You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Britain
UK police defend longer terror limit
2007-07-16
Senior police officers say their calls to be allowed to hold terror suspects for longer without charge would not mean any kind of "internment". "We are not arguing for some kind of Guantanamo nonsense for the UK," said Ken Jones, head of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
No, no - certainly not.

This would be a kinder, gentler, more British (if not EUropean) form of protection for misunderstood youts in danger of doing bad things. Nothing like that nasty US Guantanamo nonsense, not at all.
Mr Jones said the police needed more flexibility over the current limit of 28 days without charge.

Shami Chakrabarti, of campaign group Liberty, attacked the police proposal. "We elect politicians to determine legislation and we expect chief constables to uphold the rule of law, not campaign for internment," said Ms Chakrabarti, director of Liberty.

The head of the senior police officers' organisation had warned in a newspaper interview that terror investigations were "up against the buffers on the 28-day limit" - and that suspects should be held for "as long as it takes".

But facing criticism over such an open-ended form of detention, Mr Jones sought to clarify what flexibility the police needed in such cases. "We do not want internment. That would be crazy. It needs to be as long as is proportionate and necessary, subjected to sufficient judicial checks and balances," Mr Jones told the BBC. "But I can tell you now, Acpo is not calling for indeterminate detention."

The Metropolitan Police distanced themselves from any calls for indefinite detention. "Any such proposal would not have the support of the Metropolitan Police service."

Extending the detention period without trial was rejected by the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis.
And extending the detention period without trial was rejected by the Shadow Home Secretary, David Davis.
The Tories have gotten wierder and wierder on the GWOT.
"All the evidence shows that when the police tried to claim the need for 90-day detention without charge they were wrong and Parliament's decision on 28 days was right," said Mr Davis. "Since the 28-day limit was introduced neither the police or security services have produced one shred of evidence to demonstrate the need for extension, either in public or in confidential briefings," said Mr Davis.

Liberal Democrat MP, Evan Harris, also condemned the calls for such an extension. "The police have not provided evidence from their experience of recent investigations that the current 28-day limit - already one of the longest for a democracy - is not sufficient to collect evidence to bring charges," said Dr Harris.

The government has tried to raise the limit a suspect can be held without charge to 90 days. But MPs have consistently rejected that proposal - handing former Prime Minister Tony Blair his first defeat in the Commons, in 2005.
Posted by:lotp

#3  Ironically, political correctness (an invention of the Left) has made it virtually impossible for security forces to forthrightly deal with the threats from Islamic terrorism in Europe, forcing them to suggest backdoor methods reminiscent of Fascism.

At this rate native European grandmothers will enjoy fewer civil rights than the invaders who openly call for the destruction of their society.
Posted by: Grumenk Philalzabod0723   2007-07-16 19:13  

#2  The reason the Tories are loopy on WoT and Iraq is the same for the Dhimmicrats over here - poliitics. When the other party usurps your traditional, long-serving positiion - strong military, strong national security, etc. then you have no option (if you are a politician) than to find things wrong with their approach. Or you end up being just like them. Can't have that, can we? Too confusing to the voters.
Posted by: Jack is Back!   2007-07-16 09:51  

#1  Yes, nothing like Guantanamo. Instead of detaining enemies apprehended while fighting your military you propose to lock up your own citizens without charge let alone trial.

I am all in favor of internment, btw. I say go for it. And if hypocritical posturing is what it takes to get it done then be my guest.
Posted by: Excalibur   2007-07-16 08:56  

00:00