Slashdot Mirror
UK Can Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days
the_leander writes "Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days. There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused. The chances of you getting that money however are slim to none, lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs."
Is that 42 in base 13?
....as the Bill in question has only been passed by the House of Commons. It's got to go before the House of Lords yet. Many commentators think it is not going to do too well there.
The UK can't now hold people for 42 days without trial - the Bill still needs to pass the House of Lords to become law
At least the English know not to do something like Guantanamo Bay. They tried that 220 years ago, and created Australia.
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
The answer to life, the universe and everything now includes the number of days the UK can hold you without charges.
Disclaimer: I have lived a year in the UK, (specifically, Lancaster, England) and have nothing against the people...
But remember, despite people bitching about the US' policies, we still have among the world's most stringent policies regarding the rights of the accused. I was always shocked by most UK citizens attitudes regarding free speech and the right of the accused. While they, obviously, abhorred the idea of someone being put to the death they saw nothing wrong with imprisoning someone without charges for 30 days.
At any rate, I'm sorry this happened =/. I had hoped for better from our friends across the pond.
... where it's currently 6+ years and counting.
Oh wait, I forgot - they're not being held by the police, and they're not actually in America. My bad.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
We don't need terrorists anymore, we are doing their job for them. Thanks Gordon.
As mentioned above, the bill has to make it through the house of lords yet, and since the Lords are usually the "conscience" of the legal process in the UK (weird, but true), it's highly unlikely to make it.
And, of course, 42 days in police custody, still with all human-rights privileges and in a standard jail subject to standard civilian law is a significantly better deal than several years in a foreign military jail, with questionable legal status, and subject to military law and "process". I very very much doubt these suspects, held for 42 days maximum, will be tortured and humiliated, either.
In other words, glass-house-dwellers, throw no stones...
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
To hell with facts, let's just post grossly misrepresented stories. The police *can't* hold terror suspects for 42 days, until this is passed by the House of Lords, which is unlikely to happen.
/. got similar stories in the US so utterly wrong, for example if some congressman from Bumfuck, Iowa proposed the death penalty for people caught with more than 1g of cannabis, and /. reported it as a huge roundup and mass execution of dope smokers.
I could understand it if
Of course, it's posted by samzenpus, who seems to have a particular dislike of the UK.
Did they pass the bill for charging prisoners for their Information Retrieval Procedures yet? Is that next week?
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
As if that'd make any difference. It's the game that's the problem, not the players. Time to leave this country I think. Anyone recommend a decent country that respects human rights, has sensible drug legislation, and fast, cheapish internet connections?
Besides it being the answer to the ultimate question, why was 42 chosen and not 43 or 41?
"Guantanamo bay"
or how about: "Abu Ghraib"
The US certainly has no moral high ground. They rape, torture, and sexually humiliate *suspected* terrorists, in a foreign land, out of sight of the people because they're so ashamed of what they do in the people's name.
If (I'm not, but *if*) I was a suspected terrorist, I'd take 42 days maximum in a standard UK jail, held under standard UK law by standard UK law-enforcement over indefinite detainment in a foreign military prison, with no legal status, and denied the right of habeus corpus. I'd prefer to be jailed in the UK rather than tortured and sexually abused by the US military.
Just saying. I continue to hope that the American people abhor and remove this stain on their countries honour, but it seems to be getting worse, not better.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
Fellow dis-United Kingdommers: welcome to the 51st State.
Now, the Tories have become the more liberal party like the Dems in the USA and are vehemenetly trying to prevent the degradation of Habeas Corpus principles. The Labor party (which used to be more left-leaning Jimmy Carter type) has turned into a Neocon haven under Blair and Brown.
Except, of course, the bill has to get through the Lords. Which it almost certainly won't. Even Lord Goldsmith (ex attorney general, promoted to Lords) is against it.
Then it has to be voted on again by the Commons - which could be in a few months time. Only then will it become law (ignoring formality royal assent, and possible rare use of Parliament Act).
Who knows what Brown's ability to force sick MPs into the house to vote, and what deals N. Ireland MPs will insist upon then?
I honestly think a few months down the line, when it comes to the crunch, the government could loose this, and force a vote of no confidence vote on Brown.
In any case UK is still a way off from 42 day detention......
echo $SIGNATURE
they interrogate the suspects and expect to get the answer to everything?
Well, since the people we elect are essentially Kang or Kodos who try to pass whatever laws they like without giving the public a chance to vote on the matter, I quite like the idea of the house of lords (harder to bribe some rich bugger than the corrupt political class intent on filling their own pockets. Yes, some Lords were once those corrupt politicals, but they are comparatively rich and settled now).
There are many things wrong with our system, but having some kind of 'second opinion' of government policy is not a bad idea.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Looks like the Brits finally have acknowledged that 42 is the answer to everything.
Open Source Alternatives
Wasn't Jose Padilla held without charges for a number of years in South Carolina?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Sure, the poor sod was billed 12500 for bed and ledging...
But that was only subtracted from the 200k+ he got as compensation.
Which makes this a complete counterexample.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
The bill defines how long you can hold someone without charging him with a crime. That's got nothing to do with how long, after he has been charged, it can take before he is tried.
