Printable View
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4422086.stm
Not usually a political poster, but I was delighted to see this bill fail. Terrorists or not, the legal process must be equal for all. The current legislation is scandelous enough, but 90 days was rediculous. I feel that at last the peers are representing the views of the nation, as they are elected to do, and perhaps America will take note of this in relation to Camp X-Ray... (though my hopes are not high)
edg
I guess Tony is just starting to get an inkling of what it was like to be John Major in the final year of his tenure at No. 10. :D
Us Yanks are going to find this out soon with the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case before the Court. Chief Justice Roberts had to recuse himself from the case due to denying Hamdan's motion in the D.C. Circuit.Quote:
Originally Posted by edg
Personally, I think this is prime example of how our Constitution functions to ensure that "everyone has their day in court." Hamdan is merely arguing whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear his case. At a minimum it proves to the rest of world that no matter how evil you are (allegedly), you will still have your opportunity to be heard.
I would be surprised if the Court decides to overturn the appeals court ruling. Our Constitution only creates an enabling clause for our federal courts, leaving the power with the Congres to vest the courts with specific legisation. In this case, Congress has spoken as to how they want the enemy combatants to be tried. I have no normative opinion on the merits.
Scary image of Tony Blair and Edwina Curry just popped up :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by bad_roo
*Scrubs brain with bleach*
IT'S NOT COMING OUT!!! ARGHHH!!!
edg
Sorry,
Don't really agree. The bill seems to have been rejected by an unholy alliance of Tories trying to attack the government and old Labour socialists trying to destabilize Blair to hijack his agenda. As a Londoner, I am torn by the need to prevent a repeat of 7/7 (god that was an awful day, was lucky to be out of the country and spent the next couple of days finding out if everyone I knew was still alive) and being a generally liberal rule of law kind of guy. I'm tired of issues like this being hijacked by interested groups of political lobbying. It's clear that the police need new powers to control the threat of new terrorist attacks, and the massive defeat of the bill is out of step with the way that the country feels on the subject.
Rant over!
The peers are a good brake on the government's crazier schemes, but by definition they are not elected - some are even hereditary!Quote:
Originally Posted by edg
My mistake : the M-to-the-Pizzles did the honourable thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTree
edg
An interesting view. While I'm not particularly fond of the idea of being murdered by a terrorist, circumventing the judicial process isn't, in my opinion, the correct way to combat terrorism. While there are certainly ethical oppositions, mine are far more base : I distrust the police.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedTree
The existing 'emergency' terror legislation has been grossly abused by the police : it has been used against peaceful protestors, a student working a part time job and a businesswoman walking on a cycle path. The police seem to have no quibbles with plain-face lying to the public and seem oblivious to their own failings. I have no problem with the concept of emergency powers, though it does make we wary with a quick look back to history, my opposition is more of who's given the power.
The judiciary I have more faith in - there is, at least, one extra person who is considering the evidence. But the problem, I feel, with this legislation is that the power to detain for 90 days is given to the police. Let's not forget, there are already terror suspects languishing in jail without an charges being brought.
I am certainly worried about the question of whether this bitter competition between the parties is going to result in the supression of, again in my opinion, some more sensible plans proposed for terror legislation : Outlawing the "glorification" of terrorism; Introducing an offence of acts preparatory to terrorism (given that it is correctly applied); Introducing a law against giving or receiving terror training; Making indirect incitement of terrorism an offence (again, with sensible conditions); Considering the use of phone-tap evidence in courts; Insisting that those applying for British citizenship must be "of good character" (Though whether this would be of any help is questionable).
edg