656 days in prison and not convicted
AlanG
From the liberty web site
Terrorism
At the end of 2001, by implementing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
Security Act, the Government derogated from the protection against
detention without charge or trial which is provided by Article 5 of
the European Convention of Human Rights. Within days, eight people
were seized and detained. Many of them are still in detention, and
more have been detained since.
In the aftermath of September 11th, we needed reassurance that we
would be protected against terrorism. But in its determination to be
seen to be doing something, the Government rushed not to make us
safer, but to cut our freedoms. Rather than ensure our security
services were making best use of their powers and had the resources to
do so, the Government reached again for the statute book - less
justified and effective, but far more headline-making.
Hot on the heels of the Terrorism Act 2000, which risked making
crop-trampling a terrorist offence, it forced the Anti-Terrorism Crime
and SecurityAct through Parliament.
So now the UK is the only European country to ditch the Human Rights
Convention protection against arbitrary imprisonment - even though
other countries have faced - and tackled - far more direct threats.
Here, people have been locked up without charge or trial, not for
anything they have done but for something someone thinks they might
do. Some have been there since Christmas 2001; they still don't know
why, or what will happen to them.
In February 2002 investigators from the European Committee for the
Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
(CPT) came to the UK on a secret, emergency visit to investigate the
treatment of those interned. Liberty lawyers were amongst those
helping the Committee with its investigation and raised a number of
serious concerns:
* The internees have been denied access to family and lawyers for
long periods since their detention in December 2001.
* In contrast to the ordinary criminal justice system, where
everyonetaken into police custody has the right to a lawyer and can be
put in touch with one, there is no system in place to put detainees
(most of whom speak little or no English) in touch with a lawyer.
* All are being held in poor conditions and under a harsh regime
normally reserved for prisoners in a high-security jail - despite the
fact that they face indefinite detention on the basis of suspicion,
rather than charge or conviction.
* The process for challenging this internment is not fair,
adequate or sufficiently swift.
Eight people were interned under these powers in December 2001; seven
remained in custody by the end of January. After two months in prison,
none of the seven had yet had a substantive hearing on the
justification for their detention before the Special Immigration
Appeals Commission.
The CPT’s visit showed just how far Britain has stepped beyond the
normal bounds of justice with this extension of anti-terrorism powers.
It shows how out of step this country is with the rest of Europe in
terms of protecting people's rights while seeking to tackle terrorism.
In July 2002, after 8 months of secrecy, Liberty succeeded in
persuading the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) to hear
in public the case against interning 'terrorist suspects' without
charge or trial. It was the detainees' first chance to mount a legal
challenge to the legality of their detention. Liberty was given
special permission to intervene at the hearing and to make
submissions, principally on the legality of the derogation from the
ECHR.
The SIAC judges found that there was a public emergency justifying the
derogation from Article 5 of the ECHR - allowing people to be detained
without charge or trial - but found that the derogation was unlawful
and discriminatory because the new powers only concerned foreign
nationals. The judgment means a core part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime
& Security Act is contrary to the ECHR.
Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
to be. They do not know when their detention will cease. Liberty
believes they should be released immediately or charged with criminal
offences if the evidence exists. In October the Court of Appeal ruled
that there is no discrimination, the detainees being unlike British
nationals. Effectively, the Court has allowed the Home Office to strip
away all the protections for innocent people that our criminal justice
system can offer and has undermined our core value of equality before
the law.
Liberty continues to argue this detention power is unjust and
discriminatory, wrong in principle and a violation of human rights.
The Government should revoke this unfair law and end internment. This
power allows the Government to lock people up without charge or trial,
not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they
might do. Those detained should be charged if there is any evidence
against them, or released immediately if not.
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
Larry**
"AlanG" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:1sponv0t7t3q76svg...@4ax.com...
Steve Glynn
"Larry**" <Di...@slooberchat.com> wrote in message
news:blhu7q$mgf$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> It's a hard life innit.
Yes, it is, and it'll get a deal harder if and when (probably when, given
successive Home Secretaries' determination not to rest until they've managed
to lock up half the population) some bright spark thinks 'Hang on. At the
moment we can only do this to foriegn nationals whom we can't deport. But
we must have some British nationals who are potential terrorists and whom
we'd find it difficult to bring to trial for the very reasons we can't
easily try these foreign bods. Come to think of it, it's often difficult
to prosecute for serious crime anyway, what with the dangers of witness
intimidation and so forth .....'