As I understand it, the current limit is 28 days, so they're just tacking on an extra two weeks, and according to the BBC, they want the right on a "contingency basis" when the crime in question is particularly complicated and time-consuming to unravel, so they can figure out who's who and know whom to charge and whom to let go. An example they give is when there are international complications, e.g. the police need to get info from another country's police, immigration, or security services, which, of course, can take an annoyingly long time, since you have to rely on purely voluntary cooperation (no English judge can compel a French police caption, or a Saudi immigration agency, or the FBI).
In other words, as a general rule, the 28-day limit stays in effect, but in certain unusual circumstances -- e.g. something like the London bombing, evidence that some major operation has taken place, or is about to take place -- then the government can raise the 28-day limit to 42 days temporarily. Even if the limit is raised, a judge needs to sign off on applying it to any particular individual. Parlaiment can step in at any time after the limit is raised and reverse it. And, in any event, the raising expires after 60 days.
I dunno, when you look at the bill in detail, it seems rather, well, moderate. Not quite like the massive Armageddon / burning pile of civil liberties / return of the Gestapo, Inquisition, and the rack that lots of Chicken Littles seem to think it is. *shrug*
The Lords are only allowed to send Bills back to the Commons twice. They have no power other than to force debate and thought. It's not part of the "unwritten constitution", it's the Parliament Acts of 1911(Liberal) and 1949(Labour). The British constitution is mostly written, it's just written all over the place.
I would ask the grandparent how much he would like to be imprisoned for a month and ten days, only to be dumped back on the streets having no idea of why, no legal right to be told why and a scant chance of limited compensation. Can you imagine the effect on your family, your job, your reputation? This allows the state to destroy individuals with only limited checks and balances.
There isn't a day now where I don't thank god for the House of Lords injecting, unbelievably, some sanity into Parliament.
It's been hardly 60 years since millions died fighting for freedom. Does there have to be a genocide every three generations?
Time to find me a new country.
Or you could go elsewhere and get arrested by the USA, held without charge, tortured outside the reach of US or international law ...
....
Or you could go to the USA, get arrested for a crime not committed on US soil, outside US duristriction, and for something that is not illegal where you did it (Dmitry Sklyarov)
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act.
Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe.
Anyone quoted by a reporter knows how little they understand
Don't believe what you read is the truth.
How can a man be convicted based on hearsay?
In Brasil, a jury decision can (AFAIK) be overturned due to "lack of evidence".
Isn't this the case in the UK and the US (from where I've also heard of people being convicted due to hearsay)?
It shocks me that a man under trial is completely at the mercy of those 12 people.
They could just shoot you as you're rushing to catch your morning train...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
In addition to all the hype surrounding this, at least there is a legal framework. Bear in mind that the US uses its Guantanamo Bay as a jail for indefinite detention with no access to a lawyer. I kind of prefer the UK version, no?
Karem
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Right... So, you maintain that Guantanamo Bay is a prisoner of war camp, eh? If that's the case, the united states is bound by the geneva convention. But... They're not abiding by the laws set down in the geneva convention because they deny they're prisoners of war. So if they're NOT prisoners of war, and they're NOT convicted criminals, that means the USA has conducted a mass kidnapping campaign. There IS nothing in international law that can make what they've done legal.
A lot of people have already pointed out that it smplu isn't the case that this can now happen because the bill is no where near becoming a law, and is highly unlikely to ever do so. But even if this bill does become law it would still be wrong to say that people could be held for 42 days without charge, because all this bill seeks to do is create a structure for a detention of that length to happen rather than to provide the authority for it to actually happen. In order to use this power there would need to be extensive consultation with independent judges and votes in parliament, and it can only be suggested in extreme emergencies any way.
If any thing the main problem with this bill is that it will alienate a lot of people from the national.community (which is already pretty shakey) for no real benefit because whenever these powers could be used the pm could have used the civil contingencies act and declared a state of emergency under existing powers. So really we already can hold people for 42 days, as can pretty much any country in the world, if a state of emergency and/or martial law is declared
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
"There is talk of compensation packages available for the falsely accused. "
And since it's cheaper to compensate the poor for their lost wages than the rich, guess who this will be used most heavily against, and who will be all but immune from it!
Ah so now America is at war with these suspected terrorists they can treat them entirely differently. I guess the UK isn't at war with these terrorists though because you said so. This new law will only apply to terrorist suspects so I don't see what the difference is really.
Also when will the US decide this 'war' is over. When they have made the terrorists formally surrender? That is never going to happen. Also who are hey even waging the war against? They capture their enemies in interesting places. And of course they will not be able to do anything against these suspected terrorists if they are prisoners of war. I guess they could charge them with war crimes but the problem is that they didn't actually commit any.
Why the goverment just doesn't do what communists did around the world after WWII?
I mean, why not just change entire country into the prison/labor camp? For 42 years?
I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
See you all in 42 days...
