PDA

View Full Version : MI5 'has not asked for 42 days'


heli_port
8th Jun 2008, 09:39
MI5 has not "directly" asked the government to extend the time limit for holding terror suspects without charge, to 42 days, Jacqui Smith has said.
But the home secretary told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show the security service had been "clear about the growing scale of the threat" to the UK.


Is Ms Smith totally bonkers like the rest of the labour party?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7442380.stm

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 09:46
If they extended the suspects themselves on the rack they would not need 42 days to question em
:E

airship
8th Jun 2008, 09:49
Have they considered reducing the time limit to say, oh, 45 minutes yet...? :E

Effluent Man
8th Jun 2008, 10:45
hp From your post I don't understand what your position is on this.(I'm with Draper BTW)

Blacksheep
8th Jun 2008, 11:15
Terrorist organizations recruit people with no criminal record, indoctrinate them, train them in running their small cells without drawing attention to their activities and finally, in how to resist interrogation if detected. They are resistant to the methods of interrogating ordinary criminals. They should therefore be interrogated by the tried and tested means used for extracting intelligence from captured spies and special forces troops. I don't think a fixed time interval is the best way to go; interrogators must be given as much time as it takes.

As I type, there is a huggy on BBC World declaiming that over-reaction is exactly what Al Qaeda want. That is not the case. Their declared aim is to kill all infidels and the only reasonable response must be to eliminate all of them. That requires intelligence on their organizational structure, their finances, their communications and ultimately to make it impossible for them to operate from within our own society.

Avitor
8th Jun 2008, 11:25
I have had myself on the carpet over this but, sooner than appear a bigot, I still back the idea of 42 days.......and TD's rack.

srobarts
8th Jun 2008, 17:51
This government does not have a good record on anti-terror law. Their RIPA - Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act supposedly to allow investigation of terrorists has been used to see if a child lived in a school catchment area and many other instances. The extradition treaty with the US to allow suspected terrorist to be extradited to the US has been used to extradite people for other crimes and yet has not been ratified by the US for us to extradite US citizens where necessary.
According to the Director of Public Prosecutions the extension to 42 days is not needed, a view supported by various prominent legal people including Lord Goldsmith and Lord Falcolner.
Whilst I want a tough line on terrorists I want clean legislation that is properly drafted. No one as yet produced a valid reasoning of why it needs to be 42 days or why in the current 28 days they can't get enough evidence to get the terrorist charged which then gives them ample time to investigate further and produce further charges if necessary.
Where does the 42 come from apart from Boris' suggestion on Andrew Marr show that it was the from The Hitchhikers Guide.

Notso Fantastic
8th Jun 2008, 18:23
Yet again the politicians fly in the face of their electorate! Most people support 42 days, even 420 days in my case. But the politicians find themselves unable to give it support. Must be the great general public is getting rather fed up with these idiots trying to kill them on rush hour buses and tube trains....where politicians tend not to frequent! If only those idiots would turn their sights on politicians, then 420 days would be passed rapido!

Beatriz Fontana
8th Jun 2008, 18:54
Boris was listening to Radio Four's News Quiz on Friday!

Why 42? Why not 60, 90, or internment? Slippery slope if you ask me.

Blacksheep
8th Jun 2008, 19:23
More time is needed for interrogation of terrorist suspects because of the difficulty of securing evidence that is admissible in a court of law. Much of the undercover evidence gathering on suspects is not admissible.

Perhaps what we need is a summary court for terrorist matters that can hear such evidence and, if satisfied that there is a case to answer, is empowered to make a detention order under which the suspect ceases to be an ordinary suspect and can be detained under anti-terrorism laws for whatever time is needed to obtain evidence that can be admitted in a criminal trial. We could call it internment I suppose. :hmm:

Whatever, ordinary methods of policing don't work properly against organised crime or espionage and these fanatics come under the same heading.

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 20:20
Blacksheep,

I have to ask the question why are we detaining people with no evidence?

The Intelligence Service has said they do not need or want 42 days, and these are the people whose job it is to stop terrorists.

If you arrest someone and cannot make a case after 4 weeks of interrogation and the rest, then I am sorry you have no right to ask for another 2 weeks. Either charge them or let them go.

