‘42 days’ is about lives, not popularity

Tom Harris MP Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

A poll in today’s Telegraph suggests 65 per cent of the electorate supports an extension of pre-trial detention for terrorist suspects to 42 days. The only surprising thing about that figure is how low it is.

I spoke to a Tory frontbencher last week, who effectively admitted that in government his party would be far more likely to support this kind of measure, on the basis that a government’s first duty is protection of the country’s citizens, whereas the duty of the opposition… isn’t, really. Pretty shameful attitude. Labour, in the years BT*, voted regularly against the annual renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Only under Tony did we come to our senses and realise that only parties which take security seriously in opposition can be trusted with government.

The same is true today. The 42 days clause should be supported, not because it’s popular (though it is) but because it will help protect people. If the Tories understand this but oppose it for party political reasons, then they are not fit to govern.

*Before Tony

Visit Tom's blog (if you can stomach it).






tags: , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
‘42 days’ is about lives, not popularity | 24 comments (24 topical)

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#1)

by NB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:33:35 PM GMT

The question in this poll was completely misleading. the "42 days" issue, which purports to show public support, is seriously flawed. The question was "do you support/oppose changing the law to increase time police allowed to hold terrorist suspects from 28 to 42 days"  As you and I both know, that is not the issue - the proposal is to increase time police allowed to hold terrorist suspects without charge - and charges can be brought if there is evidence of reasonable suspicion. So the proposal is in fact to hold terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge when, even after 28 days, there is no evidence of reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence.  And this is what every legally literate person realises is completely wrong.

Jacquie Smith is apparently privately against it, and there is absolutely no evidence that it is needed. Also, at best the 42 days might make it easier to convict terrorists - there is no reason at all to think that it would help foil any terrorist plots.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#2)

by Tom Harris MP on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:45:04 PM GMT

"the proposal is in fact to hold terrorist suspects for up to 42 days without charge when, even after 28 days, there is no evidence of reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence."

This is utter fiction. No-one can be held for up to 28 days unless there is reasonable suspicion of an offence having been committed or planned. That's why, despite all the warnings of "internment" when it was raised to 28 days, only a handful of people were subsequently held for the maximum without charge. If we're going to have a reasonable debate, can we please not just make up nonsense like in that last comment.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#3)

by doctordunc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:56:22 PM GMT

But it isn't nonsense is it, Tom?  I mean, it's the whole point.  THe fact that so few people have been held for anything like 28 days without charge is merely testament to how unneccessary this is.

It clearly IS the case that what is being proposed here is that people, who have been detained for nearly a month, could be detained for further weeks without any evidence.  If there was evidence then you could charge somebody.  If the evidence that you're considering is inadmissable, then look again at that - it would be far less controversial to (for example) allow phone-tap evidence under clear regulations in criminal cases, than to extend the period of internment. 

Sadly, I fear that, for those wanting to push on with this, 42 days is about popularity not lives.  The lives that will be effected by these proposals are those of anybody kept for up to 42 days without charge and their families.  It is also a scheme that could have been invented to marginalise people, sow disaffection, and radicalise young muslims. 

It is an idiotic policy that should be ditched today.


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#15)

by alexhilton on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 09:40:02 PM GMT

What we're talking about is detention without charge.

Surely it is absolutely fundamental to British justice that the accused is told what is the crime of which they are accused?

If there is evidence, a person should be charged and a case against them prepared for trial.

If I were an innocent man imprisoned without charge for six weeks, would you expect me to remain an engaged citizen?

But it won't be me, because I'm not quite brown enough - and in any community where an innocent muslim boy is detained without hearing the accusation against him, you will create 100 or 1,000 youngsters with no reason to accept that the state act in their benefit.

The most cynical element of this is that the whips have been telling Labour MPs that the concessions to the Bill make it almost unworkable anyway. Gordon just needs a bill passed containing the words "42 days" so he can save face.

