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.