Posted June 12, 2008 *adds jawathehutt to friend's list* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.