This is the highly controversial plan which the government has put forward which would allow the security services to detain a terror suspect for 42 days without charge. The Home Secretary argues that this is necessary because of the changing and complex nature of the terrorist threat.
Personally I see it as a dangerous infringement of civil liberties and completely oppose it. Britain already has the longest period (28 days) of detention without charge of any democratic nation. Detaining a potentially innocent human being is appaling and unnecessary. There is a serious possiblity that the government could lose this vote. I hope they do, although it will be another blow to Gordon Brown's leadership.
What does everybody else think?
Verbatim. King For A Couple Of Days Age: 102 Gender: Female Posts: 3281
June 10th, 2008 at 06:59pm
Hmm, I actually kinda agree with it. I mean, if someone is arrested on suspicion of terrorism, there must be quite a lot of basic evidence for them to arrest the person in the first place, I mean, it's not the kind of thing they go arresting people willy nilly for. And for something as serious and potentially lethal as a terrorist, I think the police should be able to detain someone for as long as they think is necessary in order to find the answers. If a person is kept for the full 28 days, I think it's likely to be that they are involved in some way, even if they're not the actual terrorist, and I think that it's such a serious matter these days that such extreme measures should be taken to ensure that horrible acts of terrorism like 7/7 and 9/11 never happen again.
I actually support it.
Anji Basket Case Age: 34 Gender: Female Posts: 15914
June 11th, 2008 at 05:02am
How can the government have sound evidence ifthey need to detain a suspect without charge. When they have the evidence, then it is necessary to detain them. Otherwise, nothing is stopping them from just pulling in a random sampling to weed out any possible terrorist suspects. As a victim of terrorism, I do find this quite unnecessary.
Matt Smith Admin Age: 32 Gender: Female Posts: 31134
June 11th, 2008 at 06:12am
Omg yay people replied
I'd just like to add that I think the full 28 day period has been used only once. Besides, if there is a serious need to detain a suspect for longer in extraordinary cases, then the existing laws would already allow the Home Secretary to obtain an extension. So 42 days is wholly unnecessary, as well as a terrible infingement on civil liberties.
Britain is supposed to be a nation which respects and values civil liberties. The period of detention in the US is only 2 days, so why does Britain need 42? The principle behind our justice system is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. How does detaining a potentially innocent person for 42 days fit in with that?
who.killed.caustic:
kso, i do agree with it. honestly, if you think about it, the government probably has sound reason and/or evidence to detain this person. terrorism is something that usually isn't taken lightly, and if the government is detaining this person, there is probably a really good reason. like start something said, measures like this should be taken to prevent 7/7 and 9/11 don't happen again.
If they have good evidence and a sound reason, then they should arrest them under the terrorism act. Not keep them locked up for 42 days without charge.
If the government had sound evidence, they wouldn't be SUSPECTED terrorists. If the evidence was reallyb sound, it would be either YES HE/SHE IS A TERRORIST or NO HE/SHE IS NOT A TERRORIST. Not THERE IS ONLY ENOUGH PROOF THAT WE SUSPECT THAT HE/SHE COULD POSSIBLY BE INVOLVED IN SOME TYPE OF TERRORISM.
Barney Stinson Basket Case Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 17567
June 28th, 2008 at 11:21pm
WHOA! Suspected Terrorists get detention for 42 days?! what's up with that! I mean, come one! 3000 people were killed in 9/11 and this is how we, America, one, if not the strongest country in the world deals with Terrorists? Suspected ones? Come on! It's like the terrorist who got put in maximum security jail for life a few years ago... WEAK!!!
EDIT = I understand that I made a mistake about where in the world this took place. I apologize. But I still stand by what I said. Britain is a strong country too, definately one of the strongest in the world. Again, I apologize.
Jesse Lacey Post Whore Age: 30 Gender: Female Posts: 23946
June 29th, 2008 at 12:30pm
Jimney Cricket:
WHOA! Suspected Terrorists get detention for 42 days?! what's up with that! I mean, come one! 3000 people were killed in 9/11 and this is how we, America, one, if not the strongest country in the world deals with Terrorists? Suspected ones? Come on! It's like the terrorist who got put in maximum security jail for life a few years ago... WEAK!!!
If you would have read it before typing you'd know it didn't happen in America.
However, I agree with it.
And I don't.
If there is evidence to support the suspicion I'd rather be safe than sorry.
But if there isn't a definite answer either way then it's kind of ridiculous.
And unfair.
Especially being held for that long of time.
Ohey I'm back again with more from the wonderful world of British politics.
Barney Stinson Basket Case Age: 31 Gender: Female Posts: 17567
June 29th, 2008 at 08:39pm
Kurtni:
Jimney Cricket:
this is how we, America,
Bloodraine:
Ohey I'm back again with more from the wonderful world of British politics.
Sorry.... I thought it was an American thing.... sorry...
Guess you can understand how I feel about terrorists regardless of where it is....
suzie_k Falling In Love With The Board Age: 38 Gender: Female Posts: 8288
July 1st, 2008 at 04:15pm
My probem with the 42 day detention, aside from the possibility or likely hood of false improsonment, is the fact that with a longer time to investigat will Scotland yeard and the police force be more lax with investigations a put it on the back burner because they have longer to look into it?
