How long should terrorist suspects be held without charge? Since Tony Blair was defeated in the House of Commons two years ago when he gambled on an increase in the then limit of 14 days to 90, the issue has rumbled on. It will soon have to be resolved when it is again put to the Commons. Mr Blair at least made an emotional case for a huge extension of the limit and got it doubled from 14 to 28 days.

 

Gordon Brown wants the limit to be doubled again to 56 days, but so far he is making a hash of presenting a convincing case for doing so. Not even his ministers seem fully signed up. Last week Lord West, the security minister tasked with overseeing the nation’s defences against terrorist attack, said he still needed to be “fully convinced that we absolutely need more than 28 days”. Soon afterwards, following a visit to No 10 and the Downing Street equivalent of a keelhauling, the former admiral said that he was now convinced of the need for change.

 

Even more alarmingly for Mr Brown, Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, said she had no firm view of how much the limit should be extended and conceded that there had been no examples in which the police needed more than 28 days to question suspects before bringing charges. She was unconvincing on another proposed change - to allow police to continue questioning suspects after charges have been brought.

 

Behind the vacillation of ministers lies another suspicion: that Mr Brown’s motives are driven more by politics than national security. He has wanted to show that he is at least as tough as his predecessor, although more practical and realistic. We know that he never embarks on a strategy without thinking about how it can wrongfoot his political opponents.

 

Unfortunately for Mr Brown, his own brand of machismo so far appears doomed to failure. A straightforward proposal to extend the limit to 56 days would face almost certain parliamentary defeat. He is too recently in the job to want to risk that. This is why the talk turned last week to a compromise, using the Civil Contingencies Act under which, in episodes of civil emergency such as a series of terrorist attacks, suspects could be held for an additional 30 days on top of the 28-day limit.

 

Whether the government would get enough all-party support for that is unclear, particularly when it comes to the terms of such an extension. Would the government have to declare a General Musharraf-style state of emergency to bring the provisions of the act forward? If not, in what circumstances would the extra 30 days apply?

 

Sceptics point out that the Spanish courts managed to convict 21 people involved in the Madrid railway bombings: their police had only 13 days to gather evidence before charging the terrorists. Others say that our police manage to charge sophisticated organised criminals within the existing time limits so why not the admittedly fanatical, but less cunning, Islamists?

 

It looks like a muddle and it is. David Green of the think tank Civitas points out that there is a way of reconciling the terrorist threat and civil liberties and it is one with its roots firmly based in the British legal system. Until 1933, grand juries of ordinary citizens (which originated in Saxon times) provided a safeguard against overzealous police and prosecutors. They would decide whether there was a case to answer and whether suspects could continue to be held, a system that still continues in most American states.

 

The government has yet to make an effective case for extending the limit. When it comes to the balance between civil liberties and protecting citizens from terrorists, most people have no doubt where their sympathies lie. But they also know that abandoning those liberties precipitately plays into the terrorists’ hands and gives the state too much power. So far the government has not made a convincing case for extending the 28-day limit. Until it does, the limit should stay.

 

Source: Sunday Times

 

If you cant make your case in what is the best part of a MONTH, then frankly I dont even think there's even a case to answer....

 

And just why, exactly, is it that wire-tap evidence cannot be submitted into court...? They manage to do it in the US and other European countries, so why not here...? If there's evidence, then they should bloody put a case together ffs and STOP expecting the people of this country to take everything they say on blind faith like we're stupid children or summat.... <_<