| Submit your comments on this article | ||||||
| Britain | ||||||
| Britain rolls back on tough post-9/11 terror laws | ||||||
| 2011-01-27 | ||||||
LONDON — Britain on Wednesday overturned some of its most unpopular anti-terrorism measures imposed after the Sept. 11 attacks, but stopped short of ending the contentious practice of ordering suspects not charged with any crime to live under partial house arrest.
Following the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and 2005 suicide bombings on London, Britain introduced some of the toughest laws in the West, allowing police to hold suspected terrorists for up to 28 days before they must be charged or released. Tony Blair had made an unsuccessful bid to have Parliament approve a 90-day limit. U.S. authorities have only seven days and French police only six. Under May’s new regime, British police must now lay charges within two weeks. “For too long, the balance between security and British freedoms has not been the right one,” May said in a statement. Police will no longer be permitted to carry out random searches of the public, or prevent tourists from photographing London landmarks on the grounds they are potential terrorist targets. But May acknowledged that the government would be able to reintroduce a tougher regime on short notice if there were major fears of an imminent attack. She also confirmed that Britain’s most contentious power, a house arrest-style program known as control orders, would be reformed rather than scrapped. The orders are used to handle suspects deemed a risk to national security, but who aren’t accused of a specific crime and can’t be deported because European law won’t allow them to be sent to countries where they face possible torture.
May said a renamed system will require suspects to wear an electronic tag and stay at a specific address overnight for about eight to 10 hours. An individual will have no Internet access via their cell phone, and only a limited ability to visit websites from any home computer. Suspects could also be banned from visiting specific buildings or streets, and from meeting with certain people. Unlike in the past, May said the High Court will need to grant prior approval for authorities to impose the new system. An individual must be freed after two years unless police can produce evidence of new terrorist activity.
She said many tough measures had alienated British Muslims, hampering the work of law enforcement to win their support and gather intelligence on extremists.
| ||||||
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #3 Distinguishing actual vs. "theoretical" terror attacks prevented isn't perhaps all that clear cut. Where do you draw the line? If, for instance, a group wants to get hold of a biological agent or certain bombmaking expertise, there may be very good reasons one wants to disrupt that well before they get to the attack stage. For one thing, such materials and expertise can be proliferated to others. I would count disrupting such an attempted procurement to be a valuable contribution. |
| Posted by: lotp 2011-01-27 11:59 |
| #2 Correct. If they're that dangerous, why allow them around 'potential conspirators'? cuz otherwise they won't be able to attend Friday prayers at Ye Olde Mosque |
| Posted by: Frank G 2011-01-27 10:53 |
| #1 It should be simple, just an objective review calculating several factors. The first is how many "actual", not theoretical, terrorists and terrorist acts were prevented with the law. Second, how expensive and popular or unpopular is the law. Third, is the law just an exercise in profiteering by some vested interest. Fourth, is the law being abused for non-terrorism related activities, contravening established civil liberties. Fifth, is there a better way to achieve the same goals, such as using racial and religious profiling. Ahem. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2011-01-27 09:36 |