B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)
TSR's model parliament.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 21-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- TSR Legend
- Location: Leamington Spa
- Posts: 12,991
B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)This is the Second Reading of B88. Major changes from the first reading:
*Name changed to "Counter Terrorism Bill 2008"
*Explicit mention of eligibility to Legal Aid throughout
*Maximum detention limit of 90 days in accordance with the current estimate of the police
*Removal of erroneous caveat of requirement of evidence being found during the extension period under discussion
*Explicit permission to rearrest under suspicion of terrorism if imminent danger posed
*Time of activation specified and application to currently detained suspects
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)For those interested in the reasons why a longer maximum detention is required for terrorism cases I think this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rity.terrorism should be of interest.
One of the main points is that it can take a long time in these sort of cases to gather the evidence required for a succeful prosecution. The sheer volume of evidence is much larger than in most normal cases and often things like encryption can add to the amount of work needed. What is also a factor is the danger involved in not acting early enough.
While it is true that as yet no suspect has been held for 28 days this does not mean that in the future it won't be necessary to do so. The situation could arise that a suspect is held for 28 days and then released because, for example, the decryption would take 30 days, and then he goes on to commit an act of terrorism. For these reasons the police requested that the limit be raised to 90 days. That is why there is this limit and why it applies to terrorism more than other crimes.
We wanted to enable to police to protect the public while also protecting the suspects and have therefore suggested this system which provides strong judicial oversight throughout the extended detention period. I think the Bill strikes a very succesful balance and I commend it to the House
EDIT: People should note that 90 days is the maximum and would be the exception not the rule. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: Ireland
- Posts: 19,674
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)Under a circumstance where data needs to be decrypted, and the individual refuses co-operation, they could be charged under part 3, section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, so that example simply does not apply. The individual could be charged, and therefore would rightly be detained further because there is evidence that they have committed a crime.(Original post by UniOfLife)
For those interested in the reasons why a longer maximum detention is required for terrorism cases I think this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...rity.terrorism should be of interest.
One of the main points is that it can take a long time in these sort of cases to gather the evidence required for a succeful prosecution. The sheer volume of evidence is much larger than in most normal cases and often things like encryption can add to the amount of work needed. What is also a factor is the danger involved in not acting early enough.
While it is true that as yet no suspect has been held for 28 days this does not mean that in the future it won't be necessary to do so. The situation could arise that a suspect is held for 28 days and then released because, for example, the decryption would take 30 days, and then he goes on to commit an act of terrorism. For these reasons the police requested that the limit be raised to 90 days. That is why there is this limit and why it applies to terrorism more than other crimes.
We wanted to enable to police to protect the public while also protecting the suspects and have therefore suggested this system which provides strong judicial oversight throughout the extended detention period. I think the Bill strikes a very succesful balance and I commend it to the House
EDIT: People should note that 90 days is the maximum and would be the exception not the rule. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)Only if the suspect is the one who has the key to the disk. As terrorists usually work in cells it is entirely reasonable to assume that only one member may have the key to the encryption but that the information on it would incriminate many others.(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
Under a circumstance where data needs to be decrypted, and the individual refuses co-operation, they could be charged under part 3, section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, so that example simply does not apply. The individual could be charged, and therefore would rightly be detained further because there is evidence that they have committed a crime.
Also, if the suspect were charged with that offence the police could no longer interview him (as I understand it).
And finally, this is only one scenario and I'm sure others exist. But even in this scenario there are situations and reasons why your suggestion may not be applicable or helpful. I won't claim to be a legal boffin but I think it is clear that there are situations under which it may become necessary to detain a suspect for longer and attacking one hypothetical scenario doesn't actually address the issue. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: Ireland
- Posts: 19,674
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)I would say you are making rather too many assumptions about how terrorists could work, to try and justify this bill. There is no evidence that a single situation has occured, where the police had insufficient time, or anywhere near close to it. There is also no evidence that in a situation where there is encrypted data, that it would only be accessable by one member of a terrorist cell (to me, it would seem rather odd that the information was there, but only one person could gain access to it).(Original post by UniOfLife)
Only if the suspect is the one who has the key to the disk. As terrorists usually work in cells it is entirely reasonable to assume that only one member may have the key to the encryption but that the information on it would incriminate many others.
