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.
- If the answer is that the evidence was intercept, then it must be made legal to present this in court, as in other countries - something long advocated by human rights lawyers here.
- If the answer is that there was still not sufficient evidence to ensure conviction, the answer is that the police must, asap, be allowed post-charge questioning in terrorist cases, everyone agrees.
- If the answer is that the police would have found the evidence only after 28 days, one would want to know why they ceased their investigation of the real terrorist suspect just because they stopped holding him.
Answers please.
