|
|
| WHAT THE PAPERS SAY ABOUT PRE-CHARGE DETENTION See the Real Consensus Below are some excerpts from leader columns in almost all of the major national daily newspapers opposing the extension of pre-charge detention. You can follow the link for each one and read the whole article. Read about the growing number of high profile people and organisations who agree with us that there is no evidence for going beyond 28 days by clicking the image on the right. Find out how you can add your voice to the Real Consensus by visiting our page on what you can do. “…Yet the whole package is weakened by the plan to extend beyond 28 days the length of time a terrorist suspect can be detained without charge. The lack of evidence to justify the new power is deeply disturbing. Presumably if there were examples of how it would have helped, ministers would be keen to provide them. Instead we get assertion that the power is sure to be needed at some point. This is not enough. Such a shift away from basic rights requires a compelling case for change.” 15.11.2007
“…Challenged yesterday over her plans to extend imprisonment without trial, Jacqui Smith had to admit there had never been a single case in which the police found the present 28-day detention limit inadequate. All she could say was it was ‘at least highly possible’ that such an instance would arise. Possible, Ms Smith? You’d water down a precious, hard-won liberty on the basis of a mere possibility?...” 08.11.2007
“…We have frequently argued that because the police want something, they not automatically get it. That is nowhere more true than when considering detention without trial, because it strikes at the heart of one of our most cherished freedoms. In the face of Islamist terrorism, there is a fine line to tread between protecting the public from violent acts and protecting our liberties. Extending the 28-day limit would undoubtedly undermine our liberties, yet there is no convincing evidence that it would practically assist counter-terror operations…” 08.11.2007
“…There is no more fundamental principle of liberty than that men and women should not be locked up without being allowed their day in court: it is a principle that can be compromised only when the case is overwhelming. Such a case has not been made now any more than it had been when MPs rightly rejected Mr Blair's plans to imprison suspects for 90 days in November 2005. Over recent months parliamentary committees have investigated the matter, interrogating police and politicians alike. No new argument has been forthcoming. Indeed, the Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Ian Blair has been clear: the police have not yet encountered a single case that would have required them to go beyond the existing 28-day limit. That limit is already one of the longest in the western world, and it should not be extended on the off-chance that this may at some stage prove helpful to the authorities…” 07.11.2007
“…On Tuesday, in the Queen's speech, the government will announce a new anti-terror bill. It will include an extension, perhaps a doubling, of the current provision for police to hold terror suspects without charge for up to 28 days. Such detention deforms a basic legal principle - the presumption of innocence. That step can only be sanctioned if there is sufficient evidence that it will protect the public. It must be proven to be worth the cost in universal liberties.
The government only warns darkly of terror cells lurking in the body politic, and trumpets success in preventing attacks. But those plots have generally been foiled by traditional intelligence and police methods that pre-date the recent rush to legislate against jihadi violence…” 04.11.2007
“…Mr Brown spoke of a “growing weight of opinion” on the need to extend the 28-day period of detention without charge for terrorist suspects. He clearly inclines towards the view, robustly championed by the previous Home Secretary, that this should be doubled. But he should think again. There is no need for a blanket extension…” 26.07.2007
“…In our view, anything that compromises the principle of habeas corpus is too much and detracts from this country's tradition of liberty and justice. But in all the arguments to and fro, we have heard nothing that suggests the police need even the 28 days they have at their disposal now, let alone the 56 days Mr Brown has proposed. Work, as is known, has a habit of expanding to fit the time available. The police are no exception to this rule. Has the Met, which has long angled for 90 days, nobbled the new Prime Minister so soon? We are back to playing politics with terror…” 26.07.2007
|  |
|
