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?
"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!
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 $SIGNATURE
Well, since the people we elect are essentially Kang or Kodos who try to pass whatever laws they like without giving the public a chance to vote on the matter, I quite like the idea of the house of lords (harder to bribe some rich bugger than the corrupt political class intent on filling their own pockets. Yes, some Lords were once those corrupt politicals, but they are comparatively rich and settled now).
There are many things wrong with our system, but having some kind of 'second opinion' of government policy is not a bad idea.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Looks like the Brits finally have acknowledged that 42 is the answer to everything.
Open Source Alternatives
Wasn't Jose Padilla held without charges for a number of years in South Carolina?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
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.
True, but why should he have to pay at all? The compensation was for wrongful imprisonment. Are kidnap victims made to pay their kidnappers for board and lodgings? Same principle.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.
... 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.
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."
would have had to pay the living costs
I don't know how it works in the UK, but I'm going to say that's bullshit. You think my apartment owner is going to say "oh hey, the guy is in jail, he doesn't need to pay me?" Maybe the utilities there go the extra mile and the electric guy comes out and turns off all the lights?
I'm certain the guy still had to pay those living costs.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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
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.
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."
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?