POLICE MAKE CASE

The government has released a briefing paper by the assistant commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police, Andy Hayman, who has also written to newspapers on the issue.

"This proposal did not originate with the government. It originated with the police and those responsible for fighting terrorism in this country," Blair told parliament.

Critics say that sets a dangerous precedent.

"The police are not our rulers. This is the politics of fear," human rights lawyer Michael Mansfield wrote in the Independent newspaper.

On the surface, the 90-day period is far beyond anything seen in other European countries, and have raised eyebrows elsewhere on the continent, where police usually have just a few days to put their case before a judge.

"Ninety days is grotesque," said French criminologist Xavier Raufer. "It's more of a gesture to impress British citizens than to address terrorism. To be frank, 90 days seems like show-business to me."

But British authorities say it is not fair to compare their system to those on the continent, which work differently. Britain does not have the equivalent of French investigating magistrates -- powerful judges who can order suspects held before trial during investigations that may last many years.

EIGHT OLYMPIC-SIZED POOLS

In Britain, once the police charge someone with a crime, there are strict restrictions on questions they can subsequently ask a suspect. Police say that in terrorism cases, they often have to intervene to prevent an attack before they understand the precise nature of the plot or who is involved.

And after they arrest suspects, they may need weeks or months to translate documents, scan encrypted computers or seek information from foreign countries. Only then would they know what to ask in interrogations, or what charges to bring.

The size of the rubbish dump they searched after the July attacks was about the equivalent of eight Olympic swimming pools, Hayman wrote in a newspaper.

In his briefing note he described the 90 hard drives case.

"There were many key pieces of evidence which police were unable to put to the suspects in interview because they were not discovered until after the detention period had elapsed."

In another case, eight suspected bombers refused to talk: "The silence of the suspects, encouraged by current custody time limits, shed no light on the intentions or capabilities of the terrorist network."

Critics like rights watchdog Liberty say they fear the police might use the threat of a long detention to force suspects to sign bogus confessions or wrongly implicate others. Long detentions could alienate Muslims, making it more difficult to gather crucial intelligence, they say. They have backed other measures, like loosening some rules on questions police can ask once a suspect is charged. - source

Blair cites foiled plots in appeal on anti-terror laws

LONDON (AFP) Nov 09, 2005 - Prime Minister Tony Blair said two plots had been foiled since the July 7 bombings in London as he tried to win over opponents to his anti-terrorism laws ahead of a high-stakes vote Wednesday.

The government meanwhile summoned home early two senior cabinet ministers from overseas to bolster its chances of winning the vote amid opposition to the proposals from both inside and outside the ruling Labour Party.

"Let's send out a signal from this house that when it comes to defeating terrorism we are going to give the police the powers they need and back them," Blair told the House of Commons ahead of the vote.

A rejection of the measures -- including one that extends the period for which suspects can be held without charge from the current 14 days to 90 days -- would be Blair's first legislative defeat since coming to power in 1997.

The legislation also calls for a ban on those who glorify terrorism, sell extremist books, receive or provide terrorist training, or prepare to commit attacks.

Blair said longer detentions would help police glean more evidence and build stronger cases. "We're not talking about large numbers of people, but they may be the crucial difference in saving this country from terrorist acts than not," the prime minister said.

Police called for longer detention powers following the July 7 bombings in London because of the greater use of encrypted computers, as well as language difficulties inherent in combating international terrorist networks. In the context of his new appeals, Blair said the country was faced with an unprecedented threat of mass casualties, a darker threat than the terrorism over the previous three decades carried out by the Irish Republican Army.

Since the attacks on July 7 by four presumed Muslim suicide bombers who killed themselves and 52 commuters in London, the threat of more attacks looms, he warned.

"In the last week, we have learned that since the 7th of July two further terrorist plots have been prevented in this country," Blair told lawmakers without elaborating.

Blair faced a rebellion last week by Labour lawmakers seeking to set the detention period at 28 days. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition parties as well as human rights groups have also denounced the detention plans. As a sop to critics, Blair's interior minister Charles Clarke has proffered a "sunset clause" which would see the legislation expiring in 12 months unless renewed by lawmakers. Clarke also offered the stipulation that a suspect's detention would be reviewed by a High Court judge every seven days and a code of practice to govern the treatment of those held.

To ensure the votes necessary for the legislation, the government recalled Foreign Secretary Jack Straw from Russia and finance minister Gordon Brown from Israel.