Also, if the suspect were charged with that offence the police could no longer interview him (as I understand it).
And finally, this is only one scenario and I'm sure others exist. But even in this scenario there are situations and reasons why your suggestion may not be applicable or helpful. I won't claim to be a legal boffin but I think it is clear that there are situations under which it may become necessary to detain a suspect for longer and attacking one hypothetical scenario doesn't actually address the issue.
And if data encryption was the only thing delaying a possible terrorist charge, the fact that the suspect was detained means that they would not be able to commit any terrorist act in that time, and the police would have time through the circumstance to deal with the encryption, and see whether or not any evidence existed. I would ask before attempting to continue that line of argument, for you to read http://www.fipr.org/terrorismdetention.pdf , particularly the concluding point 23, which states "In conclusion, FIPR does not believe there is a sound technological argument for increasing the detention time limits".
The point is, you have only given one hypothetical scenario, which simply doesn't apply as other laws adequately cover it. To accept that it is correct to hold someone for 90 days, without charge, infringing on fundamental human rights, requires alot more than a single hypothetical argument, which does not apply. It needs a significant amount of hard evidence, and a 2 year old guardian article, which talks about something which was rejected by RL parties, including the conservatives, who would have far better legal knowledge than anyone in the TSR HoC, justifies nothing. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)I frankly think you're entirely missing the point on this one. You're approaching this as if we are trying to primarily extend the detention limit. We are not.
We are trying to cover all possibilities in a manner that conforms with human rights and civil liberties. We do not know for sure that any suspect will be held for 90 days and it doesn't actually matter whether any ever would. The oversight put in place in this Bill ensures that no suspect would ever be held without charge longer than was necessary. So if it is never necessary to hold a suspect for 90 days then none ever would. The point of the Bill is to cover the cases where it might one time in a million, let's say, be necessary. This is why originally we did not include an upper limit because we felt that the provisions in the Bill would ensure that no suspect was ever held longer than was necessary. And if that was never more than 28 days then all the better.
So I think that really you are viewing the 90 days as the aim of the Bill when in fact it is simply a catch-all last line of defence safe-guard.
Does this clear up your difficulty?
EDIT: Just going back to your point about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act this was discussed by the Home Affairs Select Committee (see here: http://www.publications.parliament.u...f/910/910i.pdf) they concluded:
But as I said, this is really a side issue since the 90 days is not the main point of the Bill nor is it ever intended to ever be used. It is there simply in case it is needed and as a last line of defence safe-guard.67. Clearly, bringing Part III of RIPA into force would not solve the problem of encrypted data; it could nonetheless provide a useful instrument in some cases. We therefore welcome the Home Office’s expressed intention, following consultation on a code of practice, to bring Part III into force. It should do so as soon as possible.Last edited by UniOfLife; 13-05-2008 at 20:00. -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: P
- Posts: 4,867
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)QFT.(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
The point is, you have only given one hypothetical scenario, which simply doesn't apply as other laws adequately cover it. To accept that it is correct to hold someone for 90 days, without charge, infringing on fundamental human rights, requires alot more than a single hypothetical argument, which does not apply. It needs a significant amount of hard evidence, and a 2 year old guardian article, which talks about something which was rejected by RL parties, including the conservatives, who would have far better legal knowledge than anyone in the TSR HoC, justifies nothing.
His inevitable counter is that, under this bill there are "layers" that protect against a potential 90 day detention. But:
1. If it needs protecting against, why on earth should we have it at all? We would we have something undesireable in our statutes? Let's put torture on our books and then make entrench it legilsation that makes its application almost impossible.
2. Evidence of evidence is still an absurd concept: by definition, the most you can have is suspicion of evidence. Otherwise, it constitutes evidence it itself. No legal system can operate fairly on the basis of judicial inutition. It is highly undesierable and contrary to our beliefs about justice.
3. The main reasoning for an increase would be the vast quantities of electronic data that the police often have to deal with. But in almost all instances where this is the case, they are dealing with millions and milions of files/records. An extra two months will rarely make the difference. When you consider the amounts of evidence often being dealt with, the chances of the time needed falling between 28 days and 90 are slim.
