As someone opposed to the war in Iraq, I can't say I'm overwhelmed with pleasure at Blair's Common's defeat.
I believe that while a 90 day detention period could be abused by the police, the safeguards introduced before the vote would have provided a reasonable compromise in difficult circumstances.
It's all very well for us to get sniffy about civil liberties, but what of the liberty of the 7/7 dead and injured and their families? The police requested the 90 day time period because the scale of today's threat meant that they would often have to act quickly in order to avert an attack and it could take longer than 14 days to gather sufficient evidence to charge a suspect. In France an investigating judge can order a suspect held for two years before trial, so talk of this being extraordinary in Europe was bollocks. This was not internment.
And no, I don't necessarily believe the police, nor Blair. I don't doubt injustices would result because of this legislation. But surely the risk of a three month loss of liberty, no matter how unfair, is worth it if it saves just one single life?
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
JULY 7 VICTIM'S MOTHER LAMBASTS MPS
Thursday 10 November 2005 08:38am
The mother of one of the July 7 bomb victims hit out at MPs who voted down the proposal to hold terror suspects for 90 days without charge.
She said 28 days would not be enough to find out what suspects knew.
Hair stylist Phil Beer, 22, from Borehamwood, Hertfordshire, was killed in the Tube blast near King's Cross. His mother Kim, 47, said: "They should be able to hold them for 90 days. You are not going to get anything sorted out in 28 days."
She added: "The politicians should stand behind the police and help them. But if the authorities had done their job properly four months ago, when these people were being trailed and thought not to be a threat, then they would not have been allowed to kill 52 innocent people."
Richard Deer, whose girlfriend Karolina Gluck, 29, was killed in the Piccadilly Line blast, said he thought 28 days was "probably right".
He said: "My view is two weeks is not sufficient, and 28 days is probably right. I think three months is too much. What if it is an innocent person - and if you bring in the example of the Brazilian, that shows that the police can make mistakes."
This was a reference to the case of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was shot in error by police on July 22 - a day after an attempted second wave of terrorist attacks on London's transport network.
Stephen Vaughan, 37, whose friends Samantha Badham, 35, and her partner Lee Harris, 30, were killed in the King's Cross blast, said he was disappointed that the Government's plans had been defeated.
"Perhaps before July 7 my opinion might have been different but now I feel that as a society we should invest more trust in the police and the process of government in a situation that is completely abnormal."
Mr Vaughan, a photographer, said he believed that the loss of a terror suspect's liberty for that period of time was justified, adding: "I do have my reservations but I lost two friends and if that law had been in place maybe things would have been different."
Hmm, yes, sod parliament, let's go with the hair stylist's mum's advice.
Actually, I found the most enlightening piece on the whole 90-days thing was Gareth Pierce's "Don't be Duped by Yet Another Dodgy Dossier" in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1637162,00.html
If the police claim that the outcome of the ricin case would have been different if they had had 90 days to detain suspects, then why did they release the prime conspirator after 2 days questioning? They ought to start making more use of their existing 14 days before claiming that they haven't got enough time.
Well, a dead hair stylist's mum, all the nation's senior police officers and Lord Carlile of Berriew, the independent minded reviewer of terrorist legislation.
Post a Comment