At least the Law Lords care

[Uli]

A lil victory for international law handed down from the British Supremes:

Law lords back terror detainees

Mark Oliver and Sarah Left
Thursday December 16, 2004

Detaining foreigners without trial under emergency anti-terror legislation breaks European human rights powers, law lords ruled today.

The decision from the law lords, Britain's highest court, throws the government's security policies into chaos.

A specially-convened committee of nine law lords upheld an appeal by nine foreigners who have been detained without charge or trial, most of them in Belmarsh prison, south-east London, for around three years.

Experts said today's decision would probably force the government to repeal the section of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which has permitted the indefinite detention of foreigners.

The law lords, making the ruling in the chamber of the House of Lords, described the legislation as "draconian" and "anathema" to the rule of law.

Their decision represents a blow for Charles Clarke on his first day as home secretary following the resignation last night of David Blunkett. Mr Clarke will now be under pressure to release the detainees.

The anti-terror legislation was brought in by Mr Blunkett in the wake of the September 11 2001 terror attacks. It was castigated by civil liberties campaigners and some legal experts but described as necessary and proportionate to the threat by Mr Blunkett.

A Home Office spokeswoman said it was now a matter for parliament to decide whether detention without trial continues. In the meantime, the suspects will remain behind bars, she said.

In a statement after the ruling, one of the detainees, known only as "A", who is being held at Woodhill prison, Milton Keynes, said: "I am very pleased ... [this] proves that however erroneous the policies of the government are there will always be an independent judiciary that will be there to say that enough is enough. This ruling should send a message to the legislators that "national security" can never take precedent over human rights."


The NexTag comparison shopping guide has prices, including...
nextag.com

The detainees had taken their battle to the House of Lords after the court of appeal backed the Home Office's powers to detain them without limit or charge. On appeals, only law lords rather than lay members of the House of Lords can give rulings.

Lawyers for the detainees had challenged the lawfulness of Britain's opt-out of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the right to liberty. The convention guarantees the right to be brought to trial within a reasonable time or be released.

Today the law lords ruled eight-to-one in favour of the detainees after hearing arguments that detaining people indefinitely on suspicion alone contravened democratic rights and international obligations.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, the senior lord of appeal and former lord chief justice, said that the powers under which the men were held were incompatible with European human rights laws because they "discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status".

Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead ruled that: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."

Lord Bingham ordered the government to pay the legal costs of the appellants.

Civil rights group Liberty welcomed the ruling, saying that in the future if the government wanted to hold someone on terrorism charges, it would have to produce evidence.

"We just hope that Charles Clarke now pays attention and restores a sense of basic decency to our justice system," a spokesman for Liberty said.

He added that Mr Blunkett's resignation might make it easier for the government to accept the law lords ruling. "It is so important that we have a new home secretary who is not so closely identified with the policy in the same way," the spokesman said.

The director of the civil rights group Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti, said that future generations would be "proud" that democratic values had been chosen over "the politics of fear".

A Liberty spokesman said that in the future if the government wanted to hold someone on terrorism charges, it would have to produce evidence. He said: "We just hope that Charles Clarke now pays attention and restores a sense of basic decency to our justice system."

[Gary Sisco]

Funny. They never thought the same about Irish prisoners for decades...

[LeMo]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Funny. They never thought the same about Irish prisoners for decades...

That's very true. Seems that the "Lords" didn't care much for the "basic decency" of their "justice system" at that time.

[Uli]

I am glad to hear that the Law Lords have improved over time.

[Phil_Meloy]

Lord Hoffmann, one of the panel of nine law lords, said regarding the judgement: "[This case] calls into question the very existence of an ancient liberty of which this country has until now been very proud: freedom from arbitrary arrest and detention." and that "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory."

[Gary Sisco]

Hear! Hear!

[Monte Smith]

Did any of the law lords hold up a brolly while they discussed this victory for justice in our time? What gets me is you can't hold them, you can't send them home (to countries that have the death penalty), you can't send them to John Ashcroft (the US has the death penalty), so all you can do is set them free in Britain and hope they commit an offense you can charge them with without it being the big, terrorist offense that you worried they would commit in the first place. Don't get me wrong, I very much see the sense in what the law lords are saying about liberty and discrimination. It's just that I worry when our side is zealous about:



Cricket, anyone?

[Gary Sisco]

Yeah, nothing like a Star Chamber.

It's not like there was ever an American Revolution or any of that bother.

Monte, you've now moved even further to the right than you've ever been and that, together with your (either tasteless or serious) joke about krystallnact (sp.? German isn't my specialty), makes me wonder whether I should take back my comment to you re not thinking you a neonazi but rather a Tory in a country without a tory party.