More succinctly: if it's going to take longer than a month, then it's probably going to take more than three months. I want to find a link for this at some point -- but I can't find whatever I was reading/watching when the pre-charge debate was raging.
4. Taking away a quarter of a year of someone's life without accusing them of anything is unacceptable to anyone who has even the smallest regard for civil liberties. Do you not accept that you would be irreparably punishing someone, who in the eyes of the law, is innocent.
5. Although the title of the bill is now "counter" terrorism, the Tories must see how the reesult of this me be a proliferation of radicalised young muslims. Given that, realistically, this bill is only going to impact the Islamic community in the immediate sense, does it not occur to them that potentially locking people up for a quarter of a year might just anger them? And the community in general. It simply does not aid the development of a cohesive society.
I use a link below in point, but reading it through I found that Goldsmith puts the above point quite well: "It is also counter-productive, because it sends a message to particularly the Muslim communities that we are down on them, and misguided young men might take it as justification for taking up arms, as they see it, against us."
Oh, and our most senior muslim police officer agrees
6. In any case that warrants 90 day detention, there has to be evidence to the point that the chances of a conviction are reasonable. So, why can't post-charge questioning be used, as many RL MPs have suggested? It seems Britain's most senior prosecutor also agrees on this:
Not only well-placed, but apparently with the best evidence to make the case - against an extension. With the use of the so-called "threshold test" in terrorism cases, prosecutors can charge on a lower standard of proof - on the expectation that more evidence will be forthcoming to enable a charge on the full criteria to be made. "Our judgment," Sir Ken said, "is that the threshold test is sufficient to allow us the scope to charge even in the most extraordinarily complex terrorist offences."
7. He generally says 42 days is completely unnecessary.
8. Amnesty are against it too -- but what do they know about human rights, eh?
9. A small point, related to number 3 (of my points) -- why 90 days? Why not 91, why not 89? Do you have a fetish for round numbers? Because you read it in a newspaper? Seems to me that it's important when we're dealing with innocent human beings.
10. While Sir Ian Blair is a lone voice in favour, it seems from what I've read that even he wants more stringent measures than you've laid out: home sec approval/chieft constable/judiciary. The consenus is that senior cops are divided.
The Tories are trying to impose a massive change in the rights of British citizens. Whether they like it or not, they must accept that this is now going to be a debate about civil liberties. If UoL and co are still not willing to debate the principle -- as he idicated at first reading -- then I suggest the bill is withdrawn.Last edited by Grape190190; 13-05-2008 at 21:05. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: Ireland
- Posts: 19,674
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)But you are extending the maximum period of detention. If the deadline remained at the existing level of 28 days, then it would not be a point of discussion. You have to expect the changes which are most objectionable to people and to parties, to be the ones that are discussed the most. I have no objection with protecting civil liberties, which i feel the rest of this bill does deal with reasonably well, which is why i have not raised any particular issues with it so far.(Original post by UniOfLife)
I frankly think you're entirely missing the point on this one. You're approaching this as if we are trying to primarily extend the detention limit. We are not.
We are trying to cover all possibilities in a manner that conforms with human rights and civil liberties. We do not know for sure that any suspect will be held for 90 days and it doesn't actually matter whether any ever would. The oversight put in place in this Bill ensures that no suspect would ever be held without charge longer than was necessary. So if it is never necessary to hold a suspect for 90 days then none ever would. The point of the Bill is to cover the cases where it might one time in a million, let's say, be necessary. This is why originally we did not include an upper limit because we felt that the provisions in the Bill would ensure that no suspect was ever held longer than was necessary. And if that was never more than 28 days then all the better.
So I think that really you are viewing the 90 days as the aim of the Bill when in fact it is simply a catch-all last line of defence safe-guard.
Does this clear up your difficulty?
EDIT: Just going back to your point about the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act this was discussed by the Home Affairs Select Committee (see here: http://www.publications.parliament.u...f/910/910i.pdf) they concluded:
But as I said, this is really a side issue since the 90 days is not the main point of the Bill nor is it ever intended to ever be used. It is there simply in case it is needed and as a last line of defence safe-guard.
