Plans to allow terror suspects to be held for up to 90
days without charge has proved a sticking point for MPs.
"I find it really odd that we're having to make the case
that this is an issue, when virtually every week,
somewhere in the world, terrorists loosely linked with the
same movement are killing scores of people." [Tony Blair]
Neither Bush nor Blair has ever explained why they think
it is so important that suspects can be held without
charges. If there is no evidence that the suspects are
pursuing terrorism in some way - and the statutes are very
broad in this regard - then why are they being detained at
all? If there is evidence, then why is it so important
that they not be charged?
I don't think it can be argued that suspects, if released,
might begin pursuing terrorism. There are too many
effective means of surveillance and tracking, which courts
would presumably permit, for this fear to be taken
seriously.
I suspect that some of the prisoners being held in
Guantanamo actually were involved in terrorism, working a
bit too closely with the CIA, and the evidence against
them would betray false-flag incidents, or other
embarrassing covert activities. But that kind of
consideration would not explain Blair's urgency on this
matter. Intelligence agencies have ways of neutralizing
agents who have become liabilities, without need for new
legislation.
As I've frequently argued, in this 'Police state' series,
the real purpose of 'anti-terrorist' legislation
generally, and the false-flag attacks that enable them, is
to bring about a police state - where the state has the
power to detain or relocate anyone, or any group, as it
sees fit, and secretly if it so desires. All power to the
state; all opposition 'terrorism'. When we see how the
poor people in New Orleans were treated, during and after
Katrina, and when we see the prisoners in Guantanamo, we
see the kind of behavior the state wants to able to get by
with.
From that perspective, Blair's urgency in extending the
period of arbitrary detention makes a great deal of sense.
Arbitrary detention is what it's all about, and with
90-days he would get a fat foot in the door. And with that
precedent, it would be easy to argue for the period to be
extended: whatever 'reasons' justified detainment for 90
days are likely to still apply when the 90 days are over.
Does it make sense to release such an 'inherently
dangerous' person at all, given those 'reasons'.?
I wish Congress had the kind of sense Parliament seems
to be displaying here, albeit in small measure.
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4411358.stm
Blair plans terror law compromise
Tony Blair is preparing to "give ground" on new
anti-terror plans after Downing Street conceded he may
struggle to get the measures through Parliament.
Meanwhile, Home Secretary Charles Clarke is set to hold
talks with his Conservative and Lib Dem counterparts in a
fresh bid for their backing.
Plans to allow terror suspects to be held for up to 90
days without charge has proved a sticking point for MPs.
Both main opposition parties and several Labour MPs oppose
the measure.
A Downing Street spokeswoman told the BBC News website:
"The prime minister very much favours the 90 days as the
right thing to do."
But she said: "He acknowledges the need to negotiate
and/or compromise."
'Woeful complacency'
The concession is a bitter blow for Prime Minister Tony
Blair who has argued that the added powers are essential
for police dealing with the threat of international
terrorism.
Mr Blair told the Sunday Telegraph it would be a "defeat"
for UK security if plans to detain suspects for up to 90
days without trial was blocked.
He accused opponents of the government's anti-terror plans
of "woeful complacency".
"The police told me, and the security services back them
up, that they may have stopped two further attempts since
July 7," he said.
"I find it really odd that we're having to make the case
that this is an issue, when virtually every week,
somewhere in the world, terrorists loosely linked with the
same movement are killing scores of people."
But shadow home secretary David Davis said the
Conservatives would not accept the proposals, while Lib
Dem president Simon Hughes told the BBC the prime minister
should concentrate on "realistic alternatives".
New talks
Police can currently hold terror suspects for 14 days
under the present legislation.
In the Commons last week Home Secretary Charles Clarke was
forced to promise new talks after it became clear the
measures faced defeat in the Commons.
He is due to meet Mr Davis and his Liberal Democrat
counterpart Mark Oaten on Monday after weekend telephone
discussions.
The bill creates several new offences, including
encouraging or glorifying terrorism, preparing terrorist
acts and attending terrorist camps.
And it says those offences can be prosecuted in UK courts
even if they are committed abroad.
Story from BBC NEWS
Published: 2005/11/06 18:49:12 GMT
© BBC MMV
--
--------------------------------------------------------
http://cyberjournal.org
"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html
Posting archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?date=01Jan2006&batch=25&lists=newslog
Subscribe to low-traffic list:
•••@••.•••
___________________________________________
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving the included information for
research and educational purposes.
