I must admit it's a course of action I hadn't really expected, the Lords rule indefinitely interning foreign nationals without trial is discriminatory Labours solution? Why intern British citizens as well of course, after all it worked so well in Northern Ireland and absolutely did not fuel resentment of the British gov and provide superb propaganda for Republicans.Guardian wrote: Clarke announces terror suspect controls
Simon Jeffery
Wednesday January 26, 2005
Plans to keep terrorism suspects under a series of control orders ranging from de facto house arrest to limits on some forms on communication were announced by the home secretary, Charles Clake, today.
In response to a law lords ruling that the detention without trial of 12 foreign nationals was disproportionate and discriminatory, Mr Clarke said the control orders could now apply to both British and foreign nationals.
The orders will include curfews, tagging and even a requirement for suspects "to remain at their premises", he told the Commons. He said the scope of the control orders took account of the "more significant role" British nationals were playing in the terror threat.
The law lords ruling, which came just before Christmas, struck at the heart of the emergency anti-terror legislation passed by the former home secretary David Blunkett in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.
Mr Clarke said the law lords had ruled that section four of the act - which gave the home secretary power to detain without trial foreign nationals who could not be deported - breached sections of the European convention on human rights.
But he insisted Britain was still facing a public emergency. "We still need to decide how to deal with the threat posed by terrorists without the part four powers," he told the Commons. "The existence and use of these powers has helped to make the UK a far more hostile environment for international terrorists to operate in, with the result that some have been deterred from coming here and others have left to avoid being certified and detained."
Mr Clarke said a twin approach was now needed - deportation with assurances for foreign nationals, and control orders to contain and disrupt people who could not be prosecuted or deported.
The government is in talks with some of the detainees' home countries to guarantee they would not face torture or the death penalty if they were deported, Mr Clarke said. The detainees are believed to come from Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia and Jordan.
David Davis, Mr Clarke's Tory shadow, said he was concerned that the home secretary's proposals could also be applied to British nationals.
"Throughout our history, millions of British subjects have sacrificed their lives in defence of the nation's liberties, and it would be a sad paradox if we were to sacrifice the nation's liberty in defence of our own lives today," he said.
Mr Davis warned that house arrest was effectively internment, a tactic which had generally backfired throughout history.
Controversially, the new control orders will be imposed by the home secretary and not the courts.
"The secretary of state would consider whether, on the basis of an intelligence assessment provided by the security service, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual is or has been concerned with terrorism," Mr Clarke said.
"If the answer to this is yes, and he or she considers it necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from terrorist activities, he or she would impose controls on that individual."
The nine foreign nationals detained at Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons will not be released until legislation giving Mr Clarke the power to make control orders is in place.
Key features of the orders will include:
· Restricting movement
· Restricting association and communication with "named individuals"
· Limiting access to telephones, the internet or other technology.
Breaching an order would be a criminal offence - similar to the way in which anti-social behaviour orders operate - leading to possible imprisonment.
Judges will provide independent scrutiny of the orders, involving open and secret hearing.
The human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith described the proposals as a "further abuse of human rights in Britain" as he visited Paddington Green police station, in London, where former detainees at Guantánamo Bay are being held.
Referring to the announcement, he told the Press Association: "I hope we, as British people, say no - we have had enough."
This whole thing is very worrying but for me the most concerning bit is this;
This is just fucking ridiculous Mr Clarke wants to give himself the ability to pre-emptively punish British Citizens if “intelligence assessments” give him “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that they are up to no good. Because of course the “intelligence assessments” that led us into our little pre-emptive war in Iraq have now been proven to be accurate, and “reasonable grounds for suspecting” a burden of proof lower than used in the civil courts is perfectly adequate to deprive British Citizens of their liberty.The Home Secretary wrote:"The secretary of state would consider whether, on the basis of an intelligence assessment provided by the security service, there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that an individual is or has been concerned with terrorism,"