God, I hope none of David Blunkett's staff read UKPM or UK legal, since I've
a horrible feeling I might just have given someone a 'good idea'.
Steve
Matthew Robb
>
>From the liberty web site
>
>Terrorism
>
>At the end of 2001, by implementing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
>Security Act, the Government derogated from the protection against
>detention without charge or trial which is provided by Article 5 of
>the European Convention of Human Rights. Within days, eight people
>were seized and detained. Many of them are still in detention, and
>more have been detained since.
<snip>
>Liberty continues to argue this detention power is unjust and
>discriminatory, wrong in principle and a violation of human rights.
>The Government should revoke this unfair law and end internment. This
>power allows the Government to lock people up without charge or trial,
>not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they
>might do. Those detained should be charged if there is any evidence
>against them, or released immediately if not.
keep up the good work on this Alan...
cheers
matt
AlanG
I can only help by reminding people.
I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
things but on this I am with them 100%.
James Hammerton
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 16:04:51 +0000 (UTC), Matthew Robb
> <matthew.robb1@delete this phrase.btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>From the liberty web site
> >>
> >>Terrorism
> >>
> >>At the end of 2001, by implementing the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
> >>Security Act, the Government derogated from the protection against
> >>detention without charge or trial which is provided by Article 5 of
> >>the European Convention of Human Rights. Within days, eight people
> >>were seized and detained. Many of them are still in detention, and
> >>more have been detained since.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >>Liberty continues to argue this detention power is unjust and
> >>discriminatory, wrong in principle and a violation of human rights.
> >>The Government should revoke this unfair law and end internment. This
> >>power allows the Government to lock people up without charge or trial,
> >>not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they
> >>might do. Those detained should be charged if there is any evidence
> >>against them, or released immediately if not.
> >
> >keep up the good work on this Alan...
> >
>
> I can only help by reminding people.
That is valuable in itself.
> I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
> things
I disagree with them on some things too, but they're probably the most
famous civil liberties group in Britain and do a hell of a lot of good
work.
> but on this I am with them 100%.
Ditto!
Note that AIUI if one of the detainees were to voluntarily agree to
move to another country they'd be let go (assuming that country's
acceptance). This does not make sense -- if they're really terrorists,
letting them disappear into another country would allow them to
continue plotting terrorist acts against Britain and/or her interests
and nationals abroad. If they're not then they should be let go.
James
--
James Hammerton, http://jameshammerton.blogspot.com/
http://www.let.rug.nl/~james
http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~james (mirrored at above site)
Contributor to http://www.magnacartaplus.org/
AlanG
<jamesha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
They do indeed. I fell out with them over the closed shop which
incidentally is sneaking back in under the guise of safety
legislation.
>
>> but on this I am with them 100%.
>
>Ditto!
>
>Note that AIUI if one of the detainees were to voluntarily agree to
>move to another country they'd be let go (assuming that country's
>acceptance). This does not make sense -- if they're really terrorists,
>letting them disappear into another country would allow them to
>continue plotting terrorist acts against Britain and/or her interests
>and nationals abroad. If they're not then they should be let go.
>
You expect intelligent actions from this bunch of tooters?
>James
Matthew Robb
>>>Liberty continues to argue this detention power is unjust and
>>>discriminatory, wrong in principle and a violation of human rights.
>>>The Government should revoke this unfair law and end internment. This
>>>power allows the Government to lock people up without charge or trial,
>>>not for anything they have done but for something someone thinks they
>>>might do. Those detained should be charged if there is any evidence
>>>against them, or released immediately if not.
>>
>>keep up the good work on this Alan...
>>
>
>I can only help by reminding people.
>I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
>things but on this I am with them 100%.
maybe it is possible to do more.
Interested in thinking about it?
cheers
matt
Paul Rain
>I can only help by reminding people.
>I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
>things but on this I am with them 100%.
Difficult. If a few genuinely innocent people have to be held, isn't
it worth it if it saves a few more thousand people like 9/11 ?
If no. Wouldn't you change your mind if your daughter was one of the
next victims?
Scott
"Paul Rain" <nom...@here.com> wrote in message
news:krtsnvg1uk0e4ola2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:34:42 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
> >I can only help by reminding people.
> >I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
> >things but on this I am with them 100%.
>
> Difficult. If a few genuinely innocent people have to be held, isn't
> it worth it if it saves a few more thousand people like 9/11 ?
>
No. It is always possible to take more and more extreme measures following
such an argument.
> If no. Wouldn't you change your mind if your daughter was one of the
> next victims?
