Internment without trial...

Not so very long ago people who were deemed to be a threat to the security of the UK were held without trial. Though this happened in Northern Ireland.
Have there been changes in the laws since then that precludes using internment in England to hold terrorist suspects?
16:51 Mon 13th Feb 2012
 
Avatar Image
mibn2cweus
Best Answer
When one is prepared to sacrifice another's human rights in deference to their own 'safety', it is they who have then made themselves the terrorist. When we find ourselves locking up the innocent in deference to fear, the true terrorists are obliged to declare victory.
04:44 Tue 14th Feb 2012 Go To Best Answer

1 to 20 of 21

2 Next Last

No.
No - I remember they were increased by New Labour after 9/11. Before then terrorist suspects could only be held for a maximum of three and then seven days without charge before they had to be released. Tony Blair increased that to 42 days and I don't think it's changed. I may be wrong but it might even have increased.
No there haven't and indeed people have been held. Having seen internment first hand I would have no hesitation at all in condemning it in the strongest possible manner.
At least we don't have anything like Guantanamo Bay! Anyway, I thought Obama was going to close it within a year of his election.
The Human Rights Act 1998 places an obligation upon the Government to respect the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, Article 5 of the Convention (which deals with the right to freedom).
And having seen the results of aviation terrorism, I am all for people (suspected terrorists) being held until the powers that be can determine that they are "safe".
I agree with 237SJ I think. There is a point were common sense must prevail and if an indiviual is thought to pose a danger to a great many people then it's better to be safe and sure. It's foolish to do otherwise.
Not if it was an innocent member of your family you wouldn't be 237SJ.
Internment does only one thing- alienates the community of the people you intern- instead of having one slightly radical person, you end up with street fulls. Now that, aside from the fact it's not right to lock people up without charge or trial, is just plain STUPID and adds to the long term problem massively.
I can assure you I would Nox. I`m talking serious terrorism though (which I live with in my place of work). For lesser crimes I might think differently though.
But you're not talking about 'serious terrorism' , no-one is talking about anything at all, because with internment it's somone's gut feeling about how someone MIGHT behave after some ( usually shoddy) surveillance where often they put 2 and 2 together and make 5, either that or it's guilt by association. These people have committed no crime, serious or otherwise, which is why internment is patently wrong and why it provokes such violent reactions in communities it is used against.
Well, we`re probably talking about different situations then. As far as aviation terrorism is concerned, the intelligence is very good. There is no shoddy intelligence. Not in the UK anyway. There is no "gut" feeling . All I am saying is that if suspected persons had to be released after 3 or so days without anyone establishing what kind of risk they are, and now they can be held for longer and there is more time to establish how much of a risk they are, then I am all for that.
NOX - don't we have to trust the assessment of individuals to those professionals charged with doing just that? I don't agree with that argument in many fields, especially things like teaching, ordinary policing, health care, local government etc but we are told those people are professionals and we must abide by their professional opinions. Shouldn't that be the case with a subject as serious as terrorism? What we've seen Islamic terrorists capable of around the world in recent years makes IRA bomb hoaxes and cigareete packet bombs in litter bins pale into insignificance.
Unfortunately, there are instances in times of crisis where the safety of the general public and stability of government far outweighs the rights of the individual.
Modern surveillance and intelligence gathering in regards to terror suspects ought to ensure that only those individuals deemed to pose such a threat would undergo internment.
I personally strongly disagree. If a man has comitted a crime let him be charged. If it can be proved he intends to comit a crime let him be charged, but do not lock up people against whom there is no evidence to expect a reasonable prospect of a guilty verdict. For every one radical you inter you will create another 10, do you then continue ad infinitum until whole communities are radicalised? Where do you go from there?
IMHO it's not about guilty verdicts NOX, it's ensuring the immediate safety of the general public from individuals who, through terrorist action would seek to advocate or commit mass murder.
I'm happy to see the radicals you mention interred if it meant the general public can go about their daily lives without the treat of terrorism.
That's my whole point, far from protecting AGAINST terrorism you just fuel new recruits TO terrorism. I cannot imagine that it's very much different in for example Bradford today where someone sees someone they know dragged out of their house at dawn and locked up without trial, than it was in Belfast when I was a lad. The sheer seething hatred and resentment felt by the communities I think is seriously underestimated by co called intelligence officers, and aside from it not being morally right to inter people without trial, it simply makes a bad situation very much worse. The reason terrorists are so successful is that they are ordinary people turned to terrorism by either what they have seen, heard, witnessed or otherwise absorbed from people in whose interest it is to radicalise them.That's why it's relatively simple for them to go undetected. You really don't want an army of normal people trying to sabotage your infrastructure because you've locked up a few loud mouths you don't fancy the look of.
Now if you suspect soemone of being up to no good, no right minded person would be against you bringing them in, holding them and quesitoning them for a sensible amount of time and either charging or releasing them and I myself amd quite happy with 7 days, but 42 days is far and away too much and gives the govt way too much leeway to abuse the system.
With all due respect NOX it's my belief that the internment you witnessed was first used by a government in unchartered waters i.e. they'd never had to deal with insurgents on British soil before. Elsewhere yes, but not in mainland UK, hence it was more blanket coverage than targeting hard line individuals.

The way terrorism has advanced, in line with efforts to combat it now means that a far fewer number of people would be interred should such a situation arise. Modern, radical fundamentalist terrorism probably struggles for resources etc in a way that Republican terrorism didn't.
The IRA waged their efforts with fertiliser based bombs and small arms against a government.
Radical terrorism vows to destroy whole countries and will possibly see the use of a 'dirty' bomb at some stage.
When one is prepared to sacrifice another's human rights in deference to their own 'safety', it is they who have then made themselves the terrorist. When we find ourselves locking up the innocent in deference to fear, the true terrorists are obliged to declare victory.
<<deemed to be a threat>>
Are you implying that the perception of threat is always imagined and never real., Sandy?
mibn2cweus, your 'best' answer (LOL) has put single quotes round the word safety. No threats to the British public you're aware of then?
Question Author
When internment was introduced in NI back in 71, one of the first 'lifted' was a man who was more than 70 years old. He was to say later that he was flattered that the British Government still considered him a threat.
He was released within a matter of weeks so it seems clear that he wasn't as much of a danger to the stability of the state as he might have liked to have been.
Now there are people, Jihadists for example, who are deemed to present a very real threat. While many are bumbling amateurs, a few have shown themselves to have been murderously efficient.
Would it be right to intern hundreds of suspects to prevent a few of them from turning their threats into action?

1 to 20 of 21

2 Next Last

Latest posts