Timmy G
Member
Britain starts their own Patriot Act
:blink: OMG - it's like THE FLU
Complete Article Here at the BBC
Head to head: Terror law plans
Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced plans for tough new measures to combat terrorism, including special anti-terror court sittings without juries and the use of phone-tap evidence in trials.
Two experts put their differing views on the measures, which will be brought in if Labour wins the next election.
Terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson considers many of the proposals sensible in the face of a serious threat from al-Qaeda, while Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti worries our civil rights have already been unacceptably eroded by previous legislation.
PROFESSOR PAUL WILKINSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS
It's important to recognise there is a serious threat. People who imagine there isn't a threat are living in a fool's paradise.
I don't think anyone in the government is trying to hype up panic. The fact is, there is a very real problem. Al-Qaeda has threatened the UK repeatedly and, as we know, the kind of attacks it launches are more deadly than those launched in the past by the IRA.
The government is quite right to be taking the problem seriously. We cannot be complacent. And of course we should be examining the tool kit of different measures we can use to protect our society.
As I understand it, these proposals are not going to be included in the Queen's Speech so there will be opportunity for parliamentary debate - that's terribly important, both from the point of view of how effective they would be and for their impact on civil liberties.
We don't want to destroy the freedoms we have - that would be doing the terrorists' job for them. It's a question of getting the balance right.
It's very important to enlist as wide a support as possible, from all political parties. That gives the proposals much more credibility and the chance of full public co-operation and support is much greater.
In terms of the specific proposals, I would pick out using wire tap evidence in trials. It does seem to me crazy that we are unable to use that kind of evidence in the UK.
I don't think it's a threat to human rights. It would simply enhance the ability of the courts to do their work and bring criminals to book.
Of course there must be safeguards - the defence must be entitled to access the evidence and there must be ways of making sure a recording has not been tampered with.
As regards special courts, the experience of France and the Republic of Ireland courts seems to be that they work well and there's no reason why this should not be so in the UK.
We know that in terrorism cases, juries can be intimidated and threatened, so to have a panel of judges instead, who are experienced and can specialise in the subject and can at least be protected, is a very sensible measure.
But I think there are great difficulties with the idea of using civil orders in terms of civil liberties.
We already have the Terrorism Act 2000, which was designed to deal with these types of offences and I feel if there is enough evidence against someone then they should be taken to court and prosecuted under that act.
If there isn't the evidence, then people should not be detained.
Other countries in the European Union and other democracies such as Canada have not resorted to these civil orders and I don't see what the purpose of them would be.
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI, DIRECTOR OF CAMPAIGN GROUP LIBERTY
The first thing to remember is that David Blunkett's announcement in the Dimbleby interview is vague about what exactly is proposed and it has to be vague until the Lords decides on whether to repeal part four of the 2001 Terrorism Act, which allows the internment without trial at Belmarsh Prison.
Until that is decided, everything is up in the air and that's why this is not in the Queen's Speech.
This possible new terror legislation is actually both an opportunity and a threat. It could be an opportunity to repeal these terrible provisions in the 2001 act and end the scandal of people being locked up without trial - possibly some of them on evidence obtained through torture at Guantanamo Bay - for three years now.
If what the home secretary is trying to do is come up with some alternative, then that's a good thing.
In that spirit, I welcome the possibility of lifting the ban on wire tap evidence in court. We say that if it's sometimes legitimate to listen in on a suspect's phone calls, then why can't we hear it in court and let him have a fair trial.
But the other things are slightly more worrying. The most worrying is this vague proposal that he might extend the Special Immigration Appeals Procedure to ordinary criminal trials. That's chilling.
Any suspicion that he is now fantasising about extending the use of secret evidence and secret trials to criminal suspects as a whole must be very worrying.
But we don't know exactly what he meant and we have to wait for the outcome of the Lords ruling and for more details to emerge.
As for trials without juries, I'm worried because this government has been quite anti-jury trials for a long time. I'm quite worried the right to jury trial could be eroded because of the war on terror.
His other proposal, which is the equivalent of anti-social behaviour orders for terrorism, I'm very nervous about, because it would be a further blurring of civil and criminal standards of proof to get rid of the presumption of innocence.
I want to know what it is that would have to be proved for an individual is considered a suspect. What would the government have to prove before it slapped one of these orders on you?
But the bottom line is we cannot have a constructive discussion about anti-terror laws in this country until we see the repeal of part four of the 2001 act.
Until the government repeals internment without trial, the whole of anti-terror law is in dispute due to the suspension of the normal rule of law. It's the most fundamental abrogation to intern someone year-on- year on the basis of a politician's suspicions.
Allowing the use of intercepted material, such as telephone calls should help, as it ought to help bring to trial some people who the government says it has not been able to, using the inadmissibility of the evidence as an excuse.
This would be much better than locking people up without trial.
Part 4 is making us less safe rather than more safe, just as Guantanamo is making the Americans less safe because of the injustice and the ammunition it gives to people trying to fight an anti-UK or anti-US cause.
We have understandable and legitimate fears of terrorism but we've got think seriously if all this tough talk is making us safer and I doubt it is. The war on terror is supposed to be protecting our democracy not destroying it and that's what's happening.