>
No. Many of the families of the victims of 9/11 do not agree with the
measures taken in their name - which rather undermines that argument. Would
you change your mind if you were imprisoned for 656 days? Isn't that a
better test?
ax...@white-eagle.co.uk
> > Difficult. If a few genuinely innocent people have to be held, isn't
> > it worth it if it saves a few more thousand people like 9/11 ?
> No. Many of the families of the victims of 9/11 do not agree with the
> measures taken in their name - which rather undermines that argument. Would
> you change your mind if you were imprisoned for 656 days? Isn't that a
> better test?
Quite. Why do people keep raising a few happenings in America and
elsewhere to justify measures in the UK? I now and again have a drink in
a pub which was once blown apart by a bomb. True, bags were checked for
a long time afterwards, but everything is now very relaxed.
Axel
AlanG
wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:34:42 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I can only help by reminding people.
>>I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
>>things but on this I am with them 100%.
>
>Difficult. If a few genuinely innocent people have to be held, isn't
>it worth it if it saves a few more thousand people like 9/11 ?
In what way is locking up someone who has not been convicted of an
offence and who is there solely because some unnamed government
official believes he may be a danger in the future, going to stop a
terrorist attack?
>
>If no. Wouldn't you change your mind if your daughter was one of the
>next victims?
>
Once the checks against arbitrary arrest and imprisonment are removed
the precedent has been set for future governments to expand on. It
could be that my daughter or myself or even you may be the next victim
of the state. The state as it is evolving is a more immediate threat
to me and my family than any terrorist group.
Solon
the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
>have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
>to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
the case?
(* Which is presumably why it applies only to foreign nationals.)
--
Solon
James Hammerton
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> enlightened
> the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>
> >Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
> >have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
> >to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
>
> My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
> any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
> the case?
I believe it is the case. Which only highlights the absurdity since if
the person concerned really is a terrorist, allowing him to disappear
into another country is hardly the safest course of action since it
frees him to continue his activities (he should be prosecuted), and if
not what's the point in holding him or deporting him? Incidentally the
country concerned may need to agree to this...
AlanG
>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> enlightened
>the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>
>>Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
>>have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
>>to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
>
>My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
>any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
>the case?
My understanding is they need permission from another country to
enter.
>
>(* Which is presumably why it applies only to foreign nationals.)
And will no doubt apply to UK citizens soon enough. You do recall the
expression "thin end of the wedge" and what it means?
PeteM
>On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 18:34:42 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I can only help by reminding people.
>>I'm not a member of Liberty since I disagree with their stance on some
>>things but on this I am with them 100%.
>
>Difficult. If a few genuinely innocent people have to be held, isn't
>it worth it if it saves a few more thousand people like 9/11 ?
No, and in any case it's a very big "if".This sort of law would not have
stopped the original 9/11 hijackers. Why would it stop another lot?
>
>If no. Wouldn't you change your mind if your daughter was one of the
>next victims?
>
Yes, but that is irrelevant. If someone murdered one of my kids, I would
be ready to torture him to death in a disgustingly barbarous fashion
over a period of several weeks. However, laws should not be designed
purely to satisfy the feelings of bereaved parents. They have a much
wider remit than that.
--
PeteM
JPB
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:42:49 +0100, Solon <nob...@nowt.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> enlightened
>>the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>>
>>>Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
>>>have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
>>>to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
>>
>>My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
>>any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
>>the case?
>
>My understanding is they need permission from another country to
>enter.
>>
>>(* Which is presumably why it applies only to foreign nationals.)
>
>And will no doubt apply to UK citizens soon enough. You do recall the
>expression "thin end of the wedge" and what it means?
>
>
It could conceivably be applied to at least some UK citizens already,
those that have dual/first nationality in another country, in addition
to legitimately held UK citizenship.
AIUI, under measures brought in for the Hamza case, it is now possible
that UK citizenship can be removed from such a dual national, which
would make them a "foreign" national to which these detention measures
could be applied. One case such as Hamza comes and goes; but those
provisions presumably remain extant, and it's not necessary for the
authorities to justify them again before applying them to future cases
which may not be anything like the original case used to get the
measures into place.
And "safeguards" are all very well; but it's much easier to erode
"safeguards" in the future, than it was to introduce the measure itself
in the first place.
--
JPB
AlanG
wrote:
>In article <q26unv0rjh055rcse...@4ax.com>, AlanG
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:42:49 +0100, Solon <nob...@nowt.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> enlightened
>>>the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>>>
>>>>Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
>>>>have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
>>>>to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
>>>
>>>My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
>>>any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
>>>the case?