Put it this way how would you feel about being locked away for 6 weeks despite having done nothing wrong?

Furthermore, if they actually get a terrorist do you think that they will view 28 days as an easy stretch but kack themselves at being held for 42 and suddenly turn canary?

We do need to do what we can to stop AQ. I have no problems with wiretap evidence being admissible. However, this policy does not increase our security anymore than removing nailclippers from pilots did post-911.

It is simply a headline grabber with no meat on the bones.

Cheers

BHR

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 20:42
Talking heads on telly discussing this thing this morning, as per the Bellmarsh eight are brought up, eight poor innocents locked up in Bellmarsh nick without charge,what the fluffist always neglect to add,that at any time, any one, or indeed all eight could have walked out that nick anytime they wished,all they had to do was agree to get on a aircraft(fare would have been paid)and **** off back from whence they came,of course from whence they came they couldn't suck on the social security tit, that plus their own countries authorities might not have been very pleased to see them or indeed only too pleased to see them.
:cool:

Blacksheep
8th Jun 2008, 21:12
The Intelligence Service has said they do not need or want 42 days, and these are the people whose job it is to stop terrorists.No. Their contribution is to gather intelligence and pass it on the police. The police take it from there to make the arrests and perform the interrogation, but there are limits to what evidence is admissible in court.

The security services don't operate in the same way as the police and in some cases it is necessary to protect the identity of undercover agents. Much of what the intelligence service obtains is inadmissible because it is obtained without search warrant. (In fact I was surprised to see evidence obtained by "bugging" produced in evidence recently, but it seems that the owner of the premises had granted access.) It is the police who need more time. I do agree that 42 days is a useless and arbitrary time limit; it ought to be whatever time it takes.

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 21:24
BS,

So you are happy for people to be arrested first find the evidence (or not) after?

Does not seem like police work to me.

Seems more like a police state to me.

The answer to the terrorist threat we face is a tad more complex than lets lock up who we want for as long as we want.

Cheers

BHR

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 21:49
More than happy Mr H, they do not play by any rules why should we, I don't suppose for one minute those eight were just rounded up at random because they were of middle eastern appearance,that's taking conspiracy theory a bit far,people like them have been operating in London for years, most of them ran head offices collecting funds for overseas terrorist organisations on grants from the Greater London Council,even the French warned out government about what had been going on in London for years,it was a terrorist haven,it was well known as Londinistan by every security organisation in the world.
I suppose the gutless tossers who ran things thought well as long as they are not blowing us up they can get on with it,well the bastards are blowing us up now, and it's well past the time we kicked a few of their arses.

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 21:54
TD,

Because the rules are all we have to seperate us from anarchy and worse.

The price we pay for a free society is that we are in danger of terrorists trying to kill us.

You want a totally 100% safe society then you have to give up every right you have.

Worth it?

Cheers

BHR

Parapunter
8th Jun 2008, 21:58
,people like them have been operating in London for years,

Like the Guildford four or the Birmingham Six? With respect Drapes, your argument is a fag paper away from theirs (if indeed they're guilty) & this is where due process intervenes. It's the circle that this topic goes round and round. Fluffy or not, I'm old enough to recall internment in Northern Ireland & all the counter productive results that had.

Beg pardon but there's no new thinking for sale here.

airfoilmod
8th Jun 2008, 22:12
May pipe up, Are your MI5 like our Guantanamo? I'll never propose our respective gummints treat the transgressors as they treat ours, thass truckin' with the Devil himself, and we're better than that, the lot of us. But pouring water down a filthy gullet instead of Air? Loud Blondie and dissed Koran's? This is a problem for you? A little perspective here, please, one gets what one gives, unless you happen to be apprehended by Oz, Brit, or Yank, Right? Chloral Hydrate? Single Malt Scotch? A wet TOWEL? Do your peacies have less sense than OUR'n?

