January 27, 2005

The terrorists in downing street

Following the judgement by the Law Lords that indefinite detention without trial was illegal, with Lord Nicholls saying that "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law", Charles Clarke has stepped in to modify the law in order to try and complie with there ruling. By extending indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial to British Subjects as well as foriegn nationals living here. His logic being that the last law was wrong because it did not apply to British Subjects. No Mr Clarke, it was illegal because it shreaded the Magna Carta, removing concept of Habeas Corpus, and throw away the British Constitution. Apparently they cannot be taken to court because soem of the 'evidence' against them was taken from phone taps and:
"He has ruled out the use of phone tap evidence in court - seen by civil liberties groups as a way of bringing more suspects to trial - because changing technology could render any legislation obsolete."

What? Your going to rip up the right to trial, any trial, because people might stop using telephones and go back to carrier pigeons and you don't want to use up valiable parlimentary time? This is from the government that relentlessly took up years of parlimentary time to ban fox hunting. But I almost forgot by eventually banning fox hunting they gained some useful short term political capital to make their Party Conference a bit easier after conducting an illegal war.

The whole purpose of this is, according to the government, to protect our civil liberties and way of life from Islamic Terror. In a kind of I will "destroy this village in order to save it." way being completely reliant on the trustworthiness of that government not to use it in a bad way. Perhaps it would be good to point out, while I still can, that there has never been an Islamic Terrorist attack in this country, and the countries that have been subject to attacks by Islamists have not felt the need to burn their constitutions. So why, when we have never been attacked, should we need measures so much more extreme than the ones imposed by countries, such as spain, that have been attacked? The definiation of a terrorist is "a radical who employs terror as a political weapon;" and is this not just a case of the government generating terror for it's own political gain?

Lets look at who are the terror detainees? A bunch of either refugees and illegal imagrants, while we had a duty to take in the people that where fleeing persecution it is not a one way street. They are guests here and should be greatful for our protection. I see no reason that we have to let them stay if they want to destroy the sociaty that has been good enough to protect them. Abu Qatada for example praised:
"the Taliban for their 'sacrifice to protect their Islamic brothers' and 'refusal to compromise their Islamic beliefs', before calling on his followers to give their lives."

As he obviously likes sheria law so much then perhaps he should move to a country that practices it? There are many out there. The only thing stopping the government from doing this is the Human Rights Treaty, which it has already shown that it is willing to do away with as it had to in order to detain these people in Belmarsh. So why not simply deport them and leave 1000 years of rights of the people born to this island alone?


Post a Comment

<< Home