 Britain is considering setting up secretive courts to make it easier to prosecute terror suspects — and to hold them without charge for longer than the current 14 days — as part of the crackdown following the deadly London bombings, officials said Tuesday.
| Ahah! Star Chamber coming back, is it? Well, I knew it was too good to last... |
The Home Office said it was weighing changing the pretrial process to deal with particularly sensitive terror cases, with the aim of "securing more prosecutions." Currently, terror suspects can be held for two weeks without charge; after they are charged, police can no longer question them. Police have asked the government to extend this period to three months.
| And then off with their heads? |
The anti-terror courts — run by judges with high-level security clearance — would meet behind closed doors to study the merits of the case against terror suspects, rule on highly sensitive evidence and decide how long the suspect could be held, The Guardian newspaper reported Tuesday, citing unidentified Home Office officials.
| Judges with security clearances? Behind closed doors? But that'd keep people from wandering in and gawping as the nation's secrets are being discussed! What about the people's right to know? |
A spokeswoman for the Home Office confirmed a new pretrial procedure is under consideration, but couldn't provide any other details. "I want to emphasize: There is no question of secret trials, there is no question of jury-less trials, there is no question of any sort of internment," Britain's chief legal official, Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, told the British Broadcasting Corp. radio.
| No Star Chamber? No Judge Jeffries? |
"What is being suggested is ... just a sensible period to detain suspects while a sensible investigation is going on."
| No circus midgets? No tumblers? No jugglers? No elephants? |
The July 7 bombings and the failed attacks two weeks later prompted the British government to propose new anti-terrorism laws aimed at rooting out Islamic extremists. The sweeping measures, which could include deporting foreigners to countries where torture is believed to be widespread, sparked concern Tuesday from the U.N. special envoy on torture. Human rights laws now prevent Britain from deporting people to a country where they may face torture or death. But Prime Minister Tony Blair wants to win pledges from the countries that they would not subject deportees to inhumane treatment.
| Seems a reasonable, even soft-hearted step to me, since we're talking about people who're apt to either explode among honest Britons without warning or to incite others to do so... |
An agreement has been reached with Jordan, and Britain is talking to Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt. Blair also said the government might amend Britain's human rights legislation to make it easier to deport Islamic extremists. "If there is a substantial risk in a certain country like Algeria, Jordan, Egypt, etc., then diplomatic assurances cannot be used," U.N. envoy Manfred Nowak told BBC radio. "If a country usually and systematically practices torture, then of course they would deny they were doing it because it is absolutely prohibited."
| And of course there's always the possibility that they won't be beaten with rubber hoses after deportation from Britain, but that they will the first time they step out of line back in the Olde Countrie. So, really, there's no way to be sure, so Tony's just supposed to keep 'em. |
|