Frankly, it's not worth it


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#4)

by Group51 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 05:56:57 PM GMT

Yes, it's about protecting the public.  Because you're self-delusion (I think I am charitable to call it that) over weapons of mass destruction, has made Britain a much safer country, right?  Oh.  But we should still trust your judgements over our own right?  Hmm.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#5)

by orzr on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:40:21 PM GMT

"The 42 days clause should be supported ... because it will help protect people"

I'm sorry but it just isn't good enough to state this when no one seems able to provide any proof that the statement is true. Tony Blair told us that we needed to go to war in Iraq to protect people from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't provide us any proof that this was necessary - he said we'd just need to trust him, which many people did.

Now we have the same Labour government asking us to trust them that 42 days is needed although they can't produce any evidence that it is. Why should we trust them any more when it seems more plausible that the 42 days was suggested purely for political reasons to show that Labour was tougher on terrorism than the Tories?


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 06:41:56 PM GMT

Civil liberties should not be put to a popularity contest. The government should protect and enshrine freedoms from the excessive power of the state no matter how unpopular that may be.

A recent poll for the Economist showed 75% of Britons supported bringing back capital punishment - would you support a Labour government bringing it back Tom?


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#7)

by bishophill on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:00:07 PM GMT

Perhaps Mr Harris can explain to us why two days is sufficient for American police, but forty-two days is considered necessary here. Are the forces of law and order in this country really so incompetent?


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#8)

by doctordunc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:03:05 PM GMT

I hope this post doesn't reveal the real reason why the government is pressing on with this dreadful policy: to construct a 'the tories are soft on security' narrative.

Nothing would delight me more than an excuse to bash the tories - it's my favourite pastime, after all - but this is a ludicrous approach to take for a couple of reasons:

1) The government has got this one wrong, and all legal opinion feels that way;
2) As you yourself point out, the Tories would probably have been proposing this if they were in government - there really is no future in trying to attack the Tories from the right;
3) It would be more shameful for us to throw away hard-won civil liberties for a short-term electoral 'narrative' than it is for them to pretend to be quite liberal for a bit of opposing.  After all, part of the job of the opposition is to oppose, and it would be truly scandalous if this thing got through on opposition votes.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#9)

by otware on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:24:38 PM GMT

I'd like to reiterate NorthernMonkey's point about civil liberties not being an issue for a popularity contest.

Can you explain to me how holding somebody for 42 days without charge will save anybody? If you have evidence, you charge them. There have been no cases where 42 days is justified.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#10)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 07:50:47 PM GMT

The Government's refusal to make phone tap evidence legally admissable, as in the US and many other countries, has instead prompted this bizarre responce.

The dismantling of plea barganing, apparently, has also meant that the "alternatives" reign into overt state control and the "need" to bang up people for a full 42 days.

Now, the problem is, some supporters have said things about "It's only terrorists who will be effected, not every day people." The problem is, said law is potentially open to abuse of some form. What if a meglomanical government who had significantly been able to curry favour, or undermine the police came into power and promptly abuse this power to lock up political opponents of some form, on the basis of  they were "Betrayers" of the country?

Plus, when said "Terrorists" are potentially anyone this law can be used to do just that. Lock up anyone.

Now, the public might think it's a good idea, but as Paddy Ashdown said: "Sorry guys, but the Public can be wrong."

Now, here I have to cite the article written by Sir John Major.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4075503.ece

It's an interesting article and I emplore folks to read it and just take heed, you don't have to agree, and I don't try to force that upon you, but I feel he's right.

When we were up against the more regular and almost continous bombing campaign by the IRA, we didn't need these laws.

Why, when now we face a threat which seems a lot more dormant, and indeed, slower with 1 successful and 2 attempted attacks in 7 years.

[Especially when one compares this to the IRA, which carried out at least one attack on British Soil per year since the start of the troubles.]

Do we need this? I still remain highly skeptical of what could be a ruinous life experience, that is more likely to fuel anger towards certain groups of people in the UK, than to face a slightly higher risk from life.

I mean, 107 people each day are killed in road accidents. [Nat stats]

Life is filled with risk. I could die the second I get into a bath, turn on the kettle, or even getting out of bed in the morning, or when I drive to work every day. Getting blown up by some cross eyed fanatic because we didn't have 42 days to lock him away is peanuts by comparison.

