General Chat

Just a few things that the Patriot Act has changed - suspected terrorists can be held here without charge for an indefinite period - hence the Guantamamo Bay fiasco - completely sidetracking the Geneva Convention to which the USA is a signatory. No going back to a court for permission for another 2 weeks imprisonment if there's justifacion and the need for further enquiry. The government can now obtain a whole variety (any?) of personal records on anyone without their knowledge and without a warrant, (dubbed 'Sneak and Peek searches). While some would say 'if you've nothing to hide.....' others say it's a law ripe for abuse. A warrant at least gave some measure of protection. The government now doesn't have to justify anything to anyone. The new security requirements of certain populations requesting immigration benefits are now so stringent that the whole system is grinding to a halt to the extent that a whole 'backlog' system is being created to deal with it with yet another layer of bureaucracy. Families can be separated for years while the wheels grind ever more slowly. Many applications that were in process at the time of 9/11 are not yet adjudicated. Security at airports is a current issue - the latest debate is as to whether or not a machine that sees through clothing is too invasive and whether or not the government has the power, under the act, to enforce airports to use it. The main criticism of the Act though is the idea that if the government can and will be so restrictive so quickly when some would say that there are adequate laws to deal with terrorist and criminal behaviour, then it won't take much for other rights and freedoms to be eradicated and once gone they are not easily regained. The whole of the American Constitution is based on the idea that government should only govern by the will of the people and not have too much power. One aspect in it's favour is the fact that some of its provisions have a sunset some time in 2005 and there is debate as to the wisdom of re-enacting them. Sorry that this is longwinded - the act itself is 300 pages long! - and that I didn't see the question earlier, CB.

You are quite right to say that the people who perpetrated these acts have forfeited their Human Rights. But we have not yet proved who they are and we can only do that by having a scrupulously fair trial. It is the fact that we are a democratic country which makes us different from the ideology of the Terrorists, who seek to rule by bullying and terror - I don't want to go down that road. I think we are getting two topics muddled up here - one is the right to a fair trial in the Courts of Law, not a trial by Media and Public opinion. The other subject is what punishment should be meted out to fairly CONVICTED terrorists. The people who died in the recent bombing did indeed have their Human Rights taken away, but it is difficult to see how this could have been prevented - certainly not by shooting anyone who looks as if they might be a bomber. Olde Crone

Of course they need a fair trial, and I think that's one reason why the lawyer is pressing for a trial in Italy: EVERY newspaper published their photos and EVERY report or statement made explicit statements as to their guilt. There has also been enough terrorism legislation in this country, from memory four different pieces since 2000. This government seems to think that if they legislate enough, eventually even the terrorists will be tied up in red tape. It is worth bearing in mind that, by the beginning of July 2005 (pre-bombings), 700 people had been arrested under anti-terror legislation, but only 3 convicted. Not an impressive statistic, and it rather makes me think that the police are adopting a policy of arrest now, find evidence later. I don't agree with the death penalty either. There were undoubtedly many who would have volunteered to execute Donna Anthony, or Sally Clarke, or Angela Cannings, but I doubt whether they'd have been first in the queue to apologise to their surviving children and widowers. We're oh-so-confident that the forensic evidence is indisputable proof, but who does the tests? Humans. Recently a man was prosecuted for taking money for paternity tests he hadn't done, telling men they either were or weren't fathers on a whim. I know that's not a criminal trial, but there are clearly people out there willing to play God and ignore whatever the evidence might say.

We do not yet know that the people the police arrested are guilty. That is why we have trials. If everyone the police arrested ever for anything was assumed to be guilty there would be no point whatsoever in having trials. Justice must be done and SEEN to be done. Nell

hal the human rights of the people killed or mained in the bombings in london r very important thats y its also important to make sure that the right people r jailed for the crime thats y it has to b a fair trial lou

Hmm.. human rights - forgive me, but surely if you are prepared to act in an inhuman way against your fellow humans you should expect to forfeit those rights. After all, I'm pretty sure those young men with explosives strapped to themselves didn't give a monkeys about the human rights of the poor people they blew apart in London. Oh, I remember, we live in 'civilised' Britain where gangs of teenagers rule the streets, a poor kid is axed to death just because he is black, an old lady is mugged for a bag of chips and suicide bombers make cheap targets of us all. We are not civilised at all are we? What deterrent is there in 'human rights' Britain against crime? Suggestions on a post card please.

