Anthony Barnett (London, OK): At last, a clear argument for extending detention without trial. It is set out in today's Sunday Telegraph by Matt d'Ancona, who I'm proud to say contributed a pioneering post in Our Kingdom. Being a great reporter, despite his complete misjudgement on this issue, the column is also a lament: he can see that the political battle is being lost. Despite this, he sets out the case. This is, it seems, that we don't in fact need more than 28 days now. We have to "stockpile" it just in case. He quotes Sir Ian Blair whose argument I'd not seen before:
"We do not have a case that has required us to go beyond 28 days. Our position remains that the number of the conspiracies, the number of conspirators within those conspiracies and the magnitude of the ambition in terms of destruction and loss of life is mounting, has continued to mount, is increasing year by year and a pragmatic inference can be drawn that at some stage 28 days is not going to be sufficient. The worst time to debate whether an extension should be granted would be in the aftermath of an atrocity."
This does not convince at all. Imagine the situation. There has been an awful repeat of 7/7. Overstretched police are in a panic (as we know from the Menezes shooting). You, yes you, dear reader, as one of the many innocents caught up near the attacks, run and crash into someone, the police grab you, you protest, they arrest you and throw you in a van. They have a lot more important suspects to deal with. You are kept in jail without charge. Two weeks go by, your employer thinks, rightly, if you are being held without charge it is because you are a terrorist suspect; or your college thinks this. Three and four weeks go by, you are unable to sit your exams, a promotion passes you by. Then you are released. The police will never admit there was no evidence and they made a mistake. It was just that they were too busy, you understand. You will have been in jail for a month. Now, imagine you are black or a Muslim. This is worse because if you are white most people may accept it was just an error, but if you are Muslim your employers or teachers will think there was a genuine grounds for suspicion and your community will feel it is being targeted.
An "aftermath of an atrocity" in the words of Ian Blair (who ought anyway be out of his job by now), is a time to be cool and measured - not to round up and intern suspects.
What I don't understand is why, after holding someone for 28 days -or better 2 days - the police can't simply charge them and continue to build their case. There is consensus that in terrorist cases there should be continued questioning after charge. Further charges can be added with new evidence. Matt goes on about all the work now needed,
After last year's airline plot, police officers had to sift through 400 computers and 8,000 discs. Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, has said that "investigators are facing an unprecedented international dimension in terrorism cases and the necessary enquiries to ensure public safety have a time dimension to them that is not catered for within the existing timescales."
But no one has explained why the suspects cannot be charged before every single one of their discs has been scanned. If then more evidence emerges they can be charged with more crimes. The key point is that you don't hold and jail someone without telling them why - and making sure they can protest their innocence, especially if they are innocent and have been swept up without good cause, like poor Jan Charles de Menezes before he was shot.