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Count the number of people who live in Detroit. Count the number of US soldiers in Iraq. Then go back to your fucking trailer and learn some maths.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
Just as in the US, party affiliation is more about where you grew up and your aspirations than any core beliefs. There are many far-right Labour MPs (like John Reid) and there are many quite left wing Conservatives - very left wing by US standards. The new Mayor of London - not Lord Mayor of the City, please note - is a pro-European Conservative whose social views are so liberal that he could never get elected in the US. Margaret Thatcher had a soft spot for nasty dictators just so long as they did what she wanted, but she would have seen straight through the neocons because at heart she was a Little Englander. The nearest UK equivalent to Barack Obama - David Lammy - is Labour but would fit in well to any of the mainstream parties.
Unfortunately for us, the most influential British political party is the Rupert Murdoch Party, one man one vote and he has the vote. Illiberal legislation is drafted with an eye to getting Murdoch approval. The House of Lords doesn't give a shit about Murdoch (or Rothermere, or the Barclay Brothers, the other right wing media owners). Therefore, they can carry on doing their proper job. But mainstream politicians have bought into the belief that you must have right wing media approval to survive. It seems increasingly sociologists and psephologists don't believe this, but politicians are too busy to listen to them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
It takes more than a couple of fancy dinners to buy a lord's vote.
No sig today...
Remember the Tories practiced internment during the height of the IRA bombings. Hardly a party of liberty.
As a British citizen, I know the only ways to enjoy liberty are to be 'below the radar' of the authorities, and rely on their absolute incompetence. The state machinery is totally unconcerned with the populace, seeing them a way to feed the corporatist machine and nothing more.
As an aside, I read once that Margaret Thatcher was amazed by how "incredibly stupid" Ronnie Reagen was, so I'm not convinced their relationship was that good.
Whereas in the real world UK, I have to get an electrical contractor to fill in form BS 7671:2008 after I have simply replaced a smashed light switch.
The fact that I live out in the sticks and that I cannot find a qualified electrician who will drive out to do such a small job, seems not to bother either the department of information retrieval - erm, I mean the local council planning department, nor my house insurers.
FFS. Replacing a light switch is no more difficult than wiring a plug. If you're dumb enough to cock that up, you probably have someone who looks after you anyway.
Today, I am the Harry Tuttle of electrical wiring.
What I could do with are some really nice ducts to hide my anarcho-lightswitch, before Bob Hoskins and his long-capped friends mark me as a terrorist.
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
We keep being told there is overwhelming public support for this but I'm yet to meet anyone who thinks it's a good idea. I'd like to know *exactly* wat the question was the government asked that go such a high support rate. I'm guessing based on previous ones they'e weasled their way with it was "Would you support 42 days if we could guarantee your safety from all future attacks and promise only to detain proper terrorists not innocent people?'
The question that showed people apparantly supporting the ID card was along the same lines.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
What most people seem to be forgetting here is that just because the House of Commons has voted for it doesn't mean that it is law. The bill has to pass the House of Lords, who many people are hoping will not accept it and send it back to the Commons for another reading. At the very least this will prevent it being written into law until after the summer recess. Then even if it does come back to the Lords they are under no obligation to approve it. Only if the House of Lords rejects the bill 3 times can the Commons use the Parliment Act to force it through into law but even then they still need a majority vote to do so. So, all you UK citizens out there, we need to do something about this, write to the House of Lords and ask them to oppose the bill, write to your MPs and tell them you don't want this to be passed into law and get your friends to do the same.
Only if you don't count Iraqis as people. They have lost around 1 million CIVILIANS, which is actually a lot more (per day) than when Saddam was in power.
That's a slight mis-characterisation of how European law works. Since the Human Rights Act was passed the place this laws validity will be tested is the UK courts. Sure if their are arguments about the UK implementation of the HRA it could still go to the European Court but not on the case in question.
And besides the UK can always derogate from Europe on this if they want. They are still a sovereign country.
Er, even the article states that his £252k compensation was reduced, on audit, by £12.5k to cover the cost of keeping him for three years - and that in itself is a sum that works out at about what his SSP entitlement would have been over the period in which he was imprisoned, which is likely far less than the cost of actually imprisoning him (prisons being hellishly expensive to run). In short - he still walked away with £240k compensation. The implication that he somehow had to write a cheque himself is grossly misleading.
Moreover, the article is from the Daily "Hate" Mail, the newspaper that defines journalistic standards by contradiction; I'd more or less regard anything it prints as false by default, unless corroborated by a reliable source.
1. respects human rights, 2. has sensible drug legislation, and 3. fast, cheapish internet Choose 2. g
To be protected by the third Geneva conventions you have to fulfil certain conditions. According to the United States those combatants taken by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq do not meet those requirements. If you believe the United States assertion that these individuals when captured did not match the requirements of Article 4 of the Third Geneva convention then they must fall under the forth Geneva convention (unless the are medical personnel).
Here is where the problem comes in. While these individuals are not prisoners of war (at least if you believe the United States) they are protected by the conventions. Those conventions require that in all circumstance combatants who are not in the fight (those that have been captured even if they do not qualify as prisoners of war) be treated humanely, signatories of the Forth Geneva Convention are prohibited from murdering or otherwise injuring such individuals, holding such individuals hostage, committing outrages against the personal dignity of such individuals and from conducting sentences or undertaking executions of such individuals without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
So the United States is probably in violation of the Forth Geneva Convention (which is very bad for their service men and women and their civilians because it justifies other belligerents suspending some of their obligations too). Indefinite lengthy detention without trial after the war is over (that is once the occupation begins) is one possible violation. In addition water boarding (and other such treatments) of suspects certainly violates the inhumane and degrading treatment prohibition and possibly the first prohibition on the inflicting of injury.