 


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#11)

by swatantra on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:04:27 PM GMT

Tom Harris is absolutely wrong on this one; its about doing the right thing. The Govt has talked itself into a state of paranoia. As other posters have said, lets get the whole thing in perspective. Some 50 people killed in 7/7, but hundreds get killed on the roads or other accidents. Its all about risk. Get the actuaries calculating the risks involved and then decide whether all this nonsense on the 'war on terror' is actually worth it. 
The other point is that the Opposition's job is to pick holes in Govt policies. So there can never be any moral basis for the way they vote.


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#12)

by Group51 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:13:14 PM GMT

It is such a diversion!  We'd do much more to tackle Al-quaeda in this country by:

- condemning both IDF and Hamas terror

- actively promoting UN 242 and the Geneva Accords

- withdrawing from Iraq asap and apologising/expressing regret for all the chaos and death


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#13)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:24:59 PM GMT

That last one I would say no too.

The Terrorists from most of the Middle East are being sucked into Iraq right now, and are being faced down by the Iraqi military as well as the Coalition. If we withdrew, they'll simply treat it as our withdrawal and come here and attack us. Then 42 days wouldn't seem enough. And so the cycle would go on and on until eventually "Fortress Britain" would have to become a reality just so we could stop facing the terror threat.

Appeasement is not the answer because every time we have appeased, it's not worked.

Germany

Northern Ireland

Are examples of when British Politics has tried appeasement, and failed. 


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#14)

by Group51 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 08:55:37 PM GMT

I didn't say appeasement, I've no interest in appeasing Al-quaeda, fundamentalists can't be appeased.  Illegal occupations, illegal settlements and illegal wars are wrong.  They are also touchpaper issues that fuel much of the wider softer support for Al-quaeda.

Iraqis need to fight off Al-queada, and take back their country, with whoevers support they want, but we need to recognise there is some chicken and egg there. AQ wasn't in Iraq before the coalition invaded, made war and conquered.


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#22)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 08:40:43 PM GMT

Al-Zarqawi openly said he was causing terror to provoke Shia insurgents. If Iraqis had attacked us on 7/7, then I couldn't deny a link with foreign policy.

Fascism breeds in the poorest areas. There is rife unemployment in Iraq, particuarly amongst the young, primarily young Sunni men. Neo-liberalism has been unforced upon Iraqis. We need to withdraw World Bank funds until they relinquish their control of Iraq's economy. They can then gain control of their oil supplies. We need to pour our money now spent on troops, into Iraq's healthcare, education, but also in to food supplies, and water and sanitation systems. We need to help tackle inequality in Iraq. This will beat extremism there.

In Afghanistan, we will beat terrorism by allowing them to have 60% of their GDP legitamised. In Pakistan, we should help fund secular education. By helping girls there to read, it would serve as a hammer blow to Islamic fundamentalism.


[ Parent ]

Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#16)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM GMT

Tom

Where on earth is your evidence that extension of detention without charge to 42 days would save lives?

The argument about saving lives (even if it could be shown to be true) is a very poor one. If you would increase detention without charge to 42 days to save lives, then why not 100 days, which might save more, and why not five years? It is a specious argument.

Furthermore answer me this: what price do you put on liberty?

You are overturning (in fact you have already overturned) rights enshrined in Magna Carta.

The latest proposals are also perilously close to the Star Chamber - the right of the executive to detain people. Now I know you will cry nonsense to this (and everything else no doubt), but parliament will in effect be voting on the detention of individuals. As well as abrogating habeas corpus (introduced partly as a safeguard against mistreatment and torture) you are undermining the presumption of innocence and perhaps preventing the possibility of a fair trial.

It is a shameful proposal, doubly so from a Labour government, and though I am a loyal Labour party member I hope this proposal is defeated in the Commons as I am sure it will be defeated in the Lords.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#17)

by treborc on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM GMT

Well it was be getting rough if Labour send MP's here to argue for this.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#18)

by Free Radical on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:10:35 AM GMT

Tom

A further thought:  if you believe that Tory MPs are secretly sympathetic to the 42 days proposal then why doesn't the government propose to the opposition a free vote on this issue, in which our Members of Parliament could then truly vote according to their conscience?


