Drug addict Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 The Law lords in the UK recently decided that indefinite detention of suspected terroists without charging them with a crime, or even telling them why they were being detained was unlawful http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1375684,00.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1375603,00.html Does anyone think that detention without charge can ever be justified? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 from what I hear they ARE Free to leave anytime they wish to leave, just not free to enter the UK proper, and as far as I can tell, no other country will have them/wants them other that their own where some are wanted on Terrorist charges and so they elect to stay here! one has already been released as a free man after a hearing, so there IS a mechanism in place for a trial, these people elect not to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 I don't want to be imprisoned without trial. I don't want to be tried without a jury. I don't want to carry an identity card. I don't want to live in a police state. Detention without trial: in very, very rare circumstances, for very limited periods, subject to close scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 from what I hear they ARE Free to leave anytime they wish to leave' date=' just not free to enter the UK proper, and as far as I can tell, no other country will have them/wants them other that their own where some are wanted on Terrorist charges and so they elect to stay here![/quote'] But how on earth does that help protect the UK from terrorism? If these people are so dangerous that we have to suspend the normal legal process why are they free to go to another country? This doesn't make much sense to me . I wonder if the conversation when they are arrested go something like this: Copper :" Hello there Mr X, we are arresting you because the we think you are a threat to the security of this country. We will not tell you what we are charging you with, and will try to avoid giving you a trial. However, if you wish to leave this country you are free to do so." Mr X: "why thank you, I think I'll leave for Iran/Libya/Iraq etc. to continue making plans to attack your country." If these people are a threat, they should be charged and put on trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 there is a fine line to tread however between security and shameless authoritarianism. the government must make good decisions lest the people become angered. it is certainly difficult woot 1500 posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 we can`t charge them with much of Anything, they`ve not been allowed to commit a crime a here some of then HAVE commited crimes in the country they flee, so it`s a bit like that Tom Hanks Airport situation, but instead of being hold up there, it`s in a detention center. they are FREE TO LEAVE ANYTIME! to the country of origin we`de prolly even pay the bloody airfair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drug addict Posted December 19, 2004 Author Share Posted December 19, 2004 isn't planning terrorist attacks a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted December 19, 2004 Share Posted December 19, 2004 isn't planning terrorist attacks a crime?it most certainly is!, and thus they CHOOSE to stay here in detention, yes DETENTION and NOT PRISON! rather that face the music when/if they elect to go back "home". they`re considerably "Safer" here, for them it`s the lesser of 2 evils. stay here in the UK and let the TAX Payer pay for it and we still live, or go back and be terminated???? that`s a Tough Choice! but the mouthey spin doctors would have you and I beleive that they`re in gaol on bread and water! LOL, beleive that and I`ve got a Bridge to sell you too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Holding anyone against their will, at any time, for any reason, without charge should be a violation of international law!!!!!! It is absolutely disgusting!!! If they have evidence that they committed a crime then charge them! If not they should have no right to violate that person's human rights. These laws enacted in the UK and to a much worse extent in the US are designed so the government can violate human rights without being held accountable. It is a gross neglect of power! !!!! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Oh. Yes. Australia is much nicer about it's immigration policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 it most certainly is!' date=' and thus they CHOOSE to stay here in detention, yes DETENTION and NOT PRISON! rather that face the music when/if they elect to go back "home". they`re considerably "Safer" here, for them it`s the lesser of 2 evils. stay here in the UK and let the TAX Payer pay for it and we still live, or go back and be terminated???? that`s a Tough Choice! but the mouthey spin doctors would have you and I beleive that they`re in gaol on bread and water! LOL, beleive that and I`ve got a Bridge to sell you too![/quote']I have quoted your entire post because I am amazed at it in totality. You usualy make goood sense YT. You are talking as if these detainees were guilty. We have something called presuumption of innocence. Guilt is determined by a trial with a jury. Not by anonymous faces. Not without the accussed knowing what he is accused of. This is a shameful blot on the character of British justice. Previous questionable episodes have related to faiures of the system of justice, this is suspension of the system. It is reprehensible. And oon ttoop of tthatt mmyy kkeyboard iis doouble typiing!