Hurrah

[juliet]

Law Lords rule that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws.

Comments

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

But Charles Clarke has already said that he's going to ignore that ruling and keep them inside. Shortest political honeymoon period ever?

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Great thing to have on your desk on the first day. Can't deport them because nobody wants them back, can't lock them up because old men in wigs say that Europe won't let you, can't try them because you'd have to give them the evidence and the people who grassed them up would get a bullet to the back of the head.

Should be able to get rid of Abu Qatada fairly easily though, Spain have already asked to extradite him for trial over the Madrid bombings. A little local knowledge here, because while (er, allegedly, ahem) providing funding and other support to 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta via the al-Tawhid organisation, he was housed by, erm, Southwark Housing Trust.

I liked their lawyer's comment - "Let them try to lock up British nationals indefinitely without trial. That would be a step no government here is prepared yet to take" - er, yeah, in the sense that the NornIrish weren't British nationals during internment, they aren't prepared to.

Protesting about that was a minority interest of course, because being beastly to the Irish is part of our heritage, whereas being beastly to Arabs is clearly completely different because, erm, oh I don't know.

[barrysarll.livejournal.com]

Closed trials, maybe?

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

That solves your jury problem, but if we can't get away with just locking them up do you think we'll get away with not providing the evidence to the defence?

[kauket.livejournal.com]

Public Interest Immunity - we have information which is secret secret and we don't want anyone else, specially not the defence, to know, so we tell the judge we have a secret secret thing, and he says ok and the defence aren't allowed it...very nice, especially when at the highest level, the defence aren't even allowed to know roughly what the info is about or even what form it's in

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but what I'm saying is, is it much fairer to lock someone up using a trial based on secret evidence that they've had no opportunity to disprove than it is to lock them up based on secret evidence that they've had no opportunity to disprove because there was no trial?

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Actually, I have just remembered who you are. Please dont go to the trouble of responding to either of my comments.

[juliet]

[coughs & notes that you may conceivably be confusing the two v different people you last had a fight with on my LJ]

[but thinks that fights on my LJ should be avoided anyway :-) ]

[beingjdc.livejournal.com]

Nah, probably does mean me.

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

Are you really arguing that we should be able to have people imprisoned without evidence and without due process?

[ergotia.livejournal.com]

You can lock them up - after *due process*.

[martling.livejournal.com]

Hurrah indeed for the decision, though a shame it should require the House of Lords.

As to Clarke, I didn't expect any immediate action but I don't like the wording of his statement. But we knew he'd be as bad as Blunkett already, I suppose.