There was an article in The Guardian that annoyed me. Like so many arguments in favour of the 90 day detention it was an emotional outpouring with little regard for thought. What really offended me was the implication that opposing the 90 day detention was the same as supporting terrorism and accused the opponents of detention of having "Blood on their hands".
I hope this is not becoming a bad habit, but I wrote to the author Kitty Ussher MP.
Hi Kitty,
I have just read your article in the Guardian regarding the 90 day detention, and as an opponent of the 90 detention I felt I must write to defend myself because you used such strong words, "Blood on their hands", words that many would apply to those supporting the 90 day detention.
I have two principle reasons for opposing this legislation. Firstly, I believe firmly that the 90 detention would have increased the risk of terrorism, that is the fundamental reason for opposing the law. Secondly, it is unnecessary, there has not been a single argument that has convinced me it is needed, our current laws are good enough.
Now let me expand on these points:
I believe that terrorists are extremists whose existence depends on a more moderate base. Only by engaging with the more moderate base can we undermine the extremes. The moderate base is made up of ordinary people who want ordinary lives. They want peace as much as much as you or I do, but when they feel threatened or obstructed they become angry. This anger can start to blind people in their judgment so that they can tolerate a little more anger from others in an ever increasing spiral up the chain to the extremes where terror becomes accepted. If we can tackle the low level anger the more extreme anger will become weakened. If the police detained someone for a few months due to confusion over names, with the result of them losing their job and livelihood, I believe we will increase anger, and as I will explain, we will have done this for no security benefit. If we want to go around the world telling people what do and how to live, then we should make sure that we are applying the highest standards to ourselves. If we want democracy and human rights to prevail, then we should back them because we believe they are always right, not because it is something nice to do if we get the chance.
Now you believe that the police need this legislation to help with their enquiries, well they don't. It is possible to continue investigation before, during and after both arrest and charge. There is no need to create extra time, because they have all the time they need. You also state that putting a case before a judge every seven days will provide protection, but you also argue that if the police recommend it then we should follow their advice. What will you say to the judge who overrules the police? We have a process in place, the police can recommend all the laws they want, but it is the members of parliament who must decide the laws and the lawyers, judges, police and magistrates who decide if they apply. You must apply judgment to any request, if you are not willing to do this then you have abandoned your post and left the police in charge. If on the other hand you have applied your judgment to it, then you cannot claim others must accept the legislation just because it is recommended by the police. The police must have some reason to suspect someone, and if they have good reason then they can charge. If there is no evidence of any crime, then why are they willing to incarcerate them?
As I said in a letter to my MP:
"It is not right that we allow people to be locked up 'just in case'. We know what a catalyst for anger the detention in Guantanamo Bay is, are we seriously wanting to provoke distrust and anger or should we be looking to apply the freedom and justice we are so keen to promote around the world.
Do not be led by polls, the case has been put in an emotional frame and the public are reacting accordingly, you must look beyond the anger aimed at terrorists and ensure you create a society that will reduce terror not create more. 90 days is wrong, 28 days is wrong, even the current 14 days is wrong.
So please do not give in to emotional blackmail stand up for what is right and rational. "
With best wishes
AJ Thomas
3 comments :
I received the following response from the office of Kitty Ussher:
Thank you for your email in response to Kitty's Guardian On-line article.
Kitty believes that the police and security services asked for these powers as the best way to combat terrorism and bring those responsible for plotting and planning terrorist actions to justice was to support this Bill. She attended a number of briefings where the case for both sides was put and decided that the security of the British people must come first. The responsible thing to do was listen to those services who are on the frontline in the fight against terror and allow them the tools they felt necessary to do the job properly, so long as clear checks and balances where applied. The clear fact is that this was not a
policy of simply locking someone up for 90 days. There would have been a requirement that a judge reviewed the situation every week and decide whether it was appropriate for a suspect to remain in custody. The judiciary would therefore have had a proper input into the legal process and it is hard to see that anyone would have been detained for the whole 90 days without a substantive reason with those safeguards in place. While 90 days can be no guarantee that a terror attack can not happen, it was the security services belief that it would be the best, and most reasonable, period that could reduce the risk.
Only today Liberal Democrat Lord Carlyle has said that 90 days would have been fair and proportionate and knows of at least 3 cases where a suspect has been released because of a lack of evidence that would not have been the case with a longer investigation period. There are those that say in introducing this detention period it would inflame the Muslim Community. I strongly and profoundly disagree. Burnley has one of the largest Asian Muslim populations in Britain and not a single member of the community has voiced strong concern at these measures. Before Kitty voted for this measure she was careful enough to ask as many members of the Muslim communities in Burnley what they thought. If she had encountered any strong feelings against it the she would have had reservations on supporting the measures. She did not. The very fact of the matter is that this is not a case of playing with the legal process it is a matter of keeping members of the public safe. The Guardian article was therefore making the point that those who voted on this issue on Party Political lines are accountable for their actions in
ignoring the advice of the Police. There are obviously those Members of Parliament who had severe doubts on this policy on long standing libertarian grounds, but the majority of those who voted against the Bill did so not out of conviction but to score political points off the Government and off the Prime Minister. Should a terrorist action be committed in the future that could have been prevented by a 90 day detention period then it is those Members who would have to question why they voted against this bill contrary to all warnings they were given.
Kitty has said in the past and did so at the time that had she been a Member of Parliament during that period, she would not have voted to take Britain to war in Iraq. That said she firmly believes that we now have a job to do and that early withdrawal of British Troops would not be in the interests of security in the region or the Iraqi people. Only last week the United Nations extended the legitimate mandate for troop presence in Iraq. Those that claim the current troop presence in Iraq is illegal and illegitimate are wrong and the democratically elected President of Iraq has said he welcomes the help of the UK. He however says that he does not want an indefinite prescience in Iraq and Kitty agrees. Britain is therefore helping to recruit and train forces that will be loyal to the democratically elected Government of Iraq and when numbers are sufficient a withdrawal plan can be brought into operation. While it is understand the actions in Iraq angered a lot of people that is not in any way a justification for terror. Those that state that Iraq has somehow given terrorists an excuse for t heir actions are allowing a principled and moral stance to justify something that can have none. Kitty stands by her column and stands by the 90 day detention period.
Kind regards,
Peter Marland
The Office of Kitty Ussher MP
My final email:
Peter,
Thank for your response, I appreciate the time taken to read and respond to my email.
Firstly regarding the issues you discuss about Iraq, whilst I did not raise the subject of Iraq, I will say that I am in general agreement with the points you make here, adding only that early withdraw or otherwise is secondary to being properly thought through. Regarding the article I will restate that I find the title too strong to oppose what was for many a reasoned positioned. From her comments we are left to wonder who would have blood on their hands if there were another terrorist attack. If Kitty believes it is those that opposed the 90 day detention, can her opponents suggest it is those that supported the increase to 28 days? No, I think both sides should be clear that the blood stained hands always belong to the perpetrators.
Your kindly,
AJ Thomas
"There are obviously those Members of Parliament who had severe doubts on this policy on long standing libertarian grounds, but the majority of those who voted against the Bill did so not out of conviction but to score political points off the Government and off the Prime Minister. Should a terrorist action be committed in the future that could have been prevented by a 90 day detention period then it is those Members who would have to question why they voted against this bill contrary to all warnings they were given."
How often have we heard this sort of argument? I like your first piece and your reply. Well done Mr Zzypt.
Post a Comment