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 The political ideals of YT are in this thread: - http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=4888&highlight=bnp each to his own, takes all sorts, freedom of opinion etc. He's here because of the scientific nature of the forum rather than his political affliction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted December 20, 2004 Share Posted December 20, 2004 Oh. Yes. Australia is much nicer about it's immigration policy. I never said Australia was any better!! Although a different kettle of fish to terrorism law, Australia's policy on asylumn seekers is also disgusting beyond believe. But then again you get that with right wing governments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 That's not really fair, seeing as Australia have strict immigration policies for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted December 21, 2004 Share Posted December 21, 2004 I never said Australia was any better!! Although a different kettle of fish to terrorism law, Australia's policy on asylumn seekers is also disgusting beyond believe. But then again you get that with right wing governments Yeah, the immigration process in most countries is shitty. Rights to the individual should not only be applied when the person is a citizen, but at all times. TBH, I'm pretty sure the security services in the UK can hold a suspect for 10 days without reason. They can hold a suspect indefinitely if they get a Judge that will agree to the imprisonment, and both MI5 and MI6 have an in-house Judge who makes the application just a formality. This suggestion takes the Judge out of the loop, but that's about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted December 26, 2004 Share Posted December 26, 2004 Those in the Australian Detention Camps are free to leave and go home whenever they want. Long term detainees are simply there because they are not willing to accept the tribunals decision and are trying every trick in the book to stay. As to whether the policy works, Australia has closed over half of it's detention camps because the number of illegal immigrants has dropped to a trickle. Rather than risking their lives in leaky boats, most illegal immigrants in Australia are now those who overstay their visas. This is not to say that the Australian gov should not have shown more compassion in some cases. The two children whose mother was killed in the Bali bombing is a case in point. For the love of God, let the father in, hasn't the family suffered enough? On the detention side, I understand the new laws in Australia allow for 30 days without charge. After that, a judge must be convinced to extend the period. The judge is not connected to the Security Services and Habeus Corpus applies at all times. My biggest concern is that the laws allow for evidence procured overseas, possibly by torture, to be admissable in Australian Courts. Anyone with a passing knowledge of the area knows that torture does not result in the truth, but in whatever the victim thinks the torturer wants to hear. It also gives the impression that Australia condones torture as a legitimate form of questioning, something which I, as an Australian citizen, am against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husmusen Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 It also gives the impression that Australia condones torture as a legitimate form of questioning, something which I, as an Australian citizen, am against. Actually I suspect that Australias voting against the UN anti-torture convention along with such other human rights luminaries like Cuba, Sudan, Libya etc, gave a much more powerful impression. Even the Americans had the sense to merely abstain. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tetrahedrite Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 Actually I suspect that Australias voting against the UN anti-torture convention along with such other human rights luminaries like Cuba' date=' Sudan, Libya etc, gave a much more powerful impression. Even the Americans had the sense to merely abstain. Cheers.[/quote'] Our fearless leader was just trying to crawl a little further up G.W. Bush's arse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husmusen Posted February 2, 2005 Share Posted February 2, 2005 Your post reminded me of the Bill Leek cartoon, 'Sprung Chickens'. Sadly I can't find it on the web anywhere, but you've probably seen it. It's the one with the three chickens, the less said about the aussie chicken the better, and the farmer shouting, "there they are liar birds." . Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnB Posted February 10, 2005 Share Posted February 10, 2005 husmusen, since Australia signed up to the "Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" on 10th December 1985 and ratified it on the 8th August 1989 I fail to see how we voted against it. Perhaps you are referring to the Optional Protocol? The one with only 29 signatories? The one that says that there will not be unannounced visits? Pretty pointless inspecting a jail for Human Rights violations if you're going to give the perpetrators time to wash the blood off the walls, don't you think? And if it was so popular, why have only 29 of the 170 or so who voted "Yes" actually signed it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now