The obvious flaw in the Security Minister Lord West of Spithead's call for leaving the length of terror suspects detention to the courts, on the basis that they have a great deal of experience in analysing evidence, is that if there was evidence in the first place then the suspects would be charged and then remanded in custody legally.
What the police are seeking is the power to arrest first, then detain the suspect whilst they seek the evidence necessary to form a charge and then prosecute the suspect.
Intelligence is often not the same as evidence. Whilst the Security Services can act on the former to prevent a terrorist attack, it would be improper to expect judges to analyse intelligence as though it was evidence which would justify internment.
Another problem with the proposed model, is that the suspected terrorist would not be able to answer the 'charge' and prove his or her innocence, because only the judge and the prosecution will have access to the intelligence. Everybody is entitled to know the nature of the charge to be able to refute the charge.
Secret prisons, secret courts, secret 'charges'.
This is not open government. Only a government with something to hide demands this amount of secrecy.
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.
Site Meter
No comments:
Post a Comment