Worse however is the possibility that some of the detainees might be miss identified as a protected person under the Forth Geneva convention, when if fact they are a prisoner of war under the third. If any of the individuals held at Gitmo are "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war" they are prisoners of war. Now we come to the real problem, because if there is any doubt as to the status of these individuals then they must be treated as prisoners of war until a competent tribunal determines their status.
Competent tribunals are not being held, and the 'trials' of those deemed unlawful combatants that are being held do not meet the requirements of the forth convention. The United States is committing war crimes and not living up to its treaty requirements under the Geneva conventions.
Every nation ever has taken prisoners of war during a conflict, this is true. But the United States does not classify those held at Gitmo as prisoners of war. If it did, then it could hold them until the end of the war (which since Iraq is occupied is now). It could also try them for war crimes if they have committed any (no need for a civilian court there, just a fair one). However prisoners of war are not subject to the laws of the invading power. Alternatively it can consider them protected persons under the Forth Geneva convention, hold fair trials and convict the lot of them under it's own domestic laws (which since they are not prisoners of war they are now subject to), assuming in cases where there is some uncertainty a competent tribunal is convened to determine the status of the captive.
No, they're not - at least, not according to British law. As far as I'm aware (from a year and a half of a law degree), not even the ECtHR can force the British government to change the law - they can award damages against governments, and their opinion can have the effect of rendering such a law unenforceable, but that's all. Meanwhile, because of the longstanding doctrine of parliamentary supremacy, the British courts are estopped from examining the procedures of Parliament at all, despite HRA 1998; even if they find a law to be morally wrong, the most they can do directly is issue a "declaration of incompatibility" - which the government can counter by simply having a minister stand up in the Commons and say "No it isn't". (In fact, as all bills are required to be since HRA'98, this bill will have been declared by the government to be compatible with the ECHR; the onus will be on someone whose human rights have been damaged by it to prove that no such compatibility exists.)
Oh hell, I'll bite.
...
So, it worked? The Iraqi government got their acts together and stopped the sectarian bullshit? Because after all, that's what the surge was about.
No? They're still squabbling and gridlocked? The surge is now acting like a pressure cooker whose lid is going to be loosened because we can't keep that many men there permanently and the violence will blow up again? Phooey.
"....The War Powers Act of 1973 (Pub.L. 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution, is a resolution of Congress that stated that the President can send troops into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or if America is already under attack or serious threat. The War Powers Act requires that the president notify Congress within 48 hours of committing troops to military action and forbids troops from remaining for more than 60 days without a declaration of war......"
When exactly did we declare war on either Iraq or Afghanistan?
There is a difference between "war" as normally understood and "an undeclared war without end".
The war against terror, like the war against drugs is an artifice to mollify weak minded people to delegate their thinking and power completely to the government with no checks and balances.
I mirror the feelings of veteran labour MP Tony Benn when yesterday he said "I cant believe I would see the day that Magna Carta was repealed"
The reason this got voted through was because Gordon Brown and his chief whips spent days coercing MP's to vote in his favour. This does not prove that the 42-day extension is valid, or even needed, more that Gordon Brown was able to command enough MP votes on an issue, by offering them "incentives".
It is very unlikely this will make it through the House of Lords, there are prominent libertarians there just waiting to pull this apart.
If by some crazy act this actually *does* make it past the house of lords it will be tested in the law courts and the European courts.
Its VERY unlikely this will actually make it into law.
I was in the Netherlands recently, and was very tempted to move there at some point.
You're very right about the game being the problem. I'm sick of politicians fighting as hard as they can to get reelected. If they put half as much effort into, you know, running the country sensibly, then this country would be a far better place.
Quick, somebody arrest an MP's or Minister's son/daughter on some charge and keep them incommunicado for 42 days.
Nothing will make a lawmaker retreat from his position than having to experience it himself.
Much like how Roman Engineers were forced to stand under the bridges they built, so that if the bridge breaks, they die first.
Arrest your PM's son/daughter and put them in jail for 42 days without a charge: Oh and sure, you pay them $252K minus boarding costs...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
At first I was shocked to read that also but then I looked at it and you gotta realize that they simply EXTENDED the period in which they could hold terror-suspects in what they call "pre-charge" arrest. So as horrible as that number sounds the headline should read: UK Can Now Hold People 14 Days Longer Without Charge
... but the grandparent might have violated a kiddie porn statute or two by encoding a string and then distributing a message which includes the substring "13 rape".
(No, he didn't, really. But it makes you wonder, because "13 rape.jpg" attached to a random photo from your family's digital camera almost certainly runs afoul of at least one kiddie porn statute: it "purports" to be pornography, and if you distribute or possess it that's all she wrote for you, bub.)
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
Have you been reading the Daily Mail this morning?
Yes, it's not quite what it used to be, but that's sensational in the extreme.
There's a lot of CCTV. I'm not really to fussed about that - don't commit crime in view of a camera. It's not like they've installed one in your living room.
