Britain warns terror threat is worsening

[Gunny]

LONDON, England (AP) -- British anti-terror officials are monitoring some 2,000 people and are following hundreds of networks in an effort to keep the country safe, Britain's Home Secretary warned in an article to be published Sunday.

Jacqui Smith's estimate came as she argued for an extension of the time authorities are allowed to hold terror suspects without charge.

"We now face a threat level that is severe. It's not getting any less, it's actually growing," Smith wrote in the editorial to be printed in The News of The World tabloid. "There are 2,000 individuals (police and security agencies) are monitoring. There are 200 networks. There are 30 active plots."

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/12/britain.terror.ap/index.html

Thirty plots ... but the Brits will have to wait until somebody dies to arrest them. Wouldn't want to violate the terrorists' right to plot, y'know.

 

[Taomon]

Thirty plots ... but the Brits will have to wait until somebody dies to arrest them. Wouldn't want to violate the terrorists' right to plot, y'know.

Much better to throw out any rules of law that held for hundreds of years. Tell me, where do we draw the line...with terrorists only? Or do we extend this to murderers, rapists, thieves, political parties, homosexuals, religious groups? The Constitution is a great document and we are losing touch with it. England has a rule of law that has prevailed for centuries...are they to toss it to the wind as well?

 

[Gunny]

Much better to throw out any rules of law that held for hundreds of years. Tell me, where do we draw the line...with terrorists only? Or do we extend this to murderers, rapists, thieves, political parties, homosexuals, religious groups? The Constitution is a great document and we are losing touch with it. England has a rule of law that has prevailed for centuries...are they to toss it to the wind as well?

I'd like for you to apply the argument you just made to the topic of citizens owning firearms.

The history of law is all fine and dandy, but doesn't mean a hill of beans if it doesn't address today's issues. It's hard to prevent crime when you are powerless to stop the criminals, and it's self-defeating to wait until a suicide bomber blows himself up to take a bunch of others with him.

Kind of hard to make an arrest, and what would it accomplish if you could? Punishing the criminal is all fine and dandy too, but it does nothing to bring back the dead.

 

[dread]

Much better to throw out any rules of law that held for hundreds of years. Tell me, where do we draw the line...with terrorists only? Or do we extend this to murderers, rapists, thieves, political parties, homosexuals, religious groups? The Constitution is a great document and we are losing touch with it. England has a rule of law that has prevailed for centuries...are they to toss it to the wind as well?

I'll make sure, that when a criminal is raping your ass, that I sit and wait till he is done so that I dont violate his rights. And if the criminal decides to hurt anyone in your family I'll let him do that as well because I wouldnt want you to think of me as a thug.

 

[Diuretic]

Thirty plots ... but the Brits will have to wait until somebody dies to arrest them. Wouldn't want to violate the terrorists' right to plot, y'know.

No, that's a misrepresentation of what's happening. The Home Secretary is trying to get more power for government. She is going to have to convince a lot of sceptical members of parliament that the extra power is required. That's a good thing, that she has to struggle to do so. She should rightly be tested on what evidence she has to require further power for the government. If her claims weren't tested then Brits would be handing over their civil liberties - again - for chopping up as the government sees fit.

Smith faces an uphill battle to persuade lawmakers to pass a law allowing police to hold terror suspects up to 42 days without charge. Such suspects can currently be held up to 28 days, and Smith has often invoked the growing threat of terrorism -- and the increasing complexity of terror plots -- to justify the extension of time.

Note "without charge".

Outside of CT laws the Brit police have quite a bit of authority to hold someone before formally charging them.

They get 24 hours in the first instance, then they need to ask a boss for another 12 and then they can go to a magistrate and get another 96 hours.

This is before charging anyone.

In my jurisdiction the police can, only hold someone 4 hours before charging for a serious offence, but can seek an extension for another 4 hours from a magistrate.

Now the Home Secretary wants an extension from 28 to 42 days without charge for terrorism suspects. Fair enough if it's warranted but her demands have to be tested. I mean what do you want, someone locked up permanently without charge?

Don't forget that police in the UK can use charges of conspiracy to grab terrorist suspects before they actually commit an offence, thus preventing harm, except that they need evidence of course. If they're onto a suspect or suspects and they can hold them for 28 days without charge I'm wondering why they'd need up to 42 days to hold them. I'd like to see the evidence if I were a Brit MP.

 

[Gunny]

No, that's a misrepresentation of what's happening. The Home Secretary is trying to get more power for government. She is going to have to convince a lot of sceptical members of parliament that the extra power is required. That's a good thing, that she has to struggle to do so. She should rightly be tested on what evidence she has to require further power for the government. If her claims weren't tested then Brits would be handing over their civil liberties - again - for chopping up as the government sees fit.



Note "without charge".

Outside of CT laws the Brit police have quite a bit of authority to hold someone before formally charging them.

They get 24 hours in the first instance, then they need to ask a boss for another 12 and then they can go to a magistrate and get another 96 hours.

This is before charging anyone.

In my jurisdiction the police can, only hold someone 4 hours before charging for a serious offence, but can seek an extension for another 4 hours from a magistrate.

Now the Home Secretary wants an extension from 28 to 42 days without charge for terrorism suspects. Fair enough if it's warranted but her demands have to be tested. I mean what do you want, someone locked up permanently without charge?

Don't forget that police in the UK can use charges of conspiracy to grab terrorist suspects before they actually commit an offence, thus preventing harm, except that they need evidence of course. If they're onto a suspect or suspects and they can hold them for 28 days without charge I'm wondering why they'd need up to 42 days to hold them. I'd like to see the evidence if I were a Brit MP.

I certainly do not advocate locking someone up permanently without charge. Since you have a provided a more detailed explanation than the article, I understand the situation a bit better.

Conspiracy to commit is almost always an after the fact charge, is it not?

 

[Diuretic]

I certainly do not advocate locking someone up permanently without charge. Since you have a provided a more detailed explanation than the article, I understand the situation a bit better.

Conspiracy to commit is almost always an after the fact charge, is it not?

I'm glad I could throw a bit more light on it. I still think she's got her work cut out for her but that's up to the parliament of course.

Usually conspiracy is used before a substantive offence - at least that's how it works in Australia. I have to make that point because years ago it was sometimes the case that both conspiracy and the substantive offence used to be charged in very serious cases. The prosecution's idea was to say, well if we lose the substantive case then we'll get a conviction for conspiracy. That stopped when a High Court judge came down on it like a tonne (we're metric) of bricks and said it was bad for duplicity and so the practice was stopped.

Now it's preventive (here I mean, I can't speak for anywhere else)

The courts are very strong on enforcing it too. If they think police have sat back and not jumped in and arrested people for conspiracy and allowed the offence to be committed because then there's a better chance of conviction, they will hammer the prosecution.