>>
>>My understanding is they need permission from another country to
>>enter.
>>>
>>>(* Which is presumably why it applies only to foreign nationals.)
>>
>>And will no doubt apply to UK citizens soon enough. You do recall the
>>expression "thin end of the wedge" and what it means?
>>
>>
>
>It could conceivably be applied to at least some UK citizens already,
>those that have dual/first nationality in another country, in addition
>to legitimately held UK citizenship.
Difficult without removing UK citizenship
>
>AIUI, under measures brought in for the Hamza case, it is now possible
>that UK citizenship can be removed from such a dual national, which
>would make them a "foreign" national to which these detention measures
>could be applied. One case such as Hamza comes and goes; but those
>provisions presumably remain extant, and it's not necessary for the
>authorities to justify them again before applying them to future cases
>which may not be anything like the original case used to get the
>measures into place.
This looks like another example of the 'thin end' principle
>
>And "safeguards" are all very well; but it's much easier to erode
>"safeguards" in the future, than it was to introduce the measure itself
>in the first place.
Experience with the laws on rights to self defence have shown that to
be true.
JPB
>On Sun, 5 Oct 2003 11:25:46 +0100, JPB <news@europa{.}demon{.}co{.}uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <q26unv0rjh055rcse...@4ax.com>, AlanG
>><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 18:42:49 +0100, Solon <nob...@nowt.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 19:01:37 +0100, AlanG <m...@privacy.net> enlightened
>>>>the denizens of uk.politics.misc by writing:
>>>>
>>>>>Despite this ruling, nine people remain in detention. These people
>>>>>have not been charged with any offence, nor it seems are they likely
>>>>>to be. They do not know when their detention will cease.
>>>>
>>>>My understanding is that they can bring their detention to an end at
>>>>any time they wish, by simply agreeing to be deported*. Is that not
>>>>the case?
>>>
>>>My understanding is they need permission from another country to
>>>enter.
>>>>
>>>>(* Which is presumably why it applies only to foreign nationals.)
>>>
>>>And will no doubt apply to UK citizens soon enough. You do recall the
>>>expression "thin end of the wedge" and what it means?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>It could conceivably be applied to at least some UK citizens already,
>>those that have dual/first nationality in another country, in addition
>>to legitimately held UK citizenship.
>
>Difficult without removing UK citizenship
>
Yes - but AIUI that is now possible for people that have dual/other
first nationality? And I don't see what is to stop UK citizenship being
removed *in order* to apply the detention without trial measures?
Presumably if such a case were to arise, whatever was necessary WRT
terror threat would be alleged in order to "justify" it?
>>
>>AIUI, under measures brought in for the Hamza case, it is now possible
>>that UK citizenship can be removed from such a dual national, which
>>would make them a "foreign" national to which these detention measures
>>could be applied. One case such as Hamza comes and goes; but those
>>provisions presumably remain extant, and it's not necessary for the
>>authorities to justify them again before applying them to future cases
>>which may not be anything like the original case used to get the
>>measures into place.
>
>This looks like another example of the 'thin end' principle
I haven't heard of another case of the power being used, but I *still*
fail to understand how removal of legitimately gained citizenship can be
justified. If a UK citizen (dual or not) has committed an offence then
let him be charged, brought to trial according to law, and if convicted
sentenced accordingly.
If he has not (yet) committed an offence, or evidence is insufficient,
but it is suspected that he may have committed or may commit an offence,
then surely that is a matter for the police (and in the case of
terrorism, intelligence services) to pursue investigation and/or
surveillance as may be necessary (and lawful!).
None of this nonsense about rescinding citizenship, or detention without
trial, dual nationals or not, foreign nationals or not. If those things
are permitted, then fundamental liberties are at risk, since once the
door is open to the possibility it may be pushed wider at a later date -
whereas if it is taken for granted that such things are automatically
unacceptable there can be no argument about when it might be acceptable
or not.
And I don't know that much about the UK detainees, or for that matter
the Guantanamo detainees, nor any that may be held in mainland USA or at
US bases in other countries - but whatever they may or may not have
done, I still say that they should be charged with a crime in an
appropriate civilian court if there is the evidence to support it, and
released if not.
In the case of captives taken in war, such as at Guantanamo, the option
exists as an alternate to declare them prisoners of war, and repatriate
them now that the war(s) in which they were taken are over. That would
also be acceptable.
--
JPB