You've moved at least into cryptofascism, at this point.

I'd remind you that you know nothing about the people being held without trial. You don't even know who they are. And yet you feel confident to make absolutely antidemocratic comments about how they ought to be treated in a democratic society that you have previously all but beatified (the UK).

National Front, anyone?

[Phil_Meloy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I'd remind you that you know nothing about the people being held without trial.

These people have now been detained for three years during which time the government has been unable to produce any evidence with which to press any charges with regard to them being involved in terrorist activities. Three of the detainees, driven mad by their three-year detention, are now in Broadmoor prison - this is essentially a secure psychiatric unit. Another has been released under conditions of strict house arrest because doctors had become so concerned about his mental health.

[Gary Sisco]

Monte cares nothing about freedom or democratic principle. Like all fascists, conscious or otherwise, it's all about power and the state. And of course the fuhrer, little or otherwise.

[Monte Smith]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Monte cares nothing about freedom or democratic principle. Like all fascists, conscious or otherwise, it's all about power and the state. And of course the fuhrer, little or otherwise.

Well, there is that. But also, I think, there are legitimate concerns on both sides of this issue. We don't want innocent people locked away willy-nilly (apologies to Willy), and we also don't want to turn a blind eye to terrorists who will use the privileges of an open society against us. As a matter of fact, I think the law lords are right in their decision that keeping people incarcerated without charge is illegal. I also think that Britain will have to come up with a solution that respects the law and acknowledges the danger of terrorism.

[Phil_Meloy]

Probably not neccessary to take our lead from the Robert Mugabe "Handbook for Internal Security" though Monte.

[Gary Sisco]

Or the CIA's terror manual they published as a pamphlet for release in Nicaragua.

I'm happy to say I got a good idea from that one in the days and, thanks to the privileges of an open society, got to personally deliver some "blowback" medicine to them -- with some humor attached as well (an field-change improvement of my own, riffing on their theme).

They aren't "privileges," Herr Schmidt. They're called rights. Driving is a privilege. A star chamber is a violation of every human right, never mind the centuries-old "rights of Englishmen" over which the American Revolution was also fought.

I remind you that even your komraden were granted every right of a civilized society at Nuremberg.

[Gary Sisco]

From Sullivan's always interesting site: QUOTE OF THE DAY: "There is no theocracy in the United States, and we remain one of the freest and most open countries in the globe; but what happens when the party that once promised to guard this freedom transforms into its detractor? In the late 1990s Bill Clinton shifted domestic politics to the right BECAUSE he was a Democrat (and could). What happens when the party of the right leans away from the defense of liberty and toward the despicable martial art of book burning?" - John Coleman, a self-declared member of the religious right, worried about what is happening to conservatism.

Answer: Ask Herr Schmidt, the civilian who hadn't the commitment to be bothered with taking the time to become a little corporal.

[Gary Sisco]

Belmarsh: a new affront to justice
By Robert Verkaik and Colin Brown
18 December 2004


The Government's refusal to withdraw its anti-terror laws has left Britain on the brink of a constitutional crisis that threatens centuries of hard-won civil liberties, it was claimed last night.

Ministers were warned that their unprecedented defiance in the face of a clear ruling by the country's highest court has set the executive on a collision course with the judiciary. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, defined the Government's position yesterday when he described Thursday's historic ruling on the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects, held at Belmarsh high-security prison in London, as "simply wrong".

The law lords' landmark judgment has, in effect, dismantled the centrepiece of the Government's anti-terror policy in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

But Mr Straw enraged lawyers and civil liberties campaigners by reinforcing the Government's determination to strengthen controversial powers to combat any terror threat. He said: "The Government's responsibility ... is to protect people from the threat of terrorism. On this dilemma of how to balance liberty and order, the most important liberty is the right to life. If that liberty is taken away by the terrorists, then we have not met our prime obligation as a government."

Civil liberties groups and human rights lawyers said the comments were proof that the country was facing its "most serious constitutional crisis since the end of the war". Michael Mansfield QC, one of Britain's foremost civil rights lawyers, said: "It is probably the most significant pronouncement from the judiciary since the end of the war on the state of civil liberties, particularly since it has concentrated on one of the most fundamental freedoms, namely the right to liberty."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "It's unthinkable that a law-and-order government would ignore the highest court. Our democracy rests upon the mutual respect between judges and politicians and the Government should tread carefully."

Louise Christian, the solicitor representing two of the Britons still being held in Guantanamo Bay, said: "They have gone against the express wishes of the eight law lords. I believe Charles Clarke should be advising the Prime Minister that this is not a sensible position for a government that has passed the Human Rights Act to get itself into."