:blink: OMG - it's like THE FLU
Complete Article Here at the BBC
Head to head: Terror law plans
Home Secretary David Blunkett has announced plans for tough new measures to combat terrorism, including special anti-terror court sittings without juries and the use of phone-tap evidence in trials.
Two experts put their differing views on the measures, which will be brought in if Labour wins the next election.
Terrorism expert Paul Wilkinson considers many of the proposals sensible in the face of a serious threat from al-Qaeda, while Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti worries our civil rights have already been unacceptably eroded by previous legislation.
PROFESSOR PAUL WILKINSON, CHAIRMAN OF THE CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF TERRORISM AND POLITICAL VIOLENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS
It's important to recognise there is a serious threat. People who imagine there isn't a threat are living in a fool's paradise.
I don't think anyone in the government is trying to hype up panic. The fact is, there is a very real problem. Al-Qaeda has threatened the UK repeatedly and, as we know, the kind of attacks it launches are more deadly than those launched in the past by the IRA.
The government is quite right to be taking the problem seriously. We cannot be complacent. And of course we should be examining the tool kit of different measures we can use to protect our society.
As I understand it, these proposals are not going to be included in the Queen's Speech so there will be opportunity for parliamentary debate - that's terribly important, both from the point of view of how effective they would be and for their impact on civil liberties.
We don't want to destroy the freedoms we have - that would be doing the terrorists' job for them. It's a question of getting the balance right.
It's very important to enlist as wide a support as possible, from all political parties. That gives the proposals much more credibility and the chance of full public co-operation and support is much greater.
In terms of the specific proposals, I would pick out using wire tap evidence in trials. It does seem to me crazy that we are unable to use that kind of evidence in the UK.
I don't think it's a threat to human rights. It would simply enhance the ability of the courts to do their work and bring criminals to book.
Of course there must be safeguards - the defence must be entitled to access the evidence and there must be ways of making sure a recording has not been tampered with.
As regards special courts, the experience of France and the Republic of Ireland courts seems to be that they work well and there's no reason why this should not be so in the UK.
We know that in terrorism cases, juries can be intimidated and threatened, so to have a panel of judges instead, who are experienced and can specialise in the subject and can at least be protected, is a very sensible measure.
But I think there are great difficulties with the idea of using civil orders in terms of civil liberties.
We already have the Terrorism Act 2000, which was designed to deal with these types of offences and I feel if there is enough evidence against someone then they should be taken to court and prosecuted under that act.
If there isn't the evidence, then people should not be detained.
Other countries in the European Union and other democracies such as Canada have not resorted to these civil orders and I don't see what the purpose of them would be.
SHAMI CHAKRABARTI, DIRECTOR OF CAMPAIGN GROUP LIBERTY
The first thing to remember is that David Blunkett's announcement in the Dimbleby interview is vague about what exactly is proposed and it has to be vague until the Lords decides on whether to repeal part four of the 2001 Terrorism Act, which allows the internment without trial at Belmarsh Prison.
Until that is decided, everything is up in the air and that's why this is not in the Queen's Speech.
This possible new terror legislation is actually both an opportunity and a threat. It could be an opportunity to repeal these terrible provisions in the 2001 act and end the scandal of people being locked up without trial - possibly some of them on evidence obtained through torture at Guantanamo Bay - for three years now.
If what the home secretary is trying to do is come up with some alternative, then that's a good thing.
In that spirit, I welcome the possibility of lifting the ban on wire tap evidence in court. We say that if it's sometimes legitimate to listen in on a suspect's phone calls, then why can't we hear it in court and let him have a fair trial.
But the other things are slightly more worrying. The most worrying is this vague proposal that he might extend the Special Immigration Appeals Procedure to ordinary criminal trials. That's chilling.
Any suspicion that he is now fantasising about extending the use of secret evidence and secret trials to criminal suspects as a whole must be very worrying.
But we don't know exactly what he meant and we have to wait for the outcome of the Lords ruling and for more details to emerge.
As for trials without juries, I'm worried because this government has been quite anti-jury trials for a long time. I'm quite worried the right to jury trial could be eroded because of the war on terror.
His other proposal, which is the equivalent of anti-social behaviour orders for terrorism, I'm very nervous about, because it would be a further blurring of civil and criminal standards of proof to get rid of the presumption of innocence.
I want to know what it is that would have to be proved for an individual is considered a suspect. What would the government have to prove before it slapped one of these orders on you?
But the bottom line is we cannot have a constructive discussion about anti-terror laws in this country until we see the repeal of part four of the 2001 act.
Until the government repeals internment without trial, the whole of anti-terror law is in dispute due to the suspension of the normal rule of law. It's the most fundamental abrogation to intern someone year-on- year on the basis of a politician's suspicions.
Allowing the use of intercepted material, such as telephone calls should help, as it ought to help bring to trial some people who the government says it has not been able to, using the inadmissibility of the evidence as an excuse.
This would be much better than locking people up without trial.
Part 4 is making us less safe rather than more safe, just as Guantanamo is making the Americans less safe because of the injustice and the ammunition it gives to people trying to fight an anti-UK or anti-US cause.
We have understandable and legitimate fears of terrorism but we've got think seriously if all this tough talk is making us safer and I doubt it is. The war on terror is supposed to be protecting our democracy not destroying it and that's what's happening.
< if you travel, be safe.