Readings of bills are meant to be about discussing areas where individuals and parties disagree, otherwise there would be no point to it. If you can't adequately justify areas of the bill, then i would advise for you to rethink things, and come back with a bill that you can justify, rather than dismiss areas where there are serious objections you have no evidence to refute. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)THM you've made the same mistake as Eru in thinking that this Bill is designed to increase the maximum detention limit to 90 days as its main goal. That isn't the goal at all. The goal is to provide proper judicial oversight to ensure that a suspect is never held longer than is necessary. If that is 7 days then it is 7 days and if it is 21 days than 21 days and so on. If it happens once in a million times to be 90 days it is 90 days. As I said in my post above the 90 days is a last line safeguard not a desired limit. The desired limit will depend on the details of the case. I think this basically answers your main objection but I will attempt to answer your points in detail although I rather suspect there is little point.
As I have said, it is not a case of protecting against 90 days any more than against 80 or 70 or 60 etc. It is about protecting against any unnecessary detention while allowing necessary detention. This is the mistake you have made I believe in understanding the way the Bill works and what it wants to achieve.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
1. If it needs protecting against, why on earth should we have it at all? We would we have something undesireable in our statutes? Let's put torture on our books and then make entrench it legilsation that makes its application almost impossible.
So on what basis do magistrates authorise warrants then? I mentioned this last time you raised the point so I rather think you've had some time to think about it.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
2. Evidence of evidence is still an absurd concept: by definition, the most you can have is suspicion of evidence. Otherwise, it constitutes evidence it itself. No legal system can operate fairly on the basis of judicial inutition. It is highly undesierable and contrary to our beliefs about justice.
This seems like nothing more than speculation on your part. If you can find a source please do so. But, again, the entire premise here is that the 90 day limit is desired or aimed for. It is a maximum not a desired aim. The aim is the minimum that is required.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
3. The main reasoning for an increase would be the vast quantities of electronic data that the police often have to deal with. But in almost all instances where this is the case, they are dealing with millions and milions of files/records. An extra two months will rarely make the difference. When you consider the amounts of evidence often being dealt with, the chances of the time needed falling between 28 days and 90 are slim.
More succinctly: if it's going to take longer than a month, then it's probably going to take more than three months. I want to find a link for this at some point -- but I can't find whatever I was reading/watching when the pre-charge debate was raging.
And allowing a terrorist loose to kill hundreds is unacceptable to anyone who values human life. So a balance is required. This Bill balances it well with proper judicial oversight to ensure that a suspect is never held for longer than is required.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
4. Taking away a quarter of a year of someone's life without accusing them of anything is unacceptable to anyone who has even the smallest regard for civil liberties. Do you not accept that you would be irreparably punishing someone, who in the eyes of the law, is innocent.
This argument could be and indeed is made about any legislation with regards to terrorism. I don't believe that we should not make appropriate legislation because some tiny minority of people might attack us as a result of that. If we accept that proposal then we effectively hand a veto over our legislation to the radicals to say "this will make some Muslims annoyed so don't do it".(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
5. Although the title of the bill is now "counter" terrorism, the Tories must see how the reesult of this me be a proliferation of radicalised young muslims. Given that, realistically, this bill is only going to impact the Islamic community in the immediate sense, does it not occur to them that potentially locking people up for a quarter of a year might just anger them? And the community in general. It simply does not aid the development of a cohesive society.
I use a link below in point, but reading it through I found that Goldsmith puts the above point quite well: "It is also counter-productive, because it sends a message to particularly the Muslim communities that we are down on them, and misguided young men might take it as justification for taking up arms, as they see it, against us."
Oh, and our most senior muslim police officer agrees
If there is evidence that warrants a charge being brought then no extension will be given and the suspect will not be allowed to be held longer. That is precisely the point of the Bill - to ensure that no suspect is held longer than is necessary.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
6. In any case that warrants 90 day detention, there has to be evidence to the point that the chances of a conviction are reasonable. So, why can't post-charge questioning be used, as many RL MPs have suggested? It seems Britain's most senior prosecutor also agrees on this:
Not only well-placed, but apparently with the best evidence to make the case - against an extension. With the use of the so-called "threshold test" in terrorism cases, prosecutors can charge on a lower standard of proof - on the expectation that more evidence will be forthcoming to enable a charge on the full criteria to be made. "Our judgment," Sir Ken said, "is that the threshold test is sufficient to allow us the scope to charge even in the most extraordinarily complex terrorist offences."