Yes, there are some kids around who start fights. That's always been the case, and statistically you're safer now then in the past, it's just that every single stabbing in the country gets headlines. I live on a council estate in east London, and it's no worse then anywhere else, other then the fact kids *look* like they might cause trouble. That's because the media has trained everyone to assume a kid wearing a hood will cause trouble, not because they will.
Bad English? I'm afraid that leaving the country won't save you from that - in case you hadn't noticed there's Internet access in other parts of the world as well.
Football riots are also less common then they used to be. Most football fans enjoy the match, have a few (ok, a lot of) beers, and go home. The recent ones in Manchester were frankly inevitable - if you put several thousand very drunk people in an enclosed space, and then the screen they came to watch stops working minutes into the match, they're not going to be happy, but they also didn't firebomb anyone's houses (unlike the riots I remember from my childhood).
Honestly, I'm not as proud to be British as I used to be, but it's still better then the vast majority of the world. We could do with some work to improve things, but I'm not going to be leaving just yet.
A lot of people are complaining about this law. Why do you hate our country so much? Why do you want to make things easy for scumbag terrorists who want to kill us all in our beds or on our world class public transport?
:(
There will be checks and balances in place for this to make sure that the police do not abuse these powers and that no innocent people suffer from the outcomes. I mean, lets be honest here - why would you want to WALK on a cycle path? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article579334.ece) That's just dodgy!
As for the bloke who kept all of his belongings close to him on the tube, he did look a little odd and he had far too much techy stuff on him. (http://gizmonaut.net/bits/suspect.html).
The 82 year old who got arrested under the terrorism act at the labour conference (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4293502.stm) was a known trouble maker having already evaded one lawful regime's attempts to bring him to justice under their current laws back in the 40's, so he probably deserved what happened.
And the bloke who recently spent 6 days in a cell (http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2282045,00.html) for trying to print a document freely available on the Internet should have known better - why do you REALLY need to print stuff these days?
That's killing trees, that is, and deserves this kind of punishment!
In all of the above cases, these people were set free. And it's not like just being arrested can fuck up your life or anything. Or end up with your DNA on file for life. And I'm sure that most of the MPs voting for this bill know what it's like to spend a night or 6 in prison, so they'd never do that to an innocent person, knowing how badly you can come out of that experience.
We actually NAILED on terroristwith this law already - that uppity bitch won't go writing any more bad poetry in the near future, now will she!?
I mean, you have to understand that in a post 9/11 world, things are _different_ now. Al Kayeeda is really really really scary! Ok, sure, there have been fewer attacks than during the IRA years, but that's not the point here! We need this law so that... uhm...
Hang on a sec... This is the UK right, not Iran? Fuck
"lets not forget, this is the same country that charges prisoners who have been falsely accused for bed and boarding costs." Not to mention that it's the same country with summary executions on what are basically hunches http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/07/23/london.tube/index.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/23/AR2005072300987.html
Yes, "only" 650,000 from March 2003 - March 2007. Well done indeed.
PS. Linear extrapolation would give ~800,000 by this March.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
1. Respects human rights...check. Unless you're a muslim ofcourse, in which case half the country looks at you like you're about to whip a bomb from beneath the burkha(sp)
2. Sensible drug legislation...check.
3. fast, cheapish internet....yeah, guess so.
Still, in some respects even the Netherlands is going down the drain. We got Wilders, shiny new laws to tap phones and read e-mails and, like pretty much anywhere, it appears a decent part of the electorate shouldn't be allowed to tie their own shoelaces without someone checking they do it properly, let alone vote...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Yes, but at least you can't be arrested for it under the Terroism Act.
I was recently questioned by armed police in an airport under that particular act. I'm a white male, with long hair, and was carrying a backpack at the time.
Something tells me they were more suspicious that I was smuggling drugs, then that I was about to blow up Terminal 5.
Where is the variable "Iraqies"? They're people too, aren't they?
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
As if that'd make any difference. It's the game that's the problem, not the players. Time to leave this country I think. Anyone recommend a decent country that respects human rights, has sensible drug legislation, and fast, cheapish internet connections?
I've only been here for 6 months, but Switzerland seems to be pretty good.
Americans may be somewhat put off by the social structure that values "the community" over "the individual", however. That is to say, y'all might find it a but too "socialist".
"There is also the fact that this is very likely to be in breach of EU human rights act."
The European Convention on Human Rights is under the auspices of The Council Of Europe, not the EU. There's also a European Charter On Human rights which is from the EU, but it's a political declaration with no legal force.
"Even if this does pass the Lords (unlikely), the European Courts will take interest and may very well overturn it. Remember that the British Courts & Parliment are answerable to Europe. "
The European Court Of Human Rights does not have primacy over the national laws of any member, and the only power they have is expelling transgressors from the Council Of Europe.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Right... So, you maintain that Guantanamo Bay is a prisoner of war camp, eh? If that's the case, the united states is bound by the geneva convention
No, that's not the case. If Al Qaeda signed the geneva convention, then, the US would be bound by it, but oh, they didn't. so, screw their prisoners. It's entirely legal under international law.
This is my sig.
I don't think anyone is going to fail to be re-elected for voting for this.
