House Arrest

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Good answer. I am not happy with the way things are going either.....who would be? The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.

I think the law is to hold the ones who are a risk but theres not enough in the current law to hold them.

How many times do the police have to let criminals go when they know they are guilty as sin, but have no way of holding them. I can't believe these guys are the innocent angels some are making them out to be!

Originally Posted by cookie_365

Absolutely. Freedom and democracy and rule of law are the weapons we should be using to defeat terroism.

Yes, because its worked so well before.

It may sound nice but freedom, democracy and the moral highground are not good tools against terrorism. They will commit their acts and kill and many people as possible to strike fear into the country and hopefully undermine the freedom and the rule of law.

I am not in support of house arrest or against it. I do not have the information that the goverment holds on these people but i am certain that they think they are a danger. So i cannot comment. But i do think that actual action whould be taken instead of talking about human rights (which is important) and preaching about freedom and liberty. Do you think the terrorists will see us talking about human rights and freedom and then think they need to change their ways.

SO the question is, if house arrest cannot be used. What can?

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by kronas

im not going to apologise for my scepticism about politicians and governments. but if your going to arrest someone you need evidence, house arrest samething, otherwise its wrong and against human rights.

Totally agree...........I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
Bl**dy hope not anyway..........why waste the scarce recourses and money?

edit........it comes down to trust and I (probably foolishly) trust the security services and govt more than terrorists.............

Originally Posted by Escapee

I think the law is to hold the ones who are a risk but theres not enough in the current law to hold them.

How many times do the police have to let criminals go when they know they are guilty as sin, but have no way of holding them. I can't believe these guys are the innocent angels some are making them out to be!

Please could you qualify your comment "they are as guilty as sin"? I'm interested on what FACTUAL basis you make this judgement.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Totally agree...........I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.
Bl**dy hope not anyway..........why waste the scarce recourses and money?

edit........it comes down to trust and I (probably foolishly) trust the security services and govt more than terrorists.............

Foolishly indeed, the government were quite willing to intern countless innocent people in Long Kesh and the Maze over the last 30 years, including several senior citizens and plenty of others with absolutely no links to terrorism whatsoever. I think it's safe to say the new idiotic home secretary will waste as much money as he see's fit on his hare brained plans.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

Please could you qualify your comment "they are as guilty as sin"? I'm interested on what FACTUAL basis you make this judgement.

I didn't say these guys were as guilty as sin, although their reasons for being in that region were lame to say the least.

I am saying there are cases when the police know someone is guilty but are unable to proceed, it's a bit like a local problem recently near my parents house where they could not take someone to court because the witness had given evidence, on the false promise that the criminal would admit guilt as soon as he was aware of a witness. The criminal carried on protesting his innocence and the witness refused to go to court and wanted to retract their statement.

There are situations like that where the police cannot get a conviction for one reason or another, and guilty people walk free!

I find this all very disturbing and worrying on the 60th anniversary of the holocaust.

First they came for the Communists,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I wasnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I wasnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didnâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t speak up,
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one
left to speak up for me.

by Rev. Martin Niemoller, 1945

Couldn't happen here?I'm sure that it was thought it couldn't happen in a 20th century Germany.

IF you waive the rule of law for some cases where does it stop?If one freedom is eroded it won't be long until the next one is deemed ok to wipe off the statute book.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I didn't say these guys were as guilty as sin, although their reasons for being in that region were lame to say the least.

I am saying there are cases when the police know someone is guilty but are unable to proceed, it's a bit like a local problem recently near my parents house where they could not take someone to court because the witness had given evidence, on the false promise that the criminal would admit guilt as soon as he was aware of a witness. The criminal carried on protesting his innocence and the witness refused to go to court and wanted to retract their statement.

There are situations like that where the police cannot get a conviction for one reason or another, and guilty people walk free!

Same goes, whatever. A factual basis is required otherwise you have a police state. I have in fact, many moons ago, been illegally arrested, held over night, had implied threats directed at me by a burly copper then chucked out of a cell in the neighbouring town in which I lived and was picked up. Trust me it's no fun - but a picnic at Henley Regatta compared to being held for three years with God knows what going on behind the scenes.

So, lame excuse for being in the region. As I said before wrong face, wrong place. Chuck away the key then.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

Still I didn't know you could house arrest without a charge. Unless this is fo less than 14 days as per the new terrorism law? If that is the case, then it puts a different slant on things. The UK government could have just left them in jail for 14 days, instead of being at home.

This new proposal is for indefinite house arrest, without charge. It will apply to both foreign terror suspects *and* British terror suspects (unlike the previous law it is replacing). It could also be used against suspected domestic terrorists (e.g. animal rights extremists, Irish loyalist/nationalist terrorists, etc.), as well as people suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda etc.


So, instead of foreign suspects being held indefinitely in Belmarsh, without charge or trial, the Government will now be able to hold suspects of any nationality indefinitely, without charge or trial...but under "house arrest", rather than in an actual prison.


