A victory for terrorism?
I think it is a disappointing that the House of Lords has ruled it as lawful for a terrorist suspect and his lawyer to be excluded from a hearing before a judge where an application for extending detention was being made.
I fail to see how a suspect or a legal representative can argue against a case which is heard in secret and denies them the opportunity of knowing the case against them that they have to meet.
In my view, its a victory for terrorism.
Hat-Tip to Head of Legal.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
3 comments:
John, lost me a bit here. Your first para seems to be against the second. Maybe the way I read it.
James: I think it is the way you read it. The first para is merely expressing disappointment at the decision, and the second the reason why. They don't appear in conflict to me.
Britain is a police state and that is why terrorism is flourishing. Saudi Arabia is even as bad which is why they make so many of them. Repressive laws make people into criminals and then they behave like that because there is no carrot with the stick of repressive laws.
Maggie Shudder had the best idea We will not change our way of life ...
And look what Labour has done
Post a Comment