No charge for 42 days? That's 1008 hours!
The iPhone's paltry 300 hours without a charge looks pretty lame now.
boakes.org
Thankfully I live in the United States.
"I'm sick of politicians fighting as hard as they can to get reelected."
It tends to happen when you live in a country that elects politicians. Ones that don't elect them do not of course have that particular problem, so their politicians concern themselves with taking measure to avoid being overthrown.
"If they put half as much effort into, you know, running the country sensibly, then this country would be a far better place."
Giving people a cushy job where they get to turn up when they feel like it, vote for their own pay rises, and have fat expense accounts to spend on whatever they like tends to result in a situation where actually doing what they're supposedly paid for is far less important than ensuring that they continue to be paid. This is known as human nature.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP, and will run for re-election on the single issue of fighting the 42 day rule.
Details still emerging, BBC News has some details
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
For the gods' sake, if you're a Brit you've got loads of countries in the EU to choose from. You can move any time you want. Literally any time. Go. Tomorrow. Why not? Go on -- go to France, or the low countires, or Scandinavia. The quality of life in most of those places is enormously better too.
that respects human rights, has sensible drug legislation, and fast, cheapish internet connections?Hellooooo? Europe! EU! You're a citizen! You can go catch a plane to Amsterdam and get a flat there tomorrow morning if you want!
But they haven't gone to any effort to actually prove the people imprisoned there ARE members of Al Qaeda, have they?
Hell, they kidnapped a couple of brits who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and kept them there until the british government FINALLY managed to get them released. 2 *years* later.
Also, Al Qaeda is not a nation. It's a terrorist organisation on a par with the IRA or ETA. NATIONS sign the geneva convention (is afganistan a signatory? I think you'll find they are.)
Besides, it's the country that signed that's bound by it, not the country the signator invaded. That would be VERY convenient wouldn't it? Let's invade some little country that hasn't signed so we can do what the hell we want with the populace without breaking international law?
Don't think so somehow.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildford_Four
As it happens I rewatched the Daniel Day movie In The Name Of The Father a short time back. It's odd to see, and recall from real life, the aghast reactions to the "Prevention of Terrorism Act" which gave UK police the unprecedented (and almost immediately abused) power to hold suspects without charge for an entire week - 7 days.
That was long enough to obtain at least 11 false convictions pretty much straight away. The modern UK police must be softies, if it takes them six times as long to extract a confession from whomever they decide to detain.
Ah yes, our fine tradition of having decisions by the people we elect overturned by a bunch of unelected lords.
I'd have more sympathy for that point of view if
Unlike Brown, who has never gone to the people for a mandate, it seems Shadow Home Secretary David Davis (for the non-UK folks: the main opposition party's front bench home affairs spokesman) has just resigned his seat in Parliament to force a by-election, which he will run on a platform of opposition to the 42 days. It seems at least one Member has enough spine to put their money where their mouth is on this issue and bet that the people really don't support the measure.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Guys, you're totally taking this the wrong way... there's a compensation package!
"I'm sorry we trampled all over your rights as a citizen and human being, but here's free room and board for a month and a half."
I understand its called "The Netherlands"...keep an eye on that pesky sea level rising due to global warming issue tho'.
What's a LabTerrorist?
Is GLaDOS a lab terrorist? I mean, she did flood Aperture Science Laboratories with a deadly neurotoxin...
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Including that the UK government admitted its methodology was "robust", and in line with best epidemiological practice?
Loads of (right-wing) people said it was rubbish but no-one pointed out any specific flaws which I think is pretty telling.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
Sorry, which war? The war you say is happening but everyone else says isn't, or the war that is happening, but you started?
You thought you could break the laws of physics without paying the PRICE?
This item is untrue. As many people have pointed out already, The UK Can NOT Now Hold People Without Charge For 42 Days. Isn't it about time Slashdot changed its headline?
For centuries after people were imprisoned in Britain for years with little or no trial especially if you happened to have pissed of the king. In fact even trials in medieval times were little more than a rubber stamp for the decision that had already been made by the local sheriff or other judicial representative.
As far as legal rights go I'd far sooner be living today than at any other time in the past. Even in the 19th century things were pretty grim - you could be imprisoned for debt with no food except what visitors brought you. No visitors? Tough , you starved.
You think that selling peerages / giving them away to your mates is a new thing that started with New Labour? Best read a little history, pal....
You could argue that the House of Lords had its origin in William the Conqueror carving up England and handing out bits of it to his people in exchange for help conquering the land in 1066. How do you think the original Lords became nobility in the first place? Down the centuries various best mates/lovers/wealthy bankers of the kings and queens became lords and therefore law makers. Nothing new.
It still has to go through the House of Lords before it can then go to the Queen for Royal Assent, then it becomes an Act of Parliament; it's still a Bill right now.
It's entirely possible the Lords will kick it back to the Commons - the government might not be so lucky on the vote the next time around.
It should be noted the last time a Labour government only just won a vote with the support the Unionists was 1979...
Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.
SAM: It's a refund... I'm afraid there was a mistake.
MRS. BUTTLE: Mistake?
