Secret terror courts considered

mkpdavies · 09-08-2005, 08:39 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133564.stm

Quote:

Special courts sitting in secret for pre-trial hearings in terror cases are being considered by the Home Office.
Judges would look at whether there was enough evidence against suspects for cases to proceed.

Don't like the sound of this. What's wrong with our laws that have been crafted over centuries and are supposed to cover every eventuality. Secret courts? Sounds like something out of Nazi Germany to me.

Quote:

Liberal Democrat President Simon Hughes suggested there "may be a case" for security-vetted judges to undertake special work

Good to see the "Liberal" Democrats sucking up as usual.

Everything being done at the moment seem to be panic ridden reaction.

Elly Talbot-Cooper · 09-08-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

In those cases defendants are represented by special advocates, who have access to the evidence but do not brief their 'clients' on the details.

Surely this goes against someone's fundamental rights to defend themself?!

mkpdavies · 09-08-2005, 09:24 AM

All highly dodgy. Can't help thinking certain people have been waiting for an opportunity to role all this kind of stuff in. Combine it with ID cards etc and you see a government desperately trying to grabbed more control and power.

Oh but it's to protect us and we are for the terrorists if we don't support everything they want aren't we!

Anthony Butcher · 09-08-2005, 09:25 AM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlo...545404,00.html

Quote:

Whitehall sources said that the current Terrorism 2000 Act only allows "terrorist" organisations to banned; for Hizb-ut-Tahrir to be proscribed, legislation to extend the definition to radical extremist groups as well will be required. It is not known at present how "extremist" will be defined, and whether it would catch groups such as the British National party.

The list of "unacceptable behaviours" published by the Home Office includes fomenting terrorism, advocating violence and expressing "extreme views that are in conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance".

So the only correct thought is one of tolerance. Brilliant. Thought-crime is real.

mkpdavies · 09-08-2005, 09:31 AM

Quote:

"extreme views that are in conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance".

WAY WAY WAY too wooly to be considered as a law. It could be used to hammer any organisation that is anti anything.

Anti-EU, illegal.
Anti-ID cards, illegal.
Anti Blair, illegal.

What is the UK's culture of tolerance. I though you had the right to not tollerate anything, as long as you didn't take action that harms others.

Anthony Butcher · 09-08-2005, 09:33 AM

Can supporting intolerant laws proposed by the Labour Party be considered extreme views that are in conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance?

English · 09-08-2005, 04:42 PM

[quote]Special courts sitting in secret for pre-trial hearings in terror cases are being considered by the Home Office.

Great Idea, then have the trial in secret, then dispose of them (of course in secret).

Roger Gough · 09-08-2005, 05:23 PM

Sorry to disagree. There are times when there is to hand, evidence which suggests that a person may be involved with terrorism. No one surely wants a terrorist to be at large. What is being suggested here is a judicial version of ACPO's desire for terrorist suspects to be detained by Police for longer than is at present allowed. Evidence adduced at these hearings would be, by it's very nature, confidential; for it to be available to the media would be conterproductive and may be of use to other terrorists. As Police can't be trusted to tie their shoelaces by the Government, a judicial element is being introduced to ensure that brighter brains than those who are conducting the enquiries can ensure that things are progressing along the lines that the Government want. Safeguards would, I'm sure, be introduced for periodical hearings and updates by Senior Detectives as to how the enquiry is progressing. This in fact is what is happening now in cases where there is sufficient evidence to charge - cases won't appear for 2 or 3 months. Bombers in charge of 1,600lbs of explosives are still awaiting trial in Jan 2006 at the earliest; they were nicked well over 12 months ago.

mkpdavies · 09-08-2005, 05:36 PM

It's O.K to disagree.

It just means you are Bliars best friend, that's all.

Roger Gough · 09-08-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

It's O.K to disagree.

It just means you are Bliars best friend, that's all.

Super Matt ! ...Unworthy !!!! :wink:

09-08-2005, 09:24 AM	#3 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	All highly dodgy. Can't help thinking certain people have been waiting for an opportunity to role all this kind of stuff in. Combine it with ID cards etc and you see a government desperately trying to grabbed more control and power. Oh but it's to protect us and we are for the terrorists if we don't support everything they want aren't we! __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

09-08-2005, 04:42 PM	#7 (permalink)
English Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 38	Re: Secret terror courts considered [quote]Special courts sitting in secret for pre-trial hearings in terror cases are being considered by the Home Office. Great Idea, then have the trial in secret, then dispose of them (of course in secret).

09-08-2005, 05:36 PM	#9 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 31,158 Party: Libertarian Party	It's O.K to disagree. It just means you are Bliars best friend, that's all. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

09-08-2005, 09:33 AM	#6 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 10,205 Party: None	Can supporting intolerant laws proposed by the Labour Party be considered extreme views that are in conflict with the UK's culture of tolerance?

09-08-2005, 05:23 PM	#8 (permalink)
Roger Gough Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Hotel California Posts: 708	Sorry to disagree. There are times when there is to hand, evidence which suggests that a person may be involved with terrorism. No one surely wants a terrorist to be at large. What is being suggested here is a judicial version of ACPO's desire for terrorist suspects to be detained by Police for longer than is at present allowed. Evidence adduced at these hearings would be, by it's very nature, confidential; for it to be available to the media would be conterproductive and may be of use to other terrorists. As Police can't be trusted to tie their shoelaces by the Government, a judicial element is being introduced to ensure that brighter brains than those who are conducting the enquiries can ensure that things are progressing along the lines that the Government want. Safeguards would, I'm sure, be introduced for periodical hearings and updates by Senior Detectives as to how the enquiry is progressing. This in fact is what is happening now in cases where there is sufficient evidence to charge - cases won't appear for 2 or 3 months. Bombers in charge of 1,600lbs of explosives are still awaiting trial in Jan 2006 at the earliest; they were nicked well over 12 months ago.