Felicity, What changes did the Patriot Act make to freedom over there? I know nothing about it. The Police here have asked to be allowed to detain suspects for longer than the present two weeks they're allowed. CB >|<

Would anyone who says that those arrested for a terrorist crime have no rights be saying the same if they were so arrested - whether they were actually guilty or not? Since 9/11 the Patriot Act has become a nightmare and many innocent people are suffering, my own family included as the backlash takes its effect. Cherie Blair is right if she warns against the erosion of civil rights. Its all very well to shout about curtailing others' 'freedoms' but in the end its your own that will get curtailed as well, and to your detriment I can assure you.

I felt sickened by the news yesterday of the young black man who was attacked and killed with an axe while innocently walking his girlfriend home in Liverpool. They had been waiting at a bus stop opposite a pub, when a man in the pub car park began hurling racial abuse at them. They left to walk to another bus stop and were then attacked on their way there. That young man was a committed Christian, as were his family, and he'd never harmed anyone, yet he lost his life because of his ethnicity. Another incident which I found disturbing was related to me by my husband on Friday evening. He travels home from Central London via King's Cross, and he witnessed an argument on the station between a group of businessmen in suits and a group of Police officers. He overheard that the businessmen had been on a train and seen someone they considered to be Asian and acting suspiciously. They had challenged him and told him to get off the train. He had, apparently, complained to the Police that he'd been picked on and racially harassed. The Police gave the businessmen a telling-off, and everyone went on their way. King's Cross station is a major terminus for trains from North of London. The Underground section of it was worst hit during the 7th July bombing incidents, and it remains unusable. The station has notices all around it, and frequent loudspeaker announcements are given for passengers to be vigilant and to report anything suspicious to the Police. Bags left unattended are treated with extreme caution, sniffer dogs are on hand to check them, and the bags are removed by Police after they're deemed safe to handle. There is an extremely high armed Police presence on the the streets of London at present, where once there would have been perhaps one or two unarmed officers on patrol. Everyone has to be vigilant but stay calm but, understandably, people feel nervous, especially when there are announcements on radio and TV telling us that there could be further bomb attacks. It's a far from normal situation at present, so it's difficult for people to feel safe and secure as they go about their business, but there's absolutely no excuse for members of the public to go picking on someone purely because of their racial characteristics. CB >|<

Thanks everybody for your input,it was most interesting reading the replies and opinions,Just another thought,What about the 'Human Rights' of the people who were killed and maimed in the recent Bombings in London?,They were killed without trial were,nt they?.With no one to defend them. Hal.

Hal Just want to add that I've never had a very good opinion of Cherie Blair but I was really impressed with her recent speech- she's right that we need to be careful that civil liberties are not curtailed in these worrying times. David

well said to those who say they shud hav a fair trial

I agree that everyone should be given a fair trial - it should be a basic human right. We can't judge someone's guilt by what we read in the papers or see on the news. People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty in Britain and should be treated like it - however hard it is for us.

I'm with everyone who says they are entitled to a fair trial. Barristers have no option about who they defend, it's like a taxi rank - you have to take the next case offered. It has to be that way or accused terrorists, rapists and paedophiles would never have a defence team. Gwynne

No matter how appalling the crime or how unlikely that the defendant is innocent, EVERYONE is entitled to a defence and a fair trial. Abandon that principle and it's a short route to chaos.

Totally agree with Lemon and Crone... xx

Do not have any sympathy for anyone who hurts another, but do you know how many people have been executed in America alone and then found to be innocent.....TooLate! Often the main mistake they had made was being black.....did not know that was a crime!

We had the Death Penalty when Timothy Evans was hung. He was later given a posthumous pardon. Stefan Kiszco served 27 years for the rape and murder of a little girl - the police and prosecution had suppressed medical evidence which proved that it was NOT him. IRA bombers were released many years after their original imprisonment - again, faulty evidence was suppressed by the Police, presumably because of tremendous public pressure to 'get' someone for their crimes. There are dozens of other cases where people were wrongly hung, or served over thirty years for crimes they did not commit and would not admit to (you have to admit you did it before you can be released from a life sentence). DNA evidence would probably not have helped Timothy Evans. I am not on the side of the wrongdoers - but I AM on the side of the innocent. If the Police raided your house tonight and arrested you as a Bomber, how would you set about proving you are innocent? Especially if they 'found' explosives etc in your home. Yes, we the Taxpayers will have to pay for their Trial costs and for their hopefully VERY long incarceration - but what is the alternative? These people, whoever they are, are dangerous and without conscience. Secure Mental Hospitals are full of such people but we do not suggest that THEY be done away with. If the Death Penalty were still in force, it would merely make them martyrs and likeminded people would be queuing up behind them to throw more bombs. Olde Crone

I am in agreement with everything M C has said on this subject.

If they are going to be 'banged up' for years, who is going to pay for it? Just us, Joe public. I suggest the death penalty for terrorists brenda