SAM:(encouraged) Yes. Not my department... I'm only records. It seems that Mr. Buttle was overcharged by Information Retrieval. I don't think they usually make mistakes... but, er... I suppose we're all human.
SAM: Oh... what happened to the...? ...Actually, my bringing this here is rather unorthodox... Usually any payments are made through the central computer... but, er... there were certain difficulties, and rather than cause delay, we thought you might appreciate this now... it being Christmas.
MRS. BUTTLE: My husband's dead, isn't he?
SAM: Er... I assure you Mrs. Buttle, the Ministry is always very scrupulous about following up and eradicating error. If you have any complaints which you'd like to make, I'd be more than happy to send you the appropriate forms.
MRS. BUTTLE: What have you done with his body?
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."
He dun learned some redneck maths!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YN5q06cSFAg
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
You reactionary idiot. Read the article. Actually, don't. Spare the Brits your ridiculous personality, and stay at home. They don't need some ignorant asshat running around expecting the sky to fall on his head, rape his family, burn his flag, and blow up the nearest Krispy Kreme. Muppet.
Do you actually believe that, or are you just willing to say anything, no matter how obviously nonfactual, in order to support your opinions?
In any event, your statement is ridiculous. I suggest you increase the diversity of your news sources. PRAVDA and Al-Jazeera aren't the end-all and be-all of news reporting, you know.
Here, I'll get you started.
And amazingly, the UK judge who gets the case will "disappear" for 42 days.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
From 'El Reg': Top Tory resigns on principle over 42 days bill?
Because, if you read the article, you'd realise this extension is for the rare occasions when charges brought against someone require cooperation from international law-enforcement agencies, a process which takes a long time. If it was possible for them to charge them instantly, they'd do it. They're not doing this for shits and giggles, but to allow them in extreme circumstances to spend a bit longer in gathering evidence. They're not going to use this for everyone they catch on the street.
Your level of ignorance and knee-jerk reactionism is startling.
Yeah, because that's the answer to... everything.
Nonsense, that's the kind of stupid excuse you'd think people who gave a fuck about their rights wouldn't swallow.
No, you simply have a retarded attachment to your history that apparently outweighs the need for a Constitution (which you don't have, no matter how many times you crow that an loose assemblage of documents is a "constitution"). And the US constitution has proved such effective protection against the US government detaining people without trial, hasn't it? Remind me, how long have the GITMO detainees been there? How does it compare to 42 days?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
L. Ron Hubbard wrote a 1000 page book about aliens joking in Base 11.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
US Supreme Court rules that Guantanamo Prisoners have rights and can challenge their detention in US Civilian Courts: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7451139.stm
IX CCXLIX XVII II CLVII CXVI CCXXVII XCI CCXVI LXV LXXXVI CXCVII XCIX LXXXVI CXXXVI CXCII
Staying in the USA won't help. The US and UK have a bilateral agreement where extraditions don't require the usual judicial oversight in the other country. The UK could have you arrested in the USA and extradited without your appearing before a US court.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
David Lammy is black but that is actually coincidental. He comes from a difficult background, raised by a single mother, and became a successful lawyer. On entering Parliament, he has risen very rapidly to a ministerial job. So: both extemely bright, politically active and fast rising progessive charismatic black lawyers with difficult family backgrounds who went to Harvard Law School. Good enough for you? If anybody is likely to be the first black British Prime Minister, DL must be in with a chance.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The U.S. forces in Iraq are actually following many parts of the Geneva Conventions, such as wearing markings and clothing identifying them as combatants, etc.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Of course holding people without charge for 42 days is perfectly acceptable. After all, 42 is the ultimate answer to life, the Universe, and everything!
Tagged theanswertolifeuniverseeverything
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
Suspected terrorists and foreign fighters held by the U.S. military at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have the right to challenge their detention in federal court, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
On another note, relating to the complaints in regards to the House of Lords' ability to overrule the "will" of the democratically elected parliament, more people should read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America and gain a fuller understanding of concepts like Tyranny of the Majority and Argumentum ad Populum.
-AC
You do realise you're going to get a lot of people disagreeing with that statement, despite the fact (or possibly because) it's reasonable and balanced.
I'll sum up what they'll say:
"Yes but no but yes but no but what about 1984 eh?".
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There's a good chance he's fat, too.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Some places will be holding people who don't clean up after their dog for 42 days!
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
Call me blind, but that study seems to suggest even higher numbers of dead Iraqis due to violence. Rounding off, that's 600,000 from March 03 to June 06. The UK survey that you are bashing suggested it took another year for it to rise by just 50,000 while the Lancet study had numbers of around 500 deaths per day.
Or are you just arguing that since Wiki has some critisms listed, that obviously the study must be flawed? I have to admit, I am more inclined to believe that study that says 'we picked our samples at random and have a 95% CI,' then I am someone who complains that 'They couldn't possibly study that many samples in a day simply because I say so.' But, if you do, then I suppose the numbers don't mean anything.
Well, at least the legislators of some countries are the ones making this decision, rather than one guy overstepping his constitutional boundaries.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Or do you not have equal protection under the law there?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
am far more in favour of a more democratic approach. But I would like to call upon our colleagues, the terrorists to make the first move.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Civilians? Are you sure that none of them were combatants? Part of the game over there is that the insurgents hide in the civilian population.