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#19)

by NB on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM GMT

Tom.

a. It's great that you are engaging with us on this. Thanks.

b. The free vote idea is great. And you and I both know what would happen - it would be overwhelmingly defeated. There can't be more than 100 MPs who really think this is the right thing to do. See eg today's Guardian. 

c. I'm sorry it is 42 days even when there is not enough evidence after 28 days to show reasonable suspicion.  The CPS can and does bring charges on the basis of "reasonable suspicion" in cases like this. That's why the DPP and essentially  all independent lawyers are against this crazy proposal.

d. There is absolutely no evidence that it would save lives. Also we've had fewer than 10 deaths per year from terrorism in the UK since 9/11. It's just not a serious enough problem to warrant a further undermining of the rule of law and civil liberties.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#20)

by jkitleft on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM GMT

Tom,

If the government had made a plausible case to why this extention was needed, then I might support it. But the government has made no reasonable case as to why the extention should take place.

Furthermore, where is this arbitrary figure plucked from? first it was 90 days, then 56 days, so why 42? Why not then, 100, 500 or 1000 days?

So rather than telling us it protects people, can you explain WHY?


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#21)

by jane18 on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 02:33:05 PM GMT

I found the comment regarding the US strange.  After all the US has been holding many terrorists indefinitely in Guantanamo Bay and, I understand that they amended the law to ensure terrorist subjects were treated differently under their judicial system.   I am not sure it is right to compare criminal justice systems throughout the world to support the argument that we are somehow more harsh.  Each system is different and of course used by the different interest groups to further their argument.  I am reminded of those detained in Italy after the murder of a British student.  They have been in custody for several months and not yet charged and I do not know whether it is detention pending trial or pre charge detention.  No doubt those who state that Italy are more liberal that the UK will use one or other depending on which argument they wish to put forward.  Spain has to charge within a few days yet there are Algerian detainees that have been held for a couple of years without charge.   France can continue to hold suspects for up to four years before trial and can continue to collect evidence even though they state that individuals must be brought before a magistrate within 48 hours.

I am always concerned when groups such as Liberty quote countries who have a few days precharge  or pending trial detention to counter the UKs terrorism laws.  I think it would be fairer to indicate that judical systems vary and to provide detail of all stages of the states prosecution of terrorist activities including the rights of terrorists and length of time held in custody before trial.  Only then can I be persuaded that somehow the UK is draconian in its treatment of those who seek to perpetrate acts of terrorism against its citizens. 

I am in the majority.  I believe that if the Government, acting on behalf of its citizens, indicate that it is likely in the months and years ahead to require a longer period of detention to ensure a successful investigation, then I accept that.  What I do not like is the complex system proposed to get MPs on board.  This is wrong and I do not think that MPs should be involved in the process.  Leave this to the experts in the Justice system.


Re: `42 days' is about lives, not popularity (#23)

by alexhilton on Mon Jun 09, 2008 at 10:00:06 PM GMT

I think the reason why camp X-Ray was sited at Guantanamo was specifically so that US law would not apply.

Someone please correct me if i am wrong


[ Parent ]

Re: US prisoners (#24)

by Free Radical on Tue Jun 10, 2008 at 12:09:21 AM GMT

Indeed Alex. That is what the adminstration hoped, although I believe the Supreme Court later overruled that.

However the Guardian (Duncan Campbell and Richard Norton Taylor, June 2, 2008) recently quoted human rights lawyer Clive Stafford Smith saying:
"By its own admission, the US government is currently detaining at least 26,000 people without trial in secret prisons, and information suggests up to 80,000 have been 'through the system' since 2001. The US government must show a commitment to rights and basic humanity by immediately revealing who these people are, where they are, and what has been done to them."


[ Parent ]

‘42 days’ is about lives, not popularity | 24 comments (24 topical)