Like the Anti-Terrorism Crime & Security Act before it, the new law will once again require the Government to derogate from part of the European Convention on Human Rights (the bit which guarantees the Right to Liberty).



Another story on it:

"Lawyers criticise house arrest plan"

edit: and another - http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/...399018,00.html

[punky]

Originally Posted by Matt D

This new proposal is for indefinite house arrest, without charge. It will apply to both foreign terror suspects *and* British terror suspects (unlike the previous law it is replacing). It could also be used against suspected domestic terrorists (e.g. animal rights extremists, Irish loyalist/nationalist terrorists, etc.), as well as people suspected of involvement with Al Qaeda etc.

Well as Ramrod correctly said a lot the time the security services collect evidence which is inadmissable in court or jeopardises ongoing investigations, but i'd still rather let these people go about their own free will. See who they are meeting etc. That's how you gather intelligence, not by isolating, but by encouraging it. Unless MI-5 is so overwelmed atm to do that, which it probably is. I don't think house arrests will solve much anyway. If Mohammed Atta was house arrested, there are probably a million more a***holes who would gladly take his spot.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

The point made on Radio4 this AM was that (iirc) those under house arrest will be hardcore types who they cannot prosecute because the evidence is inadmissible or disclosing the evidence against them would jeopardise an ongoing investigation.

So what it's really saying is "we say they're guilty, but we're not going to let anyone actually *see* the evidence to prove the fact".

Hmm, sounds very "just" to me...
__________________

Originally Posted by Damien

It may sound nice but freedom, democracy and the moral highground are not good tools against terrorism. They will commit their acts and kill and many people as possible to strike fear into the country and hopefully undermine the freedom and the rule of law.

So they want to undermine freedom and the rule of law and what do we do?

Remove people's basic rights, deny them fair trials and lock them up and throw away the key...

Civilised society 0 - Terrorists 1
__________________

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I think we can be sure that they won't waste too much time putting people who they have no evidence against under house arrest.

Sure. Like nobody wasted time locking people up in Guantanamo Bay or HMP Belmarsh...

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

So, lame excuse for being in the region. As I said before wrong face, wrong place. Chuck away the key then.

I am not in favour of giving police powers that they are able to abuse, but I wonder how many terrorist acts could be seen coming in countries that have previously not been used to those actions.

I would of thought we could all see that it's a bit strange when it's all added up that some of these guys change religions, I think at least one left his family and they go to a war torn place that is one of the most dangerous places in the world. As I said, if these guys were offering their services to a charity organisation like Red Cross, Oxfam etc etc, I would be agreeing with you all that they could be innocent and have been treated badly. However these guys were out there with lame excuses and I believe the Americans as always c***ed things up and this government has let them off without really getting to the bottom of their guilt or innocence. They have been let of because a portion of people in this country and the media are now making them out to be innocent without any time spent to investigate the facts.

I do have strong feelings on the subject of terrorism due to my present job, but I have to leave those things out of my discussions.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by skunk4u

Would you say the same if you lived in the USA?

They are currently under the same threat of terrorism that we have had for more than 30 years. We are still here.

I'll admit that 9/11 was the worst terrorist incident ever, but despite our governments trying to hype up the danger from terrorism, I don't believe we are any less safe than we were before.

Certainly no need to abandon the priniciples of democracy and justice that our society is built on.


If you give the government freedom to imprison who they want (which they can do if they don't have to go through a court of law), where will they stop? Will they imprison all the Muslims & Irish people because they MIGHT have links to terrorism? Clearly 99.99% of all those races will have nothing to do with terrorism.

Originally Posted by Escapee

I am not in favour of giving police powers that they are able to abuse.

.

Er, that doesn't seem to be the case from what you've said before. Power to detain without charge couldn't be abused? Be serious.


I take on board your comment about American incompetence but surely 3 years enough time to get to the bottom of innocent/guilt?

OOh, how mysterious your job sounds.

Final notes before I depart for the evening. The smoke without fire argument means that when I was picked up illegally, I was guilty (those cops are good cos even I didn't know that).

The good Dr Wadd is the wisest of all wise men and Incognitas his female counterpart.

Anyway Escapee, shouldn't you be getting off now. Fahrenheit 9/11 is on C4 now

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by andyl

Er, that doesn't seem to be the case from what you've said before. Power to detain without charge couldn't be abused? Be serious.


I take on board your comment about American incompetence but surely 3 years enough time to get to the bottom of innocent/guilt?

OOh, how mysterious your job sounds.

Final notes before I depart for the evening. The smoke without fire argument means that when I was picked up illegally, I was guilty (those cops are good cos even I didn't know that).

The good Dr Wadd is the wisest of all wise men and Incognitas his female counterpart.

Anyway Escapee, shouldn't you be getting off now. Fahrenheit 9/11 is on C4 now

No getting off now to bed, another early start.

My job is not that mysterious or exciting, but I guess even the cleaner at number 10 gets to notice the odd occasional thing!