Again you make the mistake of thinking that we are extending the limit and then putting in protection whereas we are ensuring that no one is held longer than is necessary. If 42 days is never necessary it will never be reached and so much the better.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
7. Britain's most senior prosecutor says 42 days is completely unnecessary.
They are against 42 days detention without judicial oversight. So are we.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
8. Amnesty are against it too -- but what do they know about human rights, eh?
90 days was put forward by senior police officers as the time they would need. If that is the most they think they need than there is no reason to allow any suspect to ever be held longer than that.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
9. A small point, related to number 3 (of my points) -- why 90 days? Why not 91, why not 89? Do you have a fetish for round numbers? Because you read it in a newspaper? Seems to me that it's important when we're dealing with innocent human beings.
They may be divided about the exact length they need but are not divided on needing time. This Bill ensures that suspects are held for as long as is necessary but not any longer.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
10. While Sir Ian Blair is a lone voice in favour, it seems from what I've read that even he wants more stringent measures than you've laid out: home sec approval/chieft constable/judiciary. The consenus is that senior cops are divided.
This Bill improves the civil liberties of the citizens of Britain by providing incredible judicial oversight in terrorism cases that ensures that they will never be held in detention without charge for any longer than is absolutely necessary.(Original post by The Humble Mosquito)
The Tories are trying to impose a massive change in the rights of British citizens. Whether they like it or not, they must accept that this is now going to be a debate about civil liberties. If UoL and co are still not willing to debate the principle -- as he idicated at first reading -- then I suggest the bill is withdrawn. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)We are extending the scope of possible detention while ensuring that no suspect is ever held longer than is required. So we are making the system more flexible. The length of detention for each suspect will depend on the case but will never exceed 90 days.(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
But you are extending the maximum period of detention. If the deadline remained at the existing level of 28 days, then it would not be a point of discussion. You have to expect the changes which are most objectionable to people and to parties, to be the ones that are discussed the most. I have no objection with protecting civil liberties, which i feel the rest of this bill does deal with reasonably well, which is why i have not raised any particular issues with it so far.
Readings of bills are meant to be about discussing areas where individuals and parties disagree, otherwise there would be no point to it. If you can't adequately justify areas of the bill, then i would advise for you to rethink things, and come back with a bill that you can justify, rather than dismiss areas where there are serious objections you have no evidence to refute.
The 90 days maximum ever limit is for those rare cases that might need it for whatever reason. If no cases need it then no cases will ever have it. This is the point that I am making that you seem not to grasp.
It isn't that we are extending the deadline to 90 days and saying "keep people in prison for 90 days and here's some oversight". We are saying "keep people in prison for only as long as is actually required but no more than 90 days". So the real question about 90 days is why would there ever be a need to hold a suspect ever for 90 days. And I think that this is a reasonable limit because this is the time the police said. They know and they said 90 days. So what they are saying is that they would never need to hold someone for longer than 90 days which is precisely what our Bill says - you're not ever allowed to hold someone for more than 90 days. But our Bill actually says you're never allowed to hold someone for longer than is necessary and that is never going to be more than 90 days.
So I really think that the question of justifying 90 days' detention is missing the point and thinking that the Bill does something it doesn't do. Do you see what I am saying? -
- Reputation:
- Vengeful, Imperial Overlord of The Student Room
- Location: P
- Posts: 4,867
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)No, I haven't made that mistake. You just want us to debate your favourite bits of the bill; that's obviously not what is going to happen. We're debating the bits that provoke the most disagreement. 90 days may not be your focus, but it's the most controversial element. I'll address the main point of this paragraph next.(Original post by UniOfLife)
THM you've made the same mistake as Eru in thinking that this Bill is designed to increase the maximum detention limit to 90 days as its main goal. That isn't the goal at all. The goal is to provide proper judicial oversight to ensure that a suspect is never held longer than is necessary. If that is 7 days then it is 7 days and if it is 21 days than 21 days and so on. If it happens once in a million times to be 90 days it is 90 days. As I said in my post above the 90 days is a last line safeguard not a desired limit. The desired limit will depend on the details of the case. I think this basically answers your main objection but I will attempt to answer your points in detail although I rather suspect there is little point.