Airfoil, sorry, your Koran, Sir.

tony draper
8th Jun 2008, 22:13
There is one right paramount above all others that is the right to walk the streets and go about your business in safety without the danger of some bearded loon killing you for no other reason that you do not believe in their particular version of the flat earth,they take advantage of the very rights you talk of and use them against us we can't lock them up we can't even hold them under house arrest and we can't deport them,they are all laughing up their jabalas at our stupidity
As far as I am concerned they are outlaws in the medieval sense of the word, they are outside the protection on the law.
As someone has mentioned today this is different from any other terrorism we have experienced,they do not kill for a political end,there is no political end product to their insanity,we can not negotiate with them because there is nothing we can put on the table they would accept, they want nothing but our total destruction and the total destruction of our society.

Parapunter
8th Jun 2008, 22:20
Those guys Drapes need to be strung up every day for a week.

The rub of it is where the balance lies - the circle this argument goes round & round. Airfoilmod has a point - the peacies view is a short walk to the sea, but hen again you shouldn't aquiesce to truckin' with the devil himself. It separates us from the bearded loons - that's how we know winning was worth the candle no?

BillHicksRules
8th Jun 2008, 22:24
TD,

The only way to guarantee your rights is to remove everyone else's rights.

So you are ok with that?

I do not seem to recall any of the recent spate of knife attacks being carried out by flat-earth bearded weirdos. What is to stop you being knifed? Only way to do it is to take all kids in to custody.

What about all the people killed by being knocked down by cars? Only way to make you safe as your stroll your streets is to remove all vehicle owners from free society.

What about smokers? You could die from cancer from second hand smoke. Another bunch locked up.

Cheers

BHR

airfoilmod
8th Jun 2008, 22:43
Sorry, I disagree. "the only way to guarantee my rights is to remove other's rights." Not a bit of it. "Defend unto Death the Rights of All."

"Patrick Henry", Brit, but adopted

Bill- You may be confusing "Rights" with "Safety" In general, they are inversely proportional.

parabellum
9th Jun 2008, 01:04
"Terrorist organisations recruit people with no criminal record, indoctrinate them, train them in running their small cells without drawing attention to their activities and finally, in how to resist interrogation if detected. They are resistant to the methods of interrogating ordinary criminals. They should therefore be interrogated by the tried and tested means used for extracting intelligence from captured spies and special forces troops. I don't think a fixed time interval is the best way to go; interrogators must be given as much time as it takes."

Never a truer word spoken but I don't think BHR wants to listen to you Blacksheep, you are not saying what he wants to hear. Of course MI5 "has not asked for 42 days", they can have as long as they want, their work is usually done before the trap is sprung, it is after people have been taken into custody on reasonable suspicion that time is required to properly interrogate and that could easily extend to 42 days, maybe longer.

Effluent Man
9th Jun 2008, 07:45
To say there is no evidence against these suspects is nonsense.There is lots of evidence which for various reasons cannot be used or will not convict when faced with a clever lawyer capable of manipulating a few gullible jury members.Other posters have pointed out the nature of the training and organisation of these terrorists.Applying the same rules as those used against an old fella caught sticking a bottle of scotch in his gansy at Tesco is crazy.I would use the facial hair test Long beard but no moustache = Guilty. I realise this might also catch a few Lib Dems but you have to expect a little collateral damage

TerminalTrotter
9th Jun 2008, 13:37
If I kill/maim/torture you it is because I Know/suspect/imagine that you have done something that I or my chosen version of society disapprove of, such as killing, maiming, torturing innocent people (people like me). I do this with the best of intentions, of course, so this means I am good. You do it with evil intent, so you are bad. Of course, if we were all masked while the Killing/maiming/torturing was going on, an outside observer might find it difficult to know which side was which, but we would know in our hearts that we were the good guys, so that's all right then. Or maybe not?

Felix Saddler
9th Jun 2008, 14:18
Innocent until proven guilty right? Do your research before putting forward such a ridiculous arguement!

airship
9th Jun 2008, 16:50
Few here apparently have 2 or more brain-cells remaining which might be rubbed together in order to truly appreciate the difference between the 45 minute rule and impending 42 day rule...?!