Also, how many of those were killed by US forces? Or even NATO/Allied forces? And how many were killed by tribal infighting now that there's no strong leader that promised (and went through with) death to anyone that might have even considered acting up?
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
"Guantanamo Bay. Guantanamo Bay?! Oh no! We've got to get out of here now. Damn!"
"Checkhov, what's the matter with you?"
"Hurry! Hurry!"
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Now, would you care to show an analysis which *actually* debunks the Lancet study? I notice that GP gave you that opportunity, but all you came back with is your above "do you really believe that?" non-comment. The only thing I have read comes from ignorant right-wing journalists who either don't understand the first thing about how statistical mathematics works (and I mean really basic things like mean and standard deviation, one writer refers to it as a "dart board") or are relying on their readers ignorance, or they simply revert to typical ad hominem attacks on the researchers.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
But just for shits and giggles: "The Lancet surveys have been supported by many epidemiologists[5] and statisticians, as well as the September 2007 ORB survey." - your quoted source.
This was a peer reviewed paper and personally I believe the real figure *is* within their 95% confidence interval - between 400,000 and 950,000). And I have two degree in maths, thanks for asking.
Got any flaws in the methodology, apart from "obviously nonfactual"? If it's so fucking obvious, please let us all know.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
I'm already nervous about visiting the USA, and the recent decision to make compulsory personal information available prior to departure makes me very nervous indeed.
The UK, which has always treated me like crap at customs, has now lost me as a potential tourist finally.
Oh well, I'll spend my tourist money somewhere else, like China, where they'll only deport me if they don't like me, not chuck me in jail for one and a half months not letting anyone know about it.
Orwell, you must be giggling in that grave of yours.
As other people have pointed out, this legislation is not yet law, and it has only a slim chance of passing the Lords in any case. It is probably just an exercise by Gordon Brown to appear strong.
I think I'm just going to block samzenpus' stories in the future. He seems to be basically an anti-Brit troll. If you look at how many wildly misleading headlines he has posted on politics in the UK, this bias is pretty evident.
The enemy IS a signator of the Geneva convensions.
You just chose to ignore that in my last post didn't you?
Look... Afganistan signed the geneva convention.
Britain signed.
So the USA are breaking the law in not honouring it when it comes to citizens from those countries.
How can Al Qaeda, a terrorist organisation in the same way the IRA or ETA are terrorist organisations, be expected to have signed a treaty? They are NOT a nation!
You might just as well say microsoft employees are fair game for abduction and indefinite imprisonment because microsoft didn't sign the geneva convention.
Face up to the fact that the USA is committing war crimes by failing to abide by those convensions. Bush and his cronies should be dragged before a court for those crimes.
You didn't cite the BBC nor the Guardian - you simply asserted that "no-one pointed out any specific flaws". I proved you wrong by linking to an article which shows MANY "specific flaws", and suggested you expand the diversity of your reading material. Where you go from here is your call. Good luck!
DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST THE AMERICANS OCCUPYING THE LAND OF THE TWO HOLY PLACES. See also, 9/11.
Or, since al Qaeda isn't a country, the US has no right to defend itself?
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
The flaws pointed out rest on asserting that the sampling is not representative, and that is impossible to tell without knowing a lot more about the data set.
My bad in that I was referring to the media - we just got the "it's rubbish" line from government and pundits. However, none of the flaws claimed in wikipedia have been substantiated - they are still very much open to question, and plenty of statisticians think it was a robust study.
"It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
I for one welcome our new fascist overlords. (I have to say that in case they are recording this).
that we now have the question to the Ultimate Answer of Life, the Universe and Everything?
:)
How many days can you be held without charge in the UK?
Of course, the answer is 42.
I actually don't mind the authorities having powers like this: if it's necessary in a time of emergency, then it's necessary. However I also think:
a) anybody detained should be treated like royalty while in detention. I'm talking spa, swimming pool, tennis courts, full dvd, games collection, personal massuer, 3 course a la carte menu for every meal etc.
b) massive compensation for those held unjustly: something like $1 million / day. If there really is a risk the detainee is going to pull off a massive terrorist attack then $42 million is nothing in terms of cost to prevent it. However it certainly should put a brake on abuse of these powers.
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. It's from the First Geneva Conventions, and it's talking about who is protected: The Geneva Conventions do not protect those unwilling to abide by it.
I can't comment on the Microsoft employee example, as I can't think up a scenario where they would be considered combatants.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
I've never wanted to go to see the Royal Family, but I'm booking a ticket for this event. Do I need binoculars, or what? Oh the image!
How can I be modded a troll when I'm talking about myself. >:(
Considering there was talk of outright banning burkha's....maybe not yet.
And yes, broad laws do make for such interesting opportunities to abuse one's powers.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
Even if it was one person, it wouldn't be justified. The US needs a lot more than 'bashing', its needs accountability. 42 days is ridiculous, these governments are out of control.
"Baaaaaaaah"
"If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
That the British government thought THIS was the question of life, universe and everything, how is this technical news? Why is this on slashdot? Since when is politics news for geeks? It's as mainstream as it gets. How is it that technical posts get rejected and political posts are not?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.