Your motives are irrelevant. Please understand that, otherwise this is going to round in circles again. Yes, you may very well have the purpose of extending civil liberties; that's your thesis. But, sir, that's is not what it does.As I have said, it is not a case of protecting against 90 days any more than against 80 or 70 or 60 etc. It is about protecting against any unnecessary detention while allowing necessary detention. This is the mistake you have made I believe in understanding the way the Bill works and what it wants to achieve.
The fact that you extend detention without charge is important to us -- even if it is irrelevant to you. We care about that principle, and we think that it has wide-ranging implications -- both moral and practical.
So, to get back to my point: we don't believe that any pre-charge detention beyond 28 days is necessary. You simply cannot argue that
Suspicion, I would think. Evidence is something that can contribute to a conviction; suspicion is not. But I don't think it's analogous, anyway: there is quite clearly a difference between a search, which is part of an inquiry, and extended detention which is part of the punishment.So on what basis do magistrates authorise warrants then? I mentioned this last time you raised the point so I rather think you've had some time to think about it.
It is not speculation on my part: I read it. And even if you don't believe that it can be sourced, you must accept that it makes logical sense.This seems like nothing more than speculation on your part. If you can find a source please do so. But, again, the entire premise here is that the 90 day limit is desired or aimed for. It is a maximum not a desired aim. The aim is the minimum that is required.
Here you're trying to justify your arbitrary number of 90, by implying that it isn't important. But it is: it
This is a value judgement on both our parts, but I simply cannot comprehend a scenario in which a man presumed innocent -- and unaccused -- should be locked up for a quarter of a year. If you can, there's something seriously wrong with the system. And yes, yes, it won't happen unless it's necessary? When is it necessary? When the state cannot find enough evidence to even charge after 28 days, and yet it abritraily decides to continue to imprison an innocent man?And allowing a terrorist loose to kill hundreds is unacceptable to anyone who values human life. So a balance is required. This Bill balances it well with proper judicial oversight to ensure that a suspect is never held for longer than is required.
Locking up every muslim in the country would substantially reduce the risk of terrorism. Would it be acceptable? No, because we have moral boundaries.
You missed the point entirely: this legislation may radicalise muslims. Most are are law-abiding members of society, but when they percieve that they are being oppressed by a bad law, that may change.This argument could be and indeed is made about any legislation with regards to terrorism. I don't believe that we should not make appropriate legislation because some tiny minority of people might attack us as a result of that. If we accept that proposal then we effectively hand a veto over our legislation to the radicals to say "this will make some Muslims annoyed so don't do it".
Then why have 90 days!? 90 days not only allows for the possibility of corruption, but supposes that people could be legitimately held for more than a month, even when there's not enough evidence to charge them at a lower standard of proof. How can there be such circumstances?; the suggestionIf there is evidence that warrants a charge being brought then no extension will be given and the suspect will not be allowed to be held longer. That is precisely the point of the Bill - to ensure that no suspect is held longer than is necessary.
that there can be undermines the principles of our legal system. The mere suggestion that someone can serve the equivalent of a 6 month prison sentence when there is not enough evidence for charge is offensive.
Again you make the mistake of thinking that we are extending the limit and then putting in protection whereas we are ensuring that no one is held longer than is necessary. If 42 days is never necessary it will never be reached and so much the better.
Amnesty International is urging people to sign a 'Not a day Longer' e-petition calling on the Government not to extend the time for which police can hold terrorism suspects without chargeThey are against 42 days detention without judicial oversight. So are we.
90 days was put forward by senior police officers as the time they would need. If that is the most they think they need than there is no reason to allow any suspect to ever be held longer than that.
Since 'necessary' is subjective and systems like this are never infalliable, I'm going to define 'ensuring no one is held longer than is necessary' as putting in protections. And you've consistently failed to suggest a situation in which it is morally right to keep someone locked up, when the state can't gather evidence against them after 28 days.Again you make the mistake of thinking that we are extending the limit and then putting in protection whereas we are ensuring that no one is held longer than is necessary. If 42 days is never necessary it will never be reached and so much the better.
