Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Interesting how it is two traditional print journalists who have become the spokesmen for the two sides of the detention without trial debate - and both of them, Henry Porter and Matt d'Ancona, are Our Kingdom occasional posters. This morning they were brought together by the Today programme. I think it is really important to have the argument, see my long post on Matt's position below. Here I want to pick up on one point he made that I genuinely do not understand. He said with a flourish, as if winning the argument, that should it come about the police have held someone for 28 days, then had to release them and then they commit an atrocity, we will all finally agree that 28 days was not enough and the police were right to ask for more.
Not at all. For a start, according to today's helpful report in the International Herald Tribune (a real newspaper) 1,228 people have been arrested under the anti-terrorism laws and more than half released without charge. Some, perhaps most, of those released were and are innocent. It is a crime to jail an innocent person for a month. This is why we have habeas corpus. I do not accept the assumption that those being held by the police are always guilty. It is to try and ensure this that we insist that if the authorities want to hold someone they should tell them why.
Now to address Matt's point. The assumption here being that the police are indeed holding a genuine terrorist in this case. One suspected and arrested and held for good reason. If, after a month, the police then release this terrorist who then commits an atrocity, my first question would be, how could the police have been so incompetent to have had and held their man (or woman) for a month and not found a scrap of evidence?
I'd want to know why the person had not been charged.
Answers please.
Comments
You're right, that seems to be the principal argument of those who want to extend the 28 days. Besides the points you raise it's obvious that it isn't really an argument, let alone a 'clincher' or knock down argument. It can potentially justify any period of detention however long since we need only imagine ourselves looking back regretfully in a hypothetical post-atrocity situation that had occurred within the period of the rejected number of days. Needless to say, this could be extended 'ad absurdium'...
"What, you're opposed to year-long detention? Just imagine what you'd think if a terrorist atrocity were committed on the 364th day - you'd regret it!"
Thanks Guy your first comment made me laugh - good point. Matt's post had not gone up when I wrote mine, the replies are striking.
Anthony
Acually, knowing the depths to which the neo-cons at the Speccie are prepared to stoop in justifying UK and US government crimes (see eg their attempt to smear Malloch Brown), I can perfectly imagine the above absurdity coming from them.
I take heart from the fact that even their own readers have become embarrassed by their apologetics; of the ten comments in response to D’Ancona’s blog on the Today interview, none agreed with him.
Post new comment