britain, arrest without committing a crime, no juries

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4029507.stm
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/nov...committing.htm


Tougher anti-terror laws proposed

Anti-terror measures could be stepped up
The home secretary has outlined plans for more far-reaching measures to tackle terrorism.
The proposals include special anti-terror courts without juries and the use of phone-tap evidence in trials.

David Blunkett told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme that any new legislation would wait until after the next general election.

But human rights group Liberty accused the government of resorting to "draconian law and order measures".

The home secretary said new civil orders were being considered which could be imposed against people suspected of "acts preparatory to terrorism" even if they had not committed an offence.


He said the breach of such orders would be a criminal offence which could result in imprisonment.

What we're trying to do is protect ourselves against new forms of threat without eroding basic human rights

Home Secretary David Blunkett


Have Your Say
"We'd be able to use civil law, like anti-social behaviour orders, to say, 'If you step outside what we've precluded you from doing, if you, for instance, use this particular banking network... then we can move you from the civil into the criminal law', and then we can use the normal criminal justice process, " he said.

Mr Blunkett said that the introduction of special terrorism trials with judges sitting alone without a jury was being considered.

He said he was also considering allowing wire tap evidence in criminal trials - a move previously opposed by the security services who feared being forced to disclose secret operations.

Balancing act

The head of the planned new Serious and Organised Crime Agency, former MI5 chief Sir Stephen Lander, said that he was an "enthusiast" for using wire-tap evidence in court.

But he added: "When one is dealing with very serious crimes, there is a balance to be struck between the intrusion on the privacy of the majority... and the need to be able to contain the criminals.

A further eroding of the principles of justice must be avoided

Mark Oaten
Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman
"The issue for any law enforcement agency is to act proportionately in the use of the laws that are available."

Mr Blunkett said: "What we're trying to do is to square an impossible circle which is to protect ourselves against new forms of threat and adapt our legal system to face it without eroding the basic human rights that people expect in a free and civilised society."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Sensible measures and precautions will get Liberal Democrat backing, but a further eroding of the principles of justice must be avoided."

'Draconian'

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said the government was playing on people's legitimate fears of terrorism and crime to bring in more draconian law and order measures.

Martin Howe QC, of the Politeia think tank, said: "The harm in not dealing with the threat of terrorism is so great that you simply cannot afford to say that it is better that a 100 guilty terrorists are let out on the street, in order to save one innocent person from being locked up."

We have tough-sounding headline-grabbing statements from David Blunkett, without the substance to back it up

David Davis
Tory shadow home secretary
The government and security services have long warned that an attack on the UK is "inevitable".

The home secretary told the programme that any decision on legislation would wait until after the general election.

"It's not my intention to try and push a bill through this side of the general election whenever the prime minister calls it," he said.

It would also wait until a law lords ruling, expected in the New Year, on current anti-terror legislation under which suspects are being held without trial in Belmarsh prison in London.

'All talk'

Shadow home secretary David Davis said Mr Blunkett was "all talk" for failing to include proposals in Tuesday's Queen's Speech.

"Yet again we have tough-sounding headline-grabbing statements from David Blunkett, without the substance to back it up," Mr Davis said.

New bills that are expected to be announced in the speech will drive further crackdowns on anti-social behaviour and establish the Serious and Organised Crime Agency.

The agency, which has been called the "British FBI", will tackle people trafficking, drug smuggling and money laundering.

Agency head Sir Stephen Lander said these offences cost the UK £40bn a year.

BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said legislation will also be announced to set up a system of identity cards.

There will also be more measures to crack down on binge drinking.









Britain: Arrest Without Committing a Crime, No Juries

Reuters | November 21 2004

The government is considering new tough anti-terrorism laws to prevent an al Qaeda attack including plans to target suspects even if they have not committed an offence, Home Secretary David Blunkett will say today.

The proposals would see the creation of special anti-terror courts which would sit without juries, allowing information obtained from phone taps to be used as evidence in trials, and civil orders against people suspected of planning terrorism.

Those breaching such orders could face jail even if they have not committed a crime.

The measures are likely to provoke anger from civil liberty campaigners who say emergency anti-terror laws already passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States are draconian and discriminatory against Muslims.

Outlining the plans in an interview with ITV's Jonathan Dimbleby programme to be aired later on Sunday, Blunkett said any new laws would not be brought in until after the next general election widely expected next year.

"It's not my intention to try and push a bill through this side of the general election whenever the prime minister calls it," he will say.

Britain, Washington's closest ally in its war on terror, has long been seen as a top target for al Qaeda because of its support for the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Blunkett, an uncompromising hardliner, has been instrumental in seeking new police powers which he says are vital for Britain's security. Critics accuse him of using fear to trample over the rule of law.

In October nine foreign terror suspects held indefinitely without charge under the emergency legislation went to Britain's highest court to challenge the validity of their detention.

The government had to declare an emergency and suspend parts of the European Convention on Human Rights to enact the law and the detainees' lawyers argued the new powers were illegal.

The court is yet to deliver its verdict.

Probably the same document as our patriot II government takeover plan.

Ed

you're just a freedom hating terrorist, centralizing and increasing power is always good. i'm going to tell on you.

This is just a proposal at the moment.
Blunkett's tried these sort of things before yet he is usually thwarted by the Lords or the European Court of Human Rights.
Of course they can still choose to force it through using the Parliment Act, as they are with the foxhunting ban (only the third time in history it has been used), but they would have to renegotiate the Human Rights Act because as far as I'm aware these measures would be in direct contradiction.

Always good to hear from you. tell on me? grin. LOL, most likely they know before I (and most likely you too) push the send key. Ya know, I'm beginning to think bush being elected is a good thing. Sure seeing lots more activism all over. Maybe it was just what america needed to get off their ass and take back our constitutional rights. Sorry, I have not kept up with all your posts. Have you seen Patriot II? I suspect most likely you have, but, wanted to check. I have it if you like, or at least excerpts and may have the whole thing would have to check the file.

My Best to You and Yours,

Ed

yeah, i read it a long time ago. i have video of ashcroft lying to congress saying there was no such legislation, after he had already introduced it in the house and senate with different names...this was at least a year and a half ago...

but remember, it's just 'intelligence reform' and it's needed. they simply doln't have the tools to fight 'terror' which is all crime.

it will only lead to dictatorship, but that's what we need to protect our freedom.

just wanted to make sure. You know, with all the terrorists the government is unable to handle. Why aren't state militias being formed to take an active part in finding 'terrorists' and being able to 'fight terrorists' when they attack us as this government tells us daily in the orange terror alert. Only one higher, red. The government needs help when we go red. We can not allow terrorist attacks to go undefended when America goes red. We must be able to protect ourselves, our families, our town and America from the coming terrorist attacks.

Ed

Hey there return of the jedi, I think the parliament act has been used 4 times in history, three of those by President Tony Blair in the last 7 years. I see a pattern emerging...