I also think 'necessary' distorts the debate: it implies that this decison should be made with regards to the common good. The whole basis of our legal system is that it works for individuals, not society as a whole. It would be good for society, say, if we lowered the standard of proof to 80% as opposed to reasonable doubt. We could put away more murderers, make our streets safer, etc. But we DON'T! Why? Because it's not justice, and it's not fair.
Similarly, it can never be justful in our society to lock someone up for 90 days when the state cannot collect enough evidence to even charge them. Never. But it might be 'necessary'.
They may be divided about the exact length they need but are not divided on needing time. This Bill ensures that suspects are held for as long as is necessary but not any longer.
You also seem to think that having 90 days has no negative externalities, and so you can just set it as ahigh as you like and the judicial system will take care of the rest. But this is clearly not the case -- the potential miscarriages, the corruption, the alienation of Islamic communities, the legal infringement on something we believe scared... these are all bad things. And even though 90 days is not even needed (let alone moral), you think these negative externalities are non-existent.
Okay, well, you might be a terrorist. So, we deem it 'necessary' to lock you up. Goodo.This Bill improves the civil liberties of the citizens of Britain by providing incredible judicial oversight in terrorism cases that ensures that they will never be held in detention without charge for any longer than is absolutely necessary.
I need to revise, so no reply from me until tomorrow. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Royalty
- Location: Ireland
- Posts: 19,674
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)I see what you are saying, but i disagree with it. Its irrelivent whether or not that detention will last 90 days, its that it can last 90 days. By saying that, you are saying that it is justifiable that someone should be held, without being proven to have done anything at all wrong, for 3 whole months. To make a point like that requires alot of hard evidence, which you don't seem to be able to give. Vague statements that it 'may possibly at some point need to be considered to be required, under some circumstances, using some huge stack of assumptions' etc, do not amount to evidence. To quote Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions(Original post by UniOfLife)
We are extending the scope of possible detention while ensuring that no suspect is ever held longer than is required. So we are making the system more flexible. The length of detention for each suspect will depend on the case but will never exceed 90 days.
The 90 days maximum ever limit is for those rare cases that might need it for whatever reason. If no cases need it then no cases will ever have it. This is the point that I am making that you seem not to grasp.
It isn't that we are extending the deadline to 90 days and saying "keep people in prison for 90 days and here's some oversight". We are saying "keep people in prison for only as long as is actually required but no more than 90 days". So the real question about 90 days is why would there ever be a need to hold a suspect ever for 90 days. And I think that this is a reasonable limit because this is the time the police said. They know and they said 90 days. So what they are saying is that they would never need to hold someone for longer than 90 days which is precisely what our Bill says - you're not ever allowed to hold someone for more than 90 days. But our Bill actually says you're never allowed to hold someone for longer than is necessary and that is never going to be more than 90 days.
So I really think that the question of justifying 90 days' detention is missing the point and thinking that the Bill does something it doesn't do. Do you see what I am saying?
"For our part as prosecutors, we don't perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased. Our experience has been that we have managed comfortably within 28 days. We have therefore not asked for an increase in 28 days. It is possible to set up all sort of hypotheses ... Anything is possible - the question is whether it's remotely likely."
Either justify, using evidence, the 90 day detention period, change the bill to the existing 28 day period, which will completely remove this issue, or ignore what the other parties are saying.
I would argue reverting to the 28 day detention period, as it would be a shame something you only see as a side issue, would result in the bill being voted against by every other party except the conservatives. Such a compromise would also lead to discussion about the areas of the bill that you see as more important. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)I shall try this one last time because I feel we are going around in circles. I think this sentence is the main point of your argument:
"we don't believe that any pre-charge detention beyond 28 days is necessary."
This is the entire crux of your argument. You (not sure who the 'we' is?) don't believe that the police could ever need to detain a suspect for more than 28 days. Therefore, you consider that the law should never allow any possibility of that happening. This is your stance.
Our belief is that there could be a scenario in which a suspect needs to be detained for more than 28 days. Be it because of encryption, or mobile phone chatter, or extensive file searches or forensic examinations or whatever. We believe that there exists a possibility that a suspect may need to be detained without charge for more than 28 days. The police have told us that they (the professionals) do not believe they will ever need more than 90 days.