Phil Shiner, a human rights lawyer, said: "I cannot recall any judgment of any court in this country where eight law lords have so systematically criticised a government on an issue of such fundamental importance to our constitution. If this government defies the Lords on this they will bring on a constitutional crisis of enormous importance."

Senior colleagues of Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, said that the crisis would provide a test of whether he would follow his hardline predecessor, David Blunkett, or whether he would choose a more conciliatory course.

Mr Clarke, who on Monday will defend the Government over the Bill to introduce identity cards, made it clear within hours of the law lords' judgment that he intends to give Parliament the chance to assert its authority. The Home Secretary said he is considering whether changes are needed to the emergency anti-terrorist laws under which the detainees in Belmarsh are held - but he will not release them.

A senior government source confirmed that the Home Secretary was considering changing the law to allow evidence gained from telephone tapping to be made admissible for the first time in the British criminal courts. That could answer the central charge against the Government by a majority of the law lords that men are being detained without any evidence being presented to the courts.

But there are strong voices inside the Government against allowing taps to be used in court, which could reveal intelligence sources to the terrorists. Labour lawyers urged the Government last night to change the law to allow the men to be prosecuted or released.

Vera Baird QC, the Labour MP for Redcar, said: "What is key is to try to prosecute such people we can prove are terrorists. That is the right approach." Tony Blair was also warned last night by a senior backbench critic of the anti-terrorist legislation that he will face a damaging battle with his own side if he defies the convention on human rights.

Bob Marshall-Andrews QC said: "I have written to the Home Secretary saying that he should back off. If he gives an undertaking that jury trial is sacrosanct and he is going to review the law after the Belmarsh judgment, we will be happy. If not, there will be great difficulty in the run-up to the election." He said Mr Blair was inviting a "constitutional crisis" if he refused to accept the law lords' ruling. Labour lawyers are pressing ministers to prosecute the detainees if they have evidence, or loosen their detention so they can visit their families.
18 December 2004 10:04

Search this site:

Printable Story






Belmarsh: a new affront to justice
By Robert Verkaik and Colin Brown
18 December 2004


The Government's refusal to withdraw its anti-terror laws has left Britain on the brink of a constitutional crisis that threatens centuries of hard-won civil liberties, it was claimed last night.

Ministers were warned that their unprecedented defiance in the face of a clear ruling by the country's highest court has set the executive on a collision course with the judiciary. The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, defined the Government's position yesterday when he described Thursday's historic ruling on the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects, held at Belmarsh high-security prison in London, as "simply wrong".

The law lords' landmark judgment has, in effect, dismantled the centrepiece of the Government's anti-terror policy in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US.

But Mr Straw enraged lawyers and civil liberties campaigners by reinforcing the Government's determination to strengthen controversial powers to combat any terror threat. He said: "The Government's responsibility ... is to protect people from the threat of terrorism. On this dilemma of how to balance liberty and order, the most important liberty is the right to life. If that liberty is taken away by the terrorists, then we have not met our prime obligation as a government."

Civil liberties groups and human rights lawyers said the comments were proof that the country was facing its "most serious constitutional crisis since the end of the war". Michael Mansfield QC, one of Britain's foremost civil rights lawyers, said: "It is probably the most significant pronouncement from the judiciary since the end of the war on the state of civil liberties, particularly since it has concentrated on one of the most fundamental freedoms, namely the right to liberty."

Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group Liberty, said: "It's unthinkable that a law-and-order government would ignore the highest court. Our democracy rests upon the mutual respect between judges and politicians and the Government should tread carefully."

Louise Christian, the solicitor representing two of the Britons still being held in Guantanamo Bay, said: "They have gone against the express wishes of the eight law lords. I believe Charles Clarke should be advising the Prime Minister that this is not a sensible position for a government that has passed the Human Rights Act to get itself into."

Phil Shiner, a human rights lawyer, said: "I cannot recall any judgment of any court in this country where eight law lords have so systematically criticised a government on an issue of such fundamental importance to our constitution. If this government defies the Lords on this they will bring on a constitutional crisis of enormous importance."

Senior colleagues of Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, said that the crisis would provide a test of whether he would follow his hardline predecessor, David Blunkett, or whether he would choose a more conciliatory course.

Mr Clarke, who on Monday will defend the Government over the Bill to introduce identity cards, made it clear within hours of the law lords' judgment that he intends to give Parliament the chance to assert its authority. The Home Secretary said he is considering whether changes are needed to the emergency anti-terrorist laws under which the detainees in Belmarsh are held - but he will not release them.

