The NYT once again mischaracterizes, with the British Tories the foil this time, by implying they are "liberals."
What an insult!
"The Tories Find Their Inner Liberal" by RAYMOND BONNER
LONDON
“NO free man shall be taken, imprisoned, dispossessed, outlawed or exiled or in any way ruined, nor will we pursue him or send after him, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.” That’s what the Magna Carta declared in 1215. In other words, the king couldn’t put a man in prison and throw away the key without a trial.
Now, however, the British are in the midst of a political scrimmage about how long suspects can be “taken” and held without charges when the police believe they may have been involved in a terrorist attack, or may be planning one, or may have had information about one. Proposals are being floated to increase the detention period from the current 28 days to perhaps 56 days.
And who is proposing the extension? The ruling Labor Party, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, arguing that more time is needed because of the complex nature of the investigations. And the opposition? The Conservative Party, which has traditionally accused Labor of being soft on crime.
The basis for the Conservative Party opposition is not only political but also philosophical, party officials and independent analysts say. The party has long expressed a deep commitment to individual liberty. It opposes national identity cards, which Labor has proposed, and control orders, which let the police restrict the movement and activities of suspected terrorists.
At the same time, the Conservatives continue to favor other restrictive measures, like making it easy to interrogate suspects after they have been charged, allowing wiretap evidence to be used in court and relaxing the rules on deportation of foreigners, even to countries where torture is commonplace.
But the libertarian wing of the party is in the ascendancy at this moment, and even the party’s right wing opposes an extension beyond 28 days, said Melanie Phillips, author of “Londonistan” and a columnist at the conservative Daily Mail. “The view is we’ve fought two wars for liberty, and we’ll be damned if we’re going to give it up now,” she said, adding that she personally favors extending precharge detention to 90 days.
It's ascending across the globe, fascists, because PEOPLE LOVE FREEDOM!
The party’s spokesman on security matters, David Davis, a member of Parliament from its right wing, argues against extension on practical grounds. “Not a shred of evidence” exists that it is needed, he has said. And, he says, it would alienate Britain’s Muslims further, making it harder for the police to gain their cooperation.
But many people here, liberal and conservative, are saying that the Conservative opposition is less an ideological conviction than a political matter — that the party is using the precharge detention issue as a weapon against Mr. Brown and Labor.
“If the Tories were in power, they would be all for an extension,” said Clive Stafford Smith, a prominent civil liberties lawyer. “And Labor would be against it.”
Globalists all, huh?
The core political problem for the Conservative Party, in fact, is that Labor under Tony Blair moved strikingly to the center on domestic and foreign issues, often adopting what had been Conservative positions. The Conservatives are left with few issues on which to challenge Labor, and precharge detention is one of them. It is also a way to appeal to the Liberal Democrats, who are the country’s third-largest party and who oppose the extension.
“Downright political in my view,” a Conservative research analyst said when asked what underlay the Conservative position on detention; he insisted on not being named because he was expressing a view that would obviously not be popular with his colleagues and friends, and he was not alone in his public reticence.
Clearly, the Conservatives hope that ancient respect for liberties retains its resonance among voters, even with current fears about safety. For centuries, a suspect in Britain could not be held more than 48 hours without charge, which is the maximum any American state allows.
It does, believe me! And that is American states, huh?
The Feds can keep you forever if Georgie says so. though!
Why did the NYT fail to mention that?
After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, however, Parliament acted that November to permit the holding of foreign nationals for indefinite periods without charges. In Northern Ireland, from 1971 to 1980, legislation had allowed indefinite internment of suspected terrorists.
Ever hear of FRU?
They tell you who is BEHIND the "terrorist" bombs of Northern Ireland (and Iraq).
Just so happens to be the British GOVERNMENT that is CARRYING OUT TERROR ATTACKS!
Terror Expert: London Bomber Was Working For MI5
Ever hear of Mr. Aswat or Mr. Khan, readers?!
But in 2004, Britain’s highest court found indefinite detention unacceptable in the country of the Magna Carta. “The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these,” Lord Hoffman wrote in an 8-to-1 opinion that December.
After the attacks on the transportation system here in July 2005, Labor proposed allowing detention for up to 90 days; at that, the Conservatives rebelled, and after a debate, 28 days was agreed upon.
Conservatives argue that 28 days has proved adequate. Since the Sept. 11 attacks, 1,228 people have been arrested under antiterrorism laws, the government says. More than half were released without charges; only six were held for 27 or 28 days, five of them in connection with the reported plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic in August 2006. Three of those men were let go without charges.
Last Monday, a British human rights organization, Liberty, said in a report that at 28 days, Britain already had the longest detention-without-charge period of any democracy. It said the next longest is 12 days, in Australia, and that Russia allows five days and Turkey seven.
Labor, too, has shown divisions. The government’s chief security minister, Adm. Alan West, said on Wednesday on BBC Today that he was not convinced an extension was needed. “I want to have absolute evidence because I am not going to go and push for something that actually affects the liberty of the individual unless there is a real necessity for it,” he said.
Then he went off for breakfast with the prime minister. He came out a changed Lord West. “I am convinced” that more than 28 days is needed, he said. He was a sailor, not a politician, he said, seeking to explain his earlier statement."
And you thought Gordo would be better than Bliar?
FOOLEYED AGAIN, Amurkn!