So let me remind all the imbeciles here that the former results in an illegal war and the loss of many more 'innocent' civilian lives than the (winning) warring parties would (or could) ever wish to concede to. And the latter merely ensures that it's a growth industry, something to be nurtured because of all the jobs it provides to uhmmm, imbeciles and wannabe terrorists...?! :uhoh: :zzz:

airfoilmod
9th Jun 2008, 17:26
your Luftballons speak loud and clear. I am reminded of our new rockstar Algore, (In my Opinion, the man fits your definition of imbecile).

May I quote? "The Debate is over".... Albert Gore

Did you just close the Thread? Rather arrogant, n'est ce pas? (That's French, like "imbecile").

airship
9th Jun 2008, 22:23
Arrogant - moi?! Non, I'm simply quite pissed off (that's not French BTW) and tonight especially, more angry than ever, that all the worst facets that Al-Qaeda espouses, are actually in the process of being incorporated into our own legislations apparently. You want due process?! Increasingly, the difference between our application of the law and the other way appears to be a bullet in the back of the head or internment for an indefinite period without charge. Go find another planet mate - you and Osama...?! :ok:

TimmoWhakatane
9th Jun 2008, 23:54
There is one right paramount above all others that is the right to walk the streets and go about your business in safety without the danger of some loon killing you for no other reason that you do not believe in their particular version of the flat earth.

Does that right extend to the (innocent) populace of Iraq, Afghanistan et al as well?

Would you support, for example, the Iraqi government detaining English and American citizens due to their part in the illegal bombing of their country (some may call it terrorism) with no charge?

In fact, would you support yourself being detained with no charge for an indefinite amount of time? Of course you wouldnt and would cry 'but im not a terrorist!'.....just the same as anyone else.

brickhistory
9th Jun 2008, 23:59
that all the worst facets that Al-Qaeda espouses, are actually in the process of being incorporated into our own legislations apparently. You want due process?! Increasingly, the difference between our application of the law and the other way appears to be a bullet in the back of the head or internment for an indefinite period without charge.

Ok, what's your solution. How do YOU protect the citizens of your country?

Overdrive
10th Jun 2008, 00:33
Does that right extend to the (innocent) populace of Iraq, Afghanistan et al as well?
Would you support, for example, the Iraqi government detaining English and American citizens due to their part in the illegal bombing of their country (some may call it terrorism) with no charge?

In fact, would you support yourself being detained with no charge for an indefinite amount of time? Of course you wouldnt and would cry 'but im not a terrorist!'.....just the same as anyone else.


That's a cocktail argument. Without going anywhere near the morals/merits/justification or otherwise for the wars/invasions, they were declared, pre-warned then notified military actions, executed in the relevant arena, and targetted at military personnel. Sadly there is always loss of civilain life.

Terrorism is the diameteric opposite of war, sharing only loosely (sometimes) the notification of intent (but done in disguise via the internet). It sets out to deliberately target innocent civilians.

What has happened to the innocent population of Iraq is not the fault of the innocent population of the US or UK, who had no part in any "illegal bombing".

TimmoWhakatane
10th Jun 2008, 01:16
Terrorism SHOULD be the opposite of war because war has to follow international law. However any war which breaks these laws moves closer to terrorism (perhaps with a slightly different definition).

Whether deliberately targetted or not, Civilians have been murdered just the same.....I cant decide whether knowing you are going to die a few days before the event is better than it happening out of the blue? :ugh:

What makes it even worse is the knowledge that Iraqis have that the deaths in their country werent just the random result of some crack pot INDIVIDUAL but the result of supposedly peace loving NATIONS executing carefully planned actions.

I think youd have a hard time convincing any sane man that one was better than the other


What has happened to the innocent population of Iraq is not the fault of the innocent population of the US or UK, who had no part in any "illegal bombing


Whos fault is it then? The UK and US are lead by democratically elected leaders are they not? Or are you claiming that they are rouge leaders?

Overdrive
10th Jun 2008, 03:35
Whos fault is it then? The UK and US are lead by democratically elected leaders are they not? Or are you claiming that they are rouge leaders?



That Timmo is exceptionally tenuous... sounding akin to the stuff of terrorist "justification". Thankfully, most people can understand what is meant by "innocent population".

