Human Rights for Terror Suspects

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Darthspud, Apr 13, 2006.

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. What sort of message is the British judiciary putting out with this sort of legal double talk?
    The suspects human rights have been infringed,
    The judge,by his own admission, hasn't seen all the pertinent facts
    The suspect isn't exactly jumping up and down wanting press coverage.

    Judge sends mixed message

    I get the distinct impression that all our liberal left-wing do-gooders would be outraged if one 'innocent 'person was subject to a restraining order but, would soon be bleating on, had that same person committed a terrorist act they would be absolutely furious, because our security services were in anyway impeded by the judiciary.

    IMHO, better one person is slightly inconvenienced then tens, if not hundreds, die by a sin of omission for fear of upsetting a) the liberal press,b)a few religious and political fanatics.
  2. Is it just my PC or does that link go to the microsoft website?
  3. terror suspects don't have any rights.
  4. Astounding that the suspect is considered to have had his human rights infringed in confiscating his passport when, alledgedly by admission, he was leaving the country to fight our troops in Iraq. What about the human rights of those he was intentionally going to injure? Surely there's an obligation to act upon this knowledge and prevent the suspect from carrying out his threat? :evil:
  5. The judge raises a good point - why can't he be given access to all the facts and then decide if a control order is warranted?

  6. So you'd advocate allowing possibly dangerous information or enough information to allow someone to be able to work out the source of that evidence? That may put the method of obtaining such evidence in the public domain and allow potential terrorists to counter such evidence obtaining methods. In the worst possible case it could put the lives of undercover agents at risk or require them to be withdrawn and stop the flow of intelligence available from them.

    All sound like very valid reasons for not allowing all the evidence to be made public to me.
  7. why a control order? Should be done for treason. Better still let him go to iraq/afgansitan and then give the troops a free reign to shoot him on sight. :evil:
  8. Im sorry your bang out of order :evil: . Shooting on sight gives them a chance. :idea: Bring back the nose.

    Live by the sword then die by the sword :!:
  9. I'm not argueing for the entire case to be heard in public. I'm saying a selection of judges should be given security clearance. These chaps could then review each of these control orders in private and decide whether its warranted or not. That way the secrets are still secrets... we've dramatically reduced the chances of a miscarriage of justice.... everone's a winner!

  10. You all go on about terror suspects being given no rights, hanged etc etc but that is exactly what they are... SUSPECTS. Im sure no one here would appreciate being pulled in on terrorist charges and then being tortured for information that you didn't have by some hard cnut like Jack Bauer or whatever.

    Fair one once they're proved guilty i'd be the first in line to join the firing squad and put these little cnuts out of their misery but you can't just assume everyone that is brought in on suspicion of terrorism as guilty.
  11. Higround,
    and read the post
    Better one innocent person subject to a control order than 100's dead
    With our judicial compensation system, any person proven to be innocent would be set for life with a state hand-out.
    The security services have to satisfy a High Court Judge to get these restraining orders, not some local bigotted magistrate, so the issuing Judge should be the one to review as he/she would have all relevant facts.
    If the Home secretary issues the restraining order then he surely takes government legal advice before doing so.

    Remember , these SUSPECTS are just that, Suspected of something, and no it's not nicking sweeties from the corner shop or fraudulent travel claims or shouting abuse and running away , it's potential terrorist activities .

    Life isn't Hollywood Jack Bauer shite ,so stop trying to oversimplify for the MTV generation, most site contributors have I.Q.'S vastly above amoeba, even if we choose to sometimes ignore them.

  12. In respect of your first point, I would contend that it is better that 100 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent person goes to the gallows.

    Secondly, a person found innocent would not be set for life and they would not receive any state hand out. The purpose of a criminal trial (as this initially was) is to regulate the behaviour between the individual and the state - it is about punishments and setting an example. There are avenues of exploitation in which such compensation could be secured of course, however this is a separate argument which detracts from the flavour of your reply.

    Thirdly, the appropriate prosecuting authority (more likely Special Branch or SO13 than the security services), would not have to satisfy the High Court judge as to the procedural correctness, evidence or validity of anything in respect of this matter. The judge is reviewing the legal procedures through which this matter was brought about and not the factual evidence on which the decision is based. That is to say he is concerned with matters of law and not matters of fact. This is a judicial review case and not an appeal.

    Fourthly, whether the Home Secretary takes legal advice or not is to a measured degree irrelevant. There is a principle within the UK constititution called the separation of powers, I will not bore you with the details but essentially the Home Secretary and his legal advisors are one and the same. The whole point of the Judge's argument is that the decisions should be subject to a review or appeals procedure by a fair and independant tribunal (this is the Human Rights bit).

    Fifthly, and I revert to your colourful example of reconciling terrorist activities with stealing sweets - the underlying principle is suspicion. It is quite right and proper that there should be more stringent measures meted out for the potential terrorist, than what there would be for the potential shoplifter, but this does not detract from the principle of proportionality.

    On the facts, the measures meted out are (possibly) disproportional and the legal principles that underwite them are (possibly) incompatible with the Human Rights Act. This is the point that the Judge was making.

    Whether you, me or anybody else (including the Home Secretary), agrees with it or not is a matter for them. In the case of the Home Secretary, he can take the matter to the House of Lords, and possibly to ECtHR, or make representations in the form of a members bill to expressly repeal the Human Rights Act.

    In the case of you, me and everybody else, that's the law.
  13. The rule of the law is prefereable to that of any idividual, nuff said