titantoo
02-23-2005, 09:06 AM
Terrorism Time to get it right
Leader
Wednesday February 23, 2005
Guardian
The seven remaining foreign terrorist suspects held without charge or trial for three years in Belmarsh prison will be freed and not placed under house arrest. Part four of the 2001 anti-terrorism act, under which they were held, will be repealed, just as the law lords insisted last year. A new prevention of terrorism bill, unveiled by the home secretary yesterday, offers a far wider range of sanctions against both national and foreign suspects - but more judicial and parliamentary scrutiny too. Charles Clarke has clearly listened to his critics. Indeed although the bill will include house arrest as its most severe sanction, he will not seek to introduce it when the bill becomes law. Such a move would require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights, which police and security authorities considered was not currently necessary. All of which raises an important question: why was imprisonment without charge or trial used in the first place? Mr Clarke's justification is that despite the catch-all nature of the 2001 act, it did not make adequate provision to deal with dangerous people who could not be prosecuted. Sometimes this was because the evidence gathered was inadmissible in criminal proceedings. Sometimes because revealing it would endanger intelligence sources or surveillance techniques. There were only two options in these cases: surveillance or prison. Under the new bill, there is a range of sanctions embracing restrictions on association and movement, use of services, facilities, place of residence and work, as well as travel abroad. There would be close judicial scrutiny of these forms of control order and even tighter scrutiny should any home secretary decide house arrests were also needed.
Is this enough? No. The bill is certainly a much improved measure compared with the proposals outlined three weeks ago - but there are three remaining problems. First, control orders will be imposed by a politician not a judge. True, judicial scrutiny of house arrests must take place within seven days. But Liberal Democrats are right to insist judicial decisions at the outset are a better way of protecting civil liberties than subsequent scrutiny. Second, intercept evidence will remain out of reach of the courts, which will mean fewer prosecutions. And the third is the race to push this bill through parliament. A sunset clause in the 2001 act has to be renewed by March 13 or its powers fall. Opposition parties are offering a temporary extension to allow more debate on the new bill. They are right. This bill is too important to be rushed.
Leader
Wednesday February 23, 2005
Guardian
The seven remaining foreign terrorist suspects held without charge or trial for three years in Belmarsh prison will be freed and not placed under house arrest. Part four of the 2001 anti-terrorism act, under which they were held, will be repealed, just as the law lords insisted last year. A new prevention of terrorism bill, unveiled by the home secretary yesterday, offers a far wider range of sanctions against both national and foreign suspects - but more judicial and parliamentary scrutiny too. Charles Clarke has clearly listened to his critics. Indeed although the bill will include house arrest as its most severe sanction, he will not seek to introduce it when the bill becomes law. Such a move would require derogation from the European Convention on Human Rights, which police and security authorities considered was not currently necessary. All of which raises an important question: why was imprisonment without charge or trial used in the first place? Mr Clarke's justification is that despite the catch-all nature of the 2001 act, it did not make adequate provision to deal with dangerous people who could not be prosecuted. Sometimes this was because the evidence gathered was inadmissible in criminal proceedings. Sometimes because revealing it would endanger intelligence sources or surveillance techniques. There were only two options in these cases: surveillance or prison. Under the new bill, there is a range of sanctions embracing restrictions on association and movement, use of services, facilities, place of residence and work, as well as travel abroad. There would be close judicial scrutiny of these forms of control order and even tighter scrutiny should any home secretary decide house arrests were also needed.
Is this enough? No. The bill is certainly a much improved measure compared with the proposals outlined three weeks ago - but there are three remaining problems. First, control orders will be imposed by a politician not a judge. True, judicial scrutiny of house arrests must take place within seven days. But Liberal Democrats are right to insist judicial decisions at the outset are a better way of protecting civil liberties than subsequent scrutiny. Second, intercept evidence will remain out of reach of the courts, which will mean fewer prosecutions. And the third is the race to push this bill through parliament. A sunset clause in the 2001 act has to be renewed by March 13 or its powers fall. Opposition parties are offering a temporary extension to allow more debate on the new bill. They are right. This bill is too important to be rushed.