BillHicksRules
11th Jun 2008, 22:00
Just as a matter of interest for those who are happy to sign away any of their rights just as long as the government can lock up foreigners or those who worship the wrong god, can you tell me that you feel that you have 100% trust in the honesty and ability of all those involved. That includes the Government, the police, the courts, the Intelligence Services both here and abroad etc etc?



Cheers

BHR

airfoilmod
11th Jun 2008, 22:07
Trust in Honesty and ability of gummint 9/10/01 ~3%

" " " " " " " 9/12/01 ~2%


And you meant that how??

BarbiesBoyfriend
11th Jun 2008, 22:08
Thank Fug for the House of Lords.

They'll never let this idiotic politicised posturing pass into law.

airship
11th Jun 2008, 22:51
airfoilmod, I believe that I may have somewhat "attacked the man instead of his argument" in my last post. I'm sorry, sometimes it's hard to determine where one ends and the other begins. :O

Ok, what's your solution. How do YOU protect the citizens of your country? I feed stray cats and call the SPA when I see a stray dog. I always have a few coins to hand over to eastern Europeans asking for a handout at the traffic lights. I declare the totality of my meagre income and pay all my taxes. Back in 2003, I also contributed $100 to the campaign in which hundreds of westerners including Americans went into Iraq to act as a shield against the invasion (it was my insurance because I actually supported the invasion initially). I empathise every time I read about innocents (collateral damage) and what their sacrifices (in terms of total casualties in present conflicts) truly represent in this new era of 'war against terrorism'. And I remain unconvinced that their sacrifice (mostly involuntary) or those of our own armed forces (voluntary?) count for very much. Certainly, in a couple of hundred years, historians will be able to look back at this period with perhaps a clearer picture.

My neighbour grows marijuana plants on her balcony under cover of a semi-translucent canopy. My pudicat sometimes pees and shits on my own balcony (she's old...), the smell can be offensive sometimes. So I'd like to believe that we have an unspoken contract of some sort...?! :ok:

I was always under the impression that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were pretty much 'home-grown' entities (at least they were once financed by the CIA) and who, once they'd served their purpose, were simply discarded...?! :confused: What I no longer accept is that the primary purpose of NATO in Afghanistan is to ensure Afghani girls can go to school.

42 days, 45 minutes - where's the difference?! Each side will do whatever it takes to ensure they get their way, whatver the end-result. Which in the long-term (several hundred years) will have little impact (unless it all just means we will increasingly live in Orwellian societies)... :(

airfoilmod
11th Jun 2008, 23:39
I'm sure you're an upstanding sort and will take your word for it; you are not quoting me, however. I haven't asked you a question as yet. It is frequently the righteous who are befuddled, fear not.

Airfoil

Ahh, EDIT. You are quoting brickhistory; thank you for confusing him with me, I am honored. (post #31).

"Did you just close the Thread?" I meant that as a rhetorical question, and what you quote most instantly is from brickhistory. I think you can't close the thread, therefore the "rhetorical" character of the "question". This is getting pedantic bothways, will you be answering brickhistory's query? I think his was not Rhetorical.

Aifoil

airship
12th Jun 2008, 00:05
Please take another look at your previous post (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=4170212&postcount=28), and revert. Yeah, I hate the use of phrases incorporating 'revert' too, but I'm assured that it is now a common practice in e-mailed replies even from major companies.

PS. How far can you revert to? Just that an image of a slit-eyed semi-amphibious creature flashed across my mind just now...?! :uhoh:

Overdrive
12th Jun 2008, 10:42
Thank Fug for the House of Lords.

They'll never let this idiotic politicised posturing pass into law.



Hope not. They've just pooped on the Referendum though... :(

Effluent Man
12th Jun 2008, 11:19
I do hope that those so hot under the collar about an unelected Prime Minister will retain their heat when discussing an unelected upper chamber.

G-CPTN
12th Jun 2008, 12:07
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis has resigned his seat 'on a point of principle' about the ever-increasing intrusion of privacy . . .

David Davis is said to have told Mr Cameron that he would rather resign than support the Government’s efforts to extend the period of pre-charge detention beyond 28 days.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4116590.ece