Comments on: 42 Days: Creeping Internment in the UK http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/42-days-creeping-internment-in-the-uk/ a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice Sat, 22 Nov 2008 03:19:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: john andrews http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/42-days-creeping-internment-in-the-uk/#comment-22339 john andrews Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:42:00 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/?p=2186#comment-22339 I just can't understand WHY the government is so keen on scrapping habeas corpus. We can obviously rule out the given reason - that it makes Britain's streets safer, because the case for the present 28 day limit has not only never been proved, the little evidence there is actually demonstrates it isn't needed - which then puts us firmly in the realms of speculation. I think the two front runners are: 1. Faced with nervous politicians fearing public criticism that they are ineffective in the 'war on terror', the mandarins that head up our multitude of 'security agencies' have two options for dealing with 'terror suspects': respect for our first legal principle of innocent until proven guilty by providing 24/7 surveillance of 'terror suspects' until they get some 'evidence'; or just ignore our first legal principle and throw any suspect into prison and hope to find enough 'evidence' to manufacture some sort of charge against them later on. This being by far the cheaper option and looking less obviously like a police state, it is therefore the one most vigourously promoted. 2. Britain's role model in everything is of course the US, whose government has turned incarceration of people into an art form with an almost endless list of advantages to the exercise. It's a little insensitive not to follow your role model's lead just because of a trifling wishy washy pinko liberal stance on human rights. I mean, its tough for role models to lock up people indefinitely without charge when there's some little goody-two-shoes somewhere who persists in requiring hard evidence for that kind of thing. What kind of special relationship is that? I'm not as confident as Mr Kenny that the government's extension will fall in the Lords - maybe the first time it will, but as the 'war on terror' has plenty of miles to run, the 'cause' for the government's desire to scrap habeas corpus is going to be around for a good while yet. Besides, who would have thought, just five years ago, that the Lords would permit a 28 day limit? I just can’t understand WHY the government is so keen on scrapping habeas corpus.

We can obviously rule out the given reason - that it makes Britain’s streets safer, because the case for the present 28 day limit has not only never been proved, the little evidence there is actually demonstrates it isn’t needed - which then puts us firmly in the realms of speculation. I think the two front runners are:

1. Faced with nervous politicians fearing public criticism that they are ineffective in the ‘war on terror’, the mandarins that head up our multitude of ’security agencies’ have two options for dealing with ‘terror suspects’: respect for our first legal principle of innocent until proven guilty by providing 24/7 surveillance of ‘terror suspects’ until they get some ‘evidence’; or just ignore our first legal principle and throw any suspect into prison and hope to find enough ‘evidence’ to manufacture some sort of charge against them later on. This being by far the cheaper option and looking less obviously like a police state, it is therefore the one most vigourously promoted.

2. Britain’s role model in everything is of course the US, whose government has turned incarceration of people into an art form with an almost endless list of advantages to the exercise. It’s a little insensitive not to follow your role model’s lead just because of a trifling wishy washy pinko liberal stance on human rights. I mean, its tough for role models to lock up people indefinitely without charge when there’s some little goody-two-shoes somewhere who persists in requiring hard evidence for that kind of thing. What kind of special relationship is that?

I’m not as confident as Mr Kenny that the government’s extension will fall in the Lords - maybe the first time it will, but as the ‘war on terror’ has plenty of miles to run, the ’cause’ for the government’s desire to scrap habeas corpus is going to be around for a good while yet. Besides, who would have thought, just five years ago, that the Lords would permit a 28 day limit?

]]> By: Michael Kenny http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/06/42-days-creeping-internment-in-the-uk/#comment-22301 Michael Kenny Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:45:05 +0000 http://www.dissidentvoice.org/?p=2186#comment-22301 Bear in mind two things. One, the House of Lords is going to reject the extension, which means the Commons are having to vote again and even that, probably not until next year. The longer the thing drags on, the more the rebellion mounts, so the more likely it is that it will never happen. Two, there is a limit to what can be done by way of permanent measures within the European Convention on Human Rights. If Britain were "at war", which, of course, it isn't, the Convention permits just about anything by way of temporary measure. A country "at war" thus has no need to withdraw from the Convention, something I suspect Professor glees knows perfectly well! Internment in Northern Ireland was permissible under the Convention because it was temporary. I doubt if any permanent system of internment would stand up in court, even if someone was thinking of introducing it, which, as far as can be seen, is not the case. Bear in mind two things. One, the House of Lords is going to reject the extension, which means the Commons are having to vote again and even that, probably not until next year. The longer the thing drags on, the more the rebellion mounts, so the more likely it is that it will never happen. Two, there is a limit to what can be done by way of permanent measures within the European Convention on Human Rights.

If Britain were “at war”, which, of course, it isn’t, the Convention permits just about anything by way of temporary measure. A country “at war” thus has no need to withdraw from the Convention, something I suspect Professor glees knows perfectly well! Internment in Northern Ireland was permissible under the Convention because it was temporary. I doubt if any permanent system of internment would stand up in court, even if someone was thinking of introducing it, which, as far as can be seen, is not the case.

]]>