So the question simply becomes what limit do we put on the detention? You feel that no detention should ever be for more than 28 days. I assume you argue with the police to claim that it could never be possible. As such you would not countenance any extension beyond 28 days. Although it begs the question where you got 28 days from, but that is a separate issue.
We, on the other hand, consider that the time necessary to detain a suspect without charge ranges depending on the circumstances from 0 days to 90 days with an exponential decrease so that the vast majority of cases will be charged very quickly. Our Bill, then, accounts for this pattern by providing for the treatment of every case individually on a case-by-case basis. This is the essence and entirety of the Bill. Yes, someone may end up in prison for 90 days without charge before being released but only if it was deemed necessary to do so by a large number of the most senior judges in the country for such a prolonged period of time.
In practice you have drawn an arbitrary line at 28 days. Less than that you say is entirely justifiable and more than that is never justifiable. We take a more pragmatic approach and say that anything less than 90 days could be justifiable and so allow it to be if the merits of the case justify it.
We envisage, then, that by far and away most cases will be dealt with in under 28 days. A very few may take up to 42 days, let's say, and one in a thousand may take up to 90 days. But each case will only take as long as it requires, rather than taking an arbitrary length of time.
As such, your argument, which I quoted before, needs to be modified to the following:
"we don't believe that any pre-charge detention beyond 28 days could ever be necessary."
If you consider that it ever could be than you must accept the logic of our Bill or else draw another arbitrary line. Attached is a very crude diagram of the distribution of cases as we see it. The X axis is the time required to detain the suspect without charge and the Y axis is the number of cases. The vertical line is at 28 days. This is your approach. Clearly, most of the people are to the left of that line and can be kept longer than is necessary. Some are to the right of that line and cannot be kept for as long as necessary. That is your approach.
Our approach is to treat each case individually upon its own requirements. This means that all suspects are kept for as long as is required as demonstrated on that very badly and hastily drawn up graph.
To conclude (and I apologise for undoubtedly repeating myself numerous times but I really want to make this point abundantly clear) we believe that the vast majority of cases would not require a long detention period but that a tiny number could. We believe that no case could ever require more than 90 days as the police have said. We therefore provide a Bill that ensures that every suspect is dealt with as his individual case requires with those not requiring a long detention not having a long detention and with those few that do require a longer detention getting one.
Hopefully this should lay to rest the discussion of justifying 90 days since we are not attempting to justify it in every case or in many cases but rather we are justifying the possibility in some cases and generally justifying the distribution that the graph shows. We feel that the distribution in the graph is a good approximation and that therefore an arbitrary line drawn in the middle of that distribution is wrong. We feel that every case should be dealt with on a case by case basis. This Bill does that. And once again and still I commend this motion to the House. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Legend
- Location: London
- Posts: 14,418
Re: B88 - Counter Terrorism Bill 2008 (Second Reading)In light of my very long post that I only finished after yours I will simply ask one simple question: Is it correct to suppose that you believe that it could never be necessary to detain a suspect for more than 28 days?(Original post by Eru Iluvatar)
I see what you are saying, but i disagree with it. Its irrelivent whether or not that detention will last 90 days, its that it can last 90 days. By saying that, you are saying that it is justifiable that someone should be held, without being proven to have done anything at all wrong, for 3 whole months. To make a point like that requires alot of hard evidence, which you don't seem to be able to give. Vague statements that it 'may possibly at some point need to be considered to be required, under some circumstances, using some huge stack of assumptions' etc, do not amount to evidence. To quote Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions
"For our part as prosecutors, we don't perceive any need for the period of 28 days to be increased. Our experience has been that we have managed comfortably within 28 days. We have therefore not asked for an increase in 28 days. It is possible to set up all sort of hypotheses ... Anything is possible - the question is whether it's remotely likely."
Either justify, using evidence, the 90 day detention period, change the bill to the existing 28 day period, which will completely remove this issue, or ignore what the other parties are saying.
I would argue reverting to the 28 day detention period, as it would be a shame something you only see as a side issue, would result in the bill being voted against by every other party except the conservatives. Such a compromise would also lead to discussion about the areas of the bill that you see as more important.
