It looks as if there is going to be some heavyweight opposition to Incapability Brown’s attempt to finally kill off habeas corpus in this country. This comes in the form of former attorney general, Lord Goldsmith:
Gordon Brown’s hopes of forging a political consensus over extending detention without charge beyond 28 days are expected to be dealt a heavy blow by the former attorney general Lord Goldsmith. In a meeting with the home affairs select committee next week, he is expected to say he has seen no evidence to justify the extension, and reveal that he was close to resignation when Tony Blair pushed for 90-day detention in 2005 before being thwarted by a backbench rebellion.
The crucial phrase there is “no evidence”. There never was. The “war on terror” is, as Tim points out, a war on civil liberties. I’m inclined to agree with Goldsmith on the matter of reasonable alternatives to long term detention without charge:
He is expected to say he remains committed to alternative courses such as the use of phone tap evidence and post-charge questioning.
Interestingly, the DPP isn’t asking for an extension:
Sir Ken Macdonald, the director of public prosecutions, is likely to tell the committee at a separate evidence session that he has not been calling for an extension.
So, if the DPP doesn’t see a need for it; why, then, is the PM pressing for a “consensus” on the matter?
The committee has been told by the Metropolitan police commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, that the police would like to see an extension to between 50 and 90 days.
Ah, yes… The police want it. Just because high ranking police officers want something, it doesn’t follow that they should get it. If they have the evidence of wrongdoing, then they should charge their suspect. If not, well, then, they will have to let their suspect go – it is up to them to build their case effectively by gathering the evidence, not to hold someone so that they can indulge on a fishing trip, which is what this will encourage.
Goldsmith’s proposals would make bringing a charge more likely if, for example, phone-tap evidence is all they have. But, frankly, holding someone for 56 days means that the state can ruin their life and subsequently let them go; the damage having been done. What better way to neutralise those inconvenient objectors who are such a thorn in the side of the state? The state that is merely doing this “for our own good”.
There are those who might be thinking that this is a good idea because only brown people in turbans will be suffering. For those who may be thinking along these lines, there is the inconvenient matter of history to consider. Given these powers; sooner or later, the state will abuse them. Sooner or later people will find themselves held without charge and without access to the case against them who would have never thought themselves enemies of the state; they merely said or did something that the state found “unacceptable”. Do remember, this administration has been waging a war against free speech, and they have actively politicised the police while doing so, with people being arrested for little more than wearing clothing bearing anti-Blair slogans, reading out a list of war dead by the Cenotaph and protesting within a mile of parliament – this in the supposed cradle of democracy, the land of free speech, freedom of association, religion, movement and assembly. It was…
Incapability Brown has decided to lock down this country; to undermine those freedoms all in the name of protecting us from terrorism. An excuse inflated by government hyperbole. A paranoid, power hungry despot, Brown is using this excuse to strengthen his grasp on that power. If you thought Blair was an entirely unsuitable personality to be residing in number 10 Downing Street, his successor is more so.