Brown told reporters in Tel Aviv he would vote for the measures which he deemed crucial to national security. "It is important that I maximize the Labour vote and encourage others to do so," Brown told Sky News television. The Foreign Office in London said Jack Straw would still have time to attend meetings involving his French, German and Russian counterparts before leaving Moscow.

Defense Secretary John Reid was returning from a visit to the United States in time to vote for the law, though a defense ministry spokesman said his trip had not been cut short.

Wednesday's vote is seen as a key test of Blair's authority, with the Labour rebellion last week prompting media speculation that he may be forced to step down long before serving out what he said will be his third and last term. - spacewar.com

Mr. Michael Howard (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con):

In that recitation of what happened on Monday, the Home Secretary conveniently overlooked the fact that after the meeting with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, he told the media that he would be tabling an amendment to provide for a shorter period of detention. How long did the Prime Minister have to detain him before he decided not to proceed with that amendment?

Mr. Clarke:

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is entirely correct that I did say that to the media after the meeting. He is also entirely correct that I was present at the meeting of the parliamentary Labour party meeting that the Prime Minister attended at which precisely these questions were discussed. I will address the question of detention that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised with the Prime Minister earlier today. I can give him the example that he seeks from evidence given by Peter Clarke to the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

To answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman's earlier question, I shall quote what Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke said about whether the time period would make a difference. DAC Clarke said that he could point to a particular case as an example of terrorists evading justice because of the lack of such a provision. He said:

"had we had this provision in 2002, the outcome of a recent court case, the so-called ricin trial, might have been very different. Mohamed Meguerba was one of the suspects in that case and it is likely that we would have held him or applied for his detention for sufficient time to find that his fingerprints were on the ricin recipe and he would have stood trial as a main conspirator in that case had he not fled the country. As it was, he was not available to stand trial and so the jury were not able to benefit from his presence in the court. I cannot say whether the jury would have come to a different decision"--

of course he could not -

"but I think it would have been possible for the prosecution to present the case in a way which was easier for the jury to understand".

That is a compelling argument that 90 days might have made a difference and allowed things to be dealt with far better.

Mr. Howard:

The Home Secretary will know that I originally raised this matter with the Prime Minister months ago. I asked for a briefing to test whether, if a 90-day period had been in force, it would have led to the apprehension of people who could not otherwise have been apprehended. The Home Secretary must know that the case to which he refers does not in any way justify the 90-day period. The evidence did not take 90 days to materialise. Will he now confirm—the Prime Minister refused to do so earlier today—that there is not a single case to which the police or anyone else can point in which evidence that became available 80 or 90 days after arrest was sufficient to charge the person who had been arrested?

2.15 pm

Mr. Clarke:

It is striking that the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his point in such a way. He is right in one essential respect: we tried to work with him and his colleague, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, over the summer to address these questions. He is right that we organised a briefing on Privy Council terms to consider such questions for him and his right hon. Friend. He says that he is not convinced by the case. He is entitled not to be convinced by the case—that is his right—but I believe that the case put by DAC Clarke to the Joint Committee on Human Rights was a powerful and effective argument for a 90-day provision

Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab):

With great respect, my right hon. Friend has been misled on the ricin case, because the individual who fled the country while on bail was released by the police after two days in custody, not after 14 days. It cannot therefore be argued that they could have charged him if they had been able to hang on to him for 90 days. Will he confirm that that is the case?

Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that that is the case, but the specific example I gave demonstrates that there are cases in which the police, when making a judgment about whether to charge someone, can reach a decision that, in my opinion, is damaging to the course of justice.

3 high profile cabinet members in the air???

To ensure the votes necessary for the legislation, the government recalled Foreign Secretary Jack Straw from Russia and finance minister Gordon Brown from Israel. Defense Secretary John Reid was returning from a visit to the United States in time to vote for the law, though a defense ministry spokesman said his trip had not been cut short.

Just how bad is this terror threat??

Director of Liberty Shami Chakrabarti in China wisecrack:

we are not in China - yet...

"This courageous vote proves that we are not in China yet. Despite a concerted attempt at party tribalism and an excessively political campaign by certain senior police officers, the House of Commons has helped to restore faith in politics this evening."

Orwell spins in his grave: Moments later, MP's passed an amendment increasing detention without trial to 28 days doubling the current period of detention without trial, without public evidence...without recourse to anything other than the security services say so...

How is that a defeat to the Blair Junta???