The Human Rights Violation
I've not really felt like writing much lately, which is funny considering my frenzied outburst two weeks ago when I'd started this blog. You'd be forgiven for thinking that I had given out all I had in my first week and left myself nothing left over to rant about later. You'd almost be right, until the next storm in a tea cup erupts.
In the news at the moment is still the four Britons who until recently were being detained in Guantanamo Bay. They arrived back in Britain yesterday and were detained by the police in London for questioning. They were released today without charge. Just goes to show they never should have been detained in the first place, but questions remain about the twelve foreign nationals still being detained in Britain without charge. Today the Home Secretary outlined plans to alter the emergency laws that had been detaining the men in favour of new laws that will still allow them to be detained without trial. Last month the law lords ruled that the detentions contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and the government are now trying to appease the law lords while still being able to detain the foreign nationals.
This is all a result of the panic that ensued after 11th September 2001 when broad sweeping powers were given to the government that allowed them to detain any foreign national they suspected of being a threat to national security. The new laws are no better merely letting the government vary the degree of detention from banning the use of mobile phones to house arrest. Most controversially the new powers will allow the detention without trial of British citizens as well as foreign nationals who will still not be given a fair trial where they can defend themselves against the charges. This whole situation is a mess but what do the government do instead? They have detained some people that they have evidence of being engaged in terrorist activities. They can't put them on trial because it would be too dangerous for members of the security services for the evidence to be heard in court and they can't be kicked out of the country because their home countries may torture or kill them, and no one else will have them.
So what do you do? You can't let them go free, even though you are unable to charge them with anything. What is to stop them engaging in terrorist activities once they have been set free? Clearly the government have been put into a difficult situation and have made a number of mistakes, maybe still are, but there are no easy solutions to this. There needs to be a clear method of dealing with people are suspected as being a danger to the public but are unable to obtain evidence that can be safely used in a court of law. I'm sure this sort of situation happens all the time where the police know that someone is a danger to the public but are unable to detain them because they don't have enough evidence. What makes terrorists a special case? Terrorists target the whole of society in an attempt to undermine our freedom. Their scope is much bigger than an ordinary child-molester, but there should be no difference. These anti-terrorism measures are curtailing the very same freedoms that we should be protecting.
In the news at the moment is still the four Britons who until recently were being detained in Guantanamo Bay. They arrived back in Britain yesterday and were detained by the police in London for questioning. They were released today without charge. Just goes to show they never should have been detained in the first place, but questions remain about the twelve foreign nationals still being detained in Britain without charge. Today the Home Secretary outlined plans to alter the emergency laws that had been detaining the men in favour of new laws that will still allow them to be detained without trial. Last month the law lords ruled that the detentions contravened the European Convention on Human Rights and the government are now trying to appease the law lords while still being able to detain the foreign nationals.
This is all a result of the panic that ensued after 11th September 2001 when broad sweeping powers were given to the government that allowed them to detain any foreign national they suspected of being a threat to national security. The new laws are no better merely letting the government vary the degree of detention from banning the use of mobile phones to house arrest. Most controversially the new powers will allow the detention without trial of British citizens as well as foreign nationals who will still not be given a fair trial where they can defend themselves against the charges. This whole situation is a mess but what do the government do instead? They have detained some people that they have evidence of being engaged in terrorist activities. They can't put them on trial because it would be too dangerous for members of the security services for the evidence to be heard in court and they can't be kicked out of the country because their home countries may torture or kill them, and no one else will have them.
So what do you do? You can't let them go free, even though you are unable to charge them with anything. What is to stop them engaging in terrorist activities once they have been set free? Clearly the government have been put into a difficult situation and have made a number of mistakes, maybe still are, but there are no easy solutions to this. There needs to be a clear method of dealing with people are suspected as being a danger to the public but are unable to obtain evidence that can be safely used in a court of law. I'm sure this sort of situation happens all the time where the police know that someone is a danger to the public but are unable to detain them because they don't have enough evidence. What makes terrorists a special case? Terrorists target the whole of society in an attempt to undermine our freedom. Their scope is much bigger than an ordinary child-molester, but there should be no difference. These anti-terrorism measures are curtailing the very same freedoms that we should be protecting.