A senior government source confirmed that the Home Secretary was considering changing the law to allow evidence gained from telephone tapping to be made admissible for the first time in the British criminal courts. That could answer the central charge against the Government by a majority of the law lords that men are being detained without any evidence being presented to the courts.

But there are strong voices inside the Government against allowing taps to be used in court, which could reveal intelligence sources to the terrorists. Labour lawyers urged the Government last night to change the law to allow the men to be prosecuted or released.

Vera Baird QC, the Labour MP for Redcar, said: "What is key is to try to prosecute such people we can prove are terrorists. That is the right approach." Tony Blair was also warned last night by a senior backbench critic of the anti-terrorist legislation that he will face a damaging battle with his own side if he defies the convention on human rights.

Bob Marshall-Andrews QC said: "I have written to the Home Secretary saying that he should back off. If he gives an undertaking that jury trial is sacrosanct and he is going to review the law after the Belmarsh judgment, we will be happy. If not, there will be great difficulty in the run-up to the election." He said Mr Blair was inviting a "constitutional crisis" if he refused to accept the law lords' ruling. Labour lawyers are pressing ministers to prosecute the detainees if they have evidence, or loosen their detention so they can visit their families.
18 December 2004 10:04

Search this site:

Printable Story

[Monte Smith]

Out with the old, in with the new.


Britain Announces Sweeping New Anti-Terrorism Powers
Wed Jan 26
By Peter Graff

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain announced sweeping powers Wednesday to impose house arrest on terrorism suspects regardless of nationality, replacing a policy of jailing foreigners without trial that had been thrown out by a court.

The announcement amounts to a major overhaul of security policy after the country's highest court ruled that earlier emergency powers violated basic rights.

But some civil liberties campaigners charged the new measures were even more draconian than the old ones.

"The threat is real and I believe the steps I am announcing today will make us better able to meet this threat," Home Secretary Charles Clarke told parliament.

He said 11 foreign terrorism suspects held under the old powers would remain jailed until the new measures were in place. Some could be deported to other countries if Britain can negotiate guarantees they will not be killed or tortured.

Under the new powers, the government would no longer be able to jail suspects without charge, but could forbid them from meeting certain people, impose curfews or electronic tagging on them or confine them to house arrest.

Unlike the previous measures, which were based on immigration law and applied only to foreigners, the new measures could be used against British nationals. The government would not have to prove suspects had committed a crime.

Like the Supreme Court in the United States, British courts made historic rulings last year placing limits on how far the state can go to restrict basic rights in the fight against terrorism after the Sept. 11 hijacking attacks.

Britain declared a state of emergency in 2001 and said the threat from al Qaeda justified suspending the right to a fair trial guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

But the country's highest court ruled last month that the power to jail foreigners without charge was illegal and ordered parliament to replace it with new legislation.

Clarke said al Qaeda and its allies still pose "a state of public emergency threatening the life of the nation," justifying extraordinary powers.

Seventeen foreigners have been held under the old law -- dubbed "Britain's Guantanamo" -- and 11 are still jailed.

Among them is Abu Qatada, a Syrian cleric who Britain says was the spiritual inspiration for the lead Sept. 11 hijacker.

COMING AFTER ANY OF US

Islamic groups and rights campaigners said they feared the new powers could be abused to target British Muslims that the government has never been able to prove guilty of crimes.

"There are real dangers that detention in Belmarsh (London's high security jail) could just be replaced by detention in our own homes. And now they are coming not just after foreigners but after any of us," said a spokeswoman for rights group Liberty.

Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of the Islamic Human Rights Commission told Reuters the new law could help reinforce Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s message that the West would deny rights to Muslims.

"People are either innocent or guilty, they are either charged or released. Anything else is unacceptable," he said. "We know which community is going to be on the receiving end."

Apart from the foreigners jailed without charge, Britain has arrested more than 600 Muslims under anti-terrorism laws since 2001 but has charged barely 100 and convicted only about 15.

Separately, UK police were questioning the final four British suspects from the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who returned Tuesday evening after Britain gave assurances to the United States they would not be a threat.

The plans for new powers to restrict the activities of terrorism suspects may have played a role in persuading Washington to send the Guantanamo prisoners home.

(Additional reporting by Mike Peacock and Michael Holden)

[Alastair]

Originally Posted by Uli

A lil victory for international law handed down from the British Supremes:

I always thought Bananarama were the British Supremes.

[Monte Smith]

My God, sir, surely you're not representing that demi-paradise, the United Kingdom, as a Bananarama republic. Shame!