People do not want their inane drivel about the latest celeb to go bonkers to be disturbed by having to worry about burglary, murder or terrorism – that would force them to think about their values and what is important to them. Much easier to just go with the flow…<\/p>\n
It is not just the working, common man, who suffers this inability to think but even the “noble” peers who are supposed to have the interests on the nation at their hearts. Going back to Lord Carlisle’s confusing ideas:<\/p>\n
Lord Carlile gave Kafeel Ahmed, who died of his injuries after an alleged terrorist attack on Glasgow Airport, as an example of why police might need more time to question a suspect before bringing charges.<\/p>\n
The peer said: “Had he survived, it is possible that time for interviewing him would have run out before he regained consciousness.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I will be charitable and assume this made sense, Lord Carlisle is saying that had Kafeel Ahmed not died, but remained in a coma for more than 28 days the police would have been unable to question him. Things like that make sense on the first scan. Let us think about it though…<\/p>\n
First off, there is enough evidence to charge him with the crime without questioning him. No need for extra time in detention. It was, broadly, and open and shut case. I can’t imagine he would have had a strong alibi placing him in Majorca at the time. So, why would they need more than 28 days?<\/p>\n
Secondly, after 29 (or more) days in a coma what would be the point in questioning him? It could take months or years before he was able (let alone willing) to recount events. Are we saying that (as implied by Lord Carlisle) detention should be indefinite?<\/p>\n
The BBC continues with:<\/p>\n
He added that cases which involved complex forensic analysis, or where alleged terrorists had carefully encrypted computer files, might also require suspects to be detained beyond the present limit.<\/p>\n
He said: “My concern is not about the number of days. The number of days is a political decision, there’s no logical answer as to how many days are ideal as a maximum.<\/p>\n
I have two issues with this, I will deal with the one I think is less important first. It worries me that he has no basic problem with indefinite detention. There is no sensible way to say how long a police investigation will take if we look at it from the police point of view, which is why he ends up with no logical maximum. That makes sense and I agree. Where we differ is the conclusion that extends from this. There is no logical maximum from the police point of view, so a reasonable length needs to be stipulated from the innocent, yet accused, person’s point of view. If we, as we should, assume the person is innocent, how long would you be willing to spend in jail before the police said “ok, you were right after all” and let you go? 28 days is, actually, much too long. In the case of the gentleman detained 2 days, he was awarded \u00c2\u00a37500 compensation. How about a scheme where the police have to compensate the person \u00c2\u00a33500 per day they are detained if they are later found to be innocent of terrorist related offences? Makes sense to me.<\/p>\n
That leads me to the bigger issue I have a problem with. What is special about terrorism? Any one born in England after 1969 has lived their entire life under the threat of terrorism on the mainland. As a child I remember the annual round of bombings in Manchester and London, I remember regular train evacuations and almost daily bomb scares in schools and shopping centres. In the very early days of the “troubles,” detention without trial was tried but all the research agrees that this had the sole effect of turning PIRA\/INLA from a small-time, thug, organisation into large, popular groups with masses of local support. Is this really what we want to have happen on the mainland? Internment (sorry, detention without trial) has never proven to be successful at combating terrorism. It makes heroes and martyrs of those arrested, and it turns every person who is wrongly arrested against the state which is supposed to protect them. It can not, ever, be a good thing.<\/p>\n
As I see it (this is a blog remember, it is just my opinion), this hinges on the basic thing we seem to have lost. We, as a nation, no longer presume innocence. We imply it is OK for the police to detain people under Prevention of Terrorism laws because, basically, we assume they are actually guilty. When some one is released, it is made to look like a criminal is allowed to get off because the system protected them not the victim. It is very rare that the accused is ever treated as being innocent (the McCanns are an odd exception to this).<\/p>\n
Islamic terrorists no longer need to do anything to “destroy western civilisation,” we are quite happy doing it ourselves…<\/p>\n