Friday, March 11, 2005
A YEAR LATER
The BBC reports:
In any event, also today, Britain is to begin releasing the final Belmarsh detainees. Again, the BBC:
1) They should not be held, was said by the Law Lords.
2) What government said was we don't agree, but fine. So, can we at least tag them then, so we know where the heck they are, and maybe ask them to spend most of their time at home, and overall merely keep an eye on them . . . to make sure they are living their lives peacefully to the fullest, and not getting involved in group activities that might lead to lots of people getting blown up?
3) Now, parliament is debating just those suggestions.
4) However, if the government now wants merely to tag them and perhaps ask them to remain at home, and forbid them from using the internet and a mobile phone? Guess what? I heard a "human rights spokesperson" straight-faced actually claim on ITV television news early this morning that if that's what the government wants, these detainees couldn't have been that dangerous to begin with. Indeed, given that, why had the government detained them [Editor's note: ONLY if they refused to leave the country, by the way] in the first place?
Excellent. Come to think of it, logic of that calibre is not too often seen outside of Liberal Democrat conferences.
However, fear not. I do believe I have located a basis upon which Islamist terror might be willing to be taken half-seriously, and even in a manner that would be "acceptable" to that set of "human rights campaigners" -- as we are informed by those very "human rights campaigners" themselves:
Essentially, Islamist terror is to be treated in the same manner under the law as a convenience store hold-up or speeding.
Check that -- not speeding. You can get caught speeding by a remote speed camera, and no law enforcement officer needs so much as to confront you in person. Apparently, that is not a problem for "800 years" of British jurisprudence.
Meanwhile, in another national capital of the E.U.:
Incidentally, church bells?
Are we positive that NO ONE was offended by that?
UPDATE: From the Telegraph (via my wife):
The BBC reports:
The political battle over anti-terror laws has run all night and into the morning, with peers twice refusing to give up amendments to the bill.A superb choice of words from Mr Kennedy there.
The House of Lords wants legislation to lapse later in the year and a higher standard of proof before restrictions can be placed on suspects.
But the government says the public want the laws for their own protection.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke refuses to back down, saying peers' "digging in of heels" is "unconstitutional". . .
. . . But Liberal Democrat Leader Charles Kennedy accused the government of "putting a gun to the head" of opposition parties over its anti-terror legislation. . .
In any event, also today, Britain is to begin releasing the final Belmarsh detainees. Again, the BBC:
A terror suspect held without charge since 2001 has been freed on bail, with eight more suspects due to be released.Now, how about this for incisive thinking?
The Special Immigration Appeal Commission (Siac) said the Algerian, known only as 'A', was being freed on condition he wears an electronic tag.
Siac said similar bail was granted "in principle" to eight further detainees, and a tenth, 'G', under house arrest, was to have his conditions relaxed. . .
. . . The suspect known as 'A', a married father-of-five from Algeria, was the only one of the detainees to appear before the Siac hearing in person.
The other detainees likely to be granted bail on Friday, who are being held at Belmarsh and Woodhill, are Abu Qatada, and those known only as 'E', 'H', 'K', 'P' and 'Q', along with two men currently held at Broadmoor Hospital, Berkshire, Palestinian Abu Rideh and detainee 'B'. . .
1) They should not be held, was said by the Law Lords.
2) What government said was we don't agree, but fine. So, can we at least tag them then, so we know where the heck they are, and maybe ask them to spend most of their time at home, and overall merely keep an eye on them . . . to make sure they are living their lives peacefully to the fullest, and not getting involved in group activities that might lead to lots of people getting blown up?
3) Now, parliament is debating just those suggestions.
4) However, if the government now wants merely to tag them and perhaps ask them to remain at home, and forbid them from using the internet and a mobile phone? Guess what? I heard a "human rights spokesperson" straight-faced actually claim on ITV television news early this morning that if that's what the government wants, these detainees couldn't have been that dangerous to begin with. Indeed, given that, why had the government detained them [Editor's note: ONLY if they refused to leave the country, by the way] in the first place?
Excellent. Come to think of it, logic of that calibre is not too often seen outside of Liberal Democrat conferences.
However, fear not. I do believe I have located a basis upon which Islamist terror might be willing to be taken half-seriously, and even in a manner that would be "acceptable" to that set of "human rights campaigners" -- as we are informed by those very "human rights campaigners" themselves:
• Set a clear and prompt timetable for the charge or release of those detained, or held under house arrest, and for the repeal of part 4 of the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security ActIndeed, what could be clearer. Terror cases being more complicated to prosecute in routine courts under civilian standards of evidence than convenience store hold-ups or speeding? Irrelevant.
• Ensure that any new anti-terror legislation is based on a real and explained practical need, rather than a political imperative for legislation. This must be achieved without violating or ‘opting out’ of human rights commitments
• Respect the presumption of innocence and equal treatment principles
• Understand that a respect for human rights standards is not being ‘soft’ on terrorism or careless about national security
• Respect the role given to the Law Lords by those who passed the Human Rights Act and to the role of judges more generally
Charles Clarke’s new Prevention of Terrorism Bill and ‘control orders' falls a long way short of these criteria. Swapping one human rights ‘opt out’ for another is unacceptable.
Essentially, Islamist terror is to be treated in the same manner under the law as a convenience store hold-up or speeding.
Check that -- not speeding. You can get caught speeding by a remote speed camera, and no law enforcement officer needs so much as to confront you in person. Apparently, that is not a problem for "800 years" of British jurisprudence.
Meanwhile, in another national capital of the E.U.:
People across Spain are marking the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings in which 191 were killed and more than 1,800 were injured.Yep, just like a convenience store hold-up.
Church bells across the capital tolled at 0737 (0637 GMT), the moment when the first of 10 co-ordinated blasts hit commuter-packed trains. . .
Incidentally, church bells?
Are we positive that NO ONE was offended by that?
UPDATE: From the Telegraph (via my wife):
Muslims in Spain issued a fatwa against Osama bin Laden yesterday.Hmmm, but less than a year ago, another major paper told us there were:
The ruling by the Islamic Commission of Spain, the main body representing the nation's one million Muslims, came on the eve of the first anniversary of the Madrid train bombings, which were linked to the al-Qa'eda network.
. . . at least 500,000 Muslims in Spain and perhaps as many as 200,000 more who were undocumented immigrants. . .Yes, quite a growing population. Anyway, back to the Telegraph:
The commission's leader, Mansur Escudero, said the group had consulted Muslim leaders in other countries, such as Libya and Morocco - home to most of the suspects in the March 11 bombings.Hmm. Well, I suppose a few fatwas tossed in the other direction couldn't hurt. ¶ by Robert, Friday, March 11, 2005
The fatwa said that, in accordance with the Koran, "the terrorist acts of Osama bin Laden and his organisation al-Qa'eda... are totally banned and must be roundly condemned as part of Islam".
The fatwa is believed to represent the first major condemnation of bin Laden by a mainstream Muslim organisation. . .
