Anti Terror Laws your views ... ?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by terrible_ivan, Nov 7, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I don't like the idea that 90 days is what it might take to deem you innocent, meanwhile you are prevented from your usual phonecalls and human rights. I understand that we are in (self inflicted) difficult times, but these new laws go too far, don't you agree... ? Your views :
  2. maninblack

    maninblack LE Book Reviewer

    Section 4 was the prototype and look what happened there.

    This will be abused on a regular basis and outside of the terrorist scenario.

    It is the desperate act of a morally and politically bankrupt regime intent of breaching Magna Carta and Habeus Corpus in the pursuit of power.
  3. i predict a riot
  4. Do you not think that the 90 days was what i call the quatermaster stroke?

    IE you always ask for double what you really want, therefore they are really looking for it to be cut down to 45 days?

  5. Agreed Oneshot.

    Always thought they are giving an outrageous figure and then will be seen to be reasonable when reducing it to some lesser amount. Everyone happy and fairness/compromise seen to be done.

    I think we will finish up with approximately one month ie, the 28 days everyone seems to be talking about now.
  6. The 90 days was recommended by the police due to the complication of inquiries into terrorism. One guy was released after 14 days and following this, the police discovered further evidence. By this time he had fled the country but fortunately has been arrested in Algeria, what would have happened if he'd been in the advanced planning stages of a suicide attack is obvious. The 90 days is a maximum spell, would be reviewed by a judge on a weekly basis and would be open to scrutiny. The bottom line is, if the police get it wrong and arrests the wrong individual, they lose 90 days liberty. If the police have the right guy and have to release early, many innocent people could lose their lives. At present, the 14 day rule gives the terrorists a positive advantage which must be removed. I'm sure any of the murdering scum who are taken into custody, would have numerous civil liberty types fighting their corner. We are at war and in any war, civil liberties have to be balanced against security. Did anyone complain when Germans and Italian nationals were interned during WW2? We are fighting an even more evil idealogy now and our hands are being tied.
  7. 90 days is steep, but I agree with it, as it will also serve as a deterent, I just dont want to see a Guantanamo type instalation on the Falklands. :twisted: :twisted:
  8. Anyone explain the justification for 90 days? Link or similar appreciated.

    If the justification is somewhere in black and white most people would go for it I think but when you see politicians from all sides questioning it you have to wonder.
  9. I am opposed to 90 detention (funny that being a left wing liberal), however, if MPs want to convince me of its value. Might I suggest that the Police are free to detain for 90 days those MPs suspected of breaching Ministerial or Parliamentary rules!

    The Rt Hon Blunket and Buyers need not collect £200 on their way to Paddington Green Police Station. (I am sure that after 90 days the police could find the evidence that we know is out there!!)

    Edited for grammar.. :oops:
  10. The reason Parliament is kicking up a fuss is nothing to do with genuine concerns about security or civil liberties, they are putting their own anti Blair agenda before the defence of this country. they smell blood so are going for it. They are putting party political advantage above peoples lives. they should be hanging their heads in shame.
  11. Herrenbloke, I think you will find many Liberals, Conservative and Labour MPs are not happy with the 90 days. Yes the Tory Party has a 3 line whip on this but mainly because the wide consultation did not resolve the matter. The conservative spokesman said last night on R4 that he personally was uncomfortable with any extension but as a party they were willing to consider 28 days as a maximum.

    Just because the Police want something to help fight terrorism does not make it right. We already have extra-judicial killings by the Police, then 90 days detention, what next.........Internment? Torture?

    The problem is whether it is needed as part of our national security; we have to TRUST the police. At the end of the day no system, or set of policies can stop a determined terrorist completely, therefore it is balance between our wider civil liberties and the threat posed.

    What about Peado's, OP ORE those investigations took months, we could apply the same principles to Peado's lock them up on suspicion and then release them a year later if we find no evidence. Then the door is opened, what about wife/husband beaters, in fact all spouses because statistically spouses are the largest group of killers in this country.
  12. 90 days seems like a long time and may well render us in breach of the human freedoms that we are attempting to protect, however, with the proper controls and in extremis this may well be the only way open to us at the moment to get inside the decision loop of the enemy; a loop that, at the moment is running rings around our own ability to combat it.
  13. Once again, the UK Gov't seeks to extend its control over the people.

    This country has become more of a Police State & less democratic than many former Communist countries.

    If the Police & Security Services cannot unearth what they're after in 14 days - that's TWICE the length of time allowed in any other "Democratic" nation, then some serious questions need to be asked about their fitness to do the job.
  14. It's a difficult one. But remember, they only have to be lucky once, we have to be lucky all the time.
  15. I'm opposed because Bliar says he wants it. He claimed there were WMD in Iraq etc.

    Blears and others have lied about the security services supporitng such a move. They have not.

    I can see why the police would want this law, but it is ridiculous to tear up the fundamental rights of Her Majesty's citizens for a law that would be used in a handful of cases, assuming they got the right blokes! If there are concerns with evidence gathering, then the law could be amended to require disclosure of encryption codes by means of a court order etc.

    I guarantee (a cast iron guarantee) that if this law reaches the statute books, we will see the likes of Walter Wolfgang kicking his heels in prison for a few weeks pour encourager les autres.