Imprisonment without Evidence

[Roman Candle]

I was watching Any Questions just now, (big mistake, I now feel furiously angry at all those people pretending they're actually human beings with valid opinions). Anyway, they were discussing the imprisonment without trial, which currently can last up to 28 days, and some people were asking for it to be extended.

This is a mainly British issue, but I think it applies to anywhere where overbearing anti-terrorism legislation is being introduced.

I keep hearing this argument - "Sometimes, we have intelligence, but not evidence. Evidence will only be availlable after the crime has been commited. So we must be able to imprison on basis of 'intelligence' alone,"
Well, this might be acceptable, but of course we're not allowed to know what that 'intelligence' is. Because that would be a possible breach of security. Right, ok. So without trial, with no solid evidence, without even telling anyone what material they have that might become evidence, you can be imprisoned. There is absolutely no transparency. Get this - we're not even allowed to know what kind of material might be considered as 'intelligence'.

So as far as I know, I could be locked up tomorrow on whatever basis someone in the secret services decides is suitable, which could be either fairly well founded, or could be utterly pananoid nonsense. No one is actually allowed to know what methods are being used to decide what's good 'intelligence' and what's not.

It makes me utterly sick that the government considers this a valid argument:
"We can't find good enough evidence to arrest you. We must use intelligence"
"What intelligence, exactly?"
"Can't say"
"Wait a minute - could you at least define what intelligence is, in general?"
"Nope"

If the government wants to use terms like 'intelligence' in an argument that is supposed to persuade us to overule our own human rights, then you would have thought they would at least tell us what they're talking about. But no!

 

[holloway]

Just fyi, should have watched Question Time, they were discussing this too.

 

[Roman Candle]

Hmm, maybe that was what I was watching. Well, anyway, it made me angry. Particularly when a man got up and said "I think we ought to remember that the secret service help save our lives and we should remember that". And then got a round of applause, as if it was an actual point and not a knee-jerk emotional statement with no relevent meaning. Grr!

 

[Rhazdel]

Here in the U.S. that is a big problem, too. Under the Homeland Security Act, the government can hold someone for up to 3 years (I believe) without officially charging them of a crime, if terrorist activities are suspected. It is ridiculous.

I understand the need to help protect our countries, but at what cost do we become no better than those we are trying to protect ourselves from?

 

[Fafnir]

The way things are going, I can see every building with telescreens in the near future lol. But quite seriously, it seems that governments want to go further and further in 'protecting' their people, that they end up hurting many innocent individuals. One quick word of 'terrorism', and BAM! Away to the lockers with you. And as said, you may not even know why.

1984 isn't very far away folks....
Thoughtcrime! Newspeak! Telescreans! BIG BROTHER!

 

[Jstreet]

Well, I think some people are blowing it out of proportion. Seditious Speech is punished, so why shouldn't talks of terrorism be punished as well. I mean what this turns into is how knowledgeable is the imprisoned individual.

If "Intelligence" isn't defined you have an arguement there, but if you indeed were found as a thread to homeland security then you could very well be screwed even if you get a case. The key is getting your arguement to a court room, even if you are imprisoned before a trial. This is why we have the writ of habeas corpus in the US.

 

[Rhazdel]

Habeas Corpus goes out the window with the Homeland Security Act, though. How can you appeal a non-existant charge?

Plus, the definition of "intelligence" is vague, at best.

 

[Ellie]

Well, I think some people are blowing it out of proportion. Seditious Speech is punished, so why shouldn't talks of terrorism be punished as well. I mean what this turns into is how knowledgeable is the imprisoned individual.

If "Intelligence" isn't defined you have an arguement there, but if you indeed were found as a thread to homeland security then you could very well be screwed even if you get a case. The key is getting your arguement to a court room, even if you are imprisoned before a trial. This is why we have the writ of habeas corpus in the US.

Whatever happened to "freedom of speech"?

 

[Jstreet]

Well freedom of speech only goes so far. Seditious speech isn't protected because it's a thread to the government and the welfare of the country. The speech you speak of are forms of pure, speech plus, and symbolic. Those types are protected under free speech, but every rule has exceptions. I.E. with this whole 9/11 thing saying "Bomb!" on a plane or something could get you arrested, and they can label it incitement although it doesn't warrant immediate lawlessness.

Believe it or not the freedom of speech gate is closing more and more with all of these terrorist threats, weapons of massive destruction and talks of bio-warfare.

 

[Rhazdel]

You can say whatever you want!

As long as it isn't on our banned word list...

 

[Roman Candle]

While I am worried about the restrictions on our freedoms as a whole, specifically in this thread I wanted to discuss the fact that the police have the power to imprison someone for up to a month, without ever being asked what basis they had for doing so. The possible abuses of power here are obscene.

 

[Rhazdel]

I agree. Here in the States (unless otherwise stated above), the police have 48 hours to officially charge you with a crime, or release you.

I understand and appreciate the attempt to make our streets safer by removing potential threats, even if they don't currently have enough evidence (rather than in the U.S., where police won't touch a criminal until they have enough evidence, subjecting everyone to possible further harm), but I think that a month is just far too long, and, as you said, far too open to the possibilities of abuse of the system.

 

[Roman Candle]

Oh, it's not just for any crime, of course, it's only for terrorism 'charges'. But since no one will ever find out why there were actually imprisoned, this doesn't even seem much of a guarantee.

 

[Kojo]

Smells like a Salem Witch trial.

Basically right now you have two choices:
Danger, Freedom.
Security, Lack of Rights.

Choose one of those folks. I personally will go with the founding fathers and say Danger and Freedom. I'd rather worry about foreign attack than being imprisoned by my own government. I' telling ya, I gotta buy myself a desert island and make my own world. Muhahahaha.

@ Razdel In the US they cannot hold you for more than 24 hours before charging you with a crime.

 

[Andy6000]

Smells like a Salem Witch trial.

Basically right now you have two choices:
Danger, Freedom.
Security, Lack of Rights.

See that's it, the little propaganda machine is just vastly overstating the danger, and vastly overstating how compromising your freedoms will affect that danger.

 

[Rhazdel]

@ Razdel In the US they cannot hold you for more than 24 hours before charging you with a crime.

That rule went out with the Homeland Security Act Bush passed in like 2002. For suspected 'terrorists', it is actually 3 years, I believe.

For normal crime, it is still 24 hours.

 

[Kojo]

Oh, I see. How frightening.

I'd better cancel that effigy-burning ceremony tonight.

 

[___]

Freedom of speech, as the concept that I can say whatever I want whenever I want to whomever I want, has never been protected in the United States. What we do hold sacred it the theoretical right of the press to print anything they want as long as it's not blatantly false, even if it puts the government in a negative light. The whole thing is a common misconception, or maybe a political myth. I had a friend go to jail for two years for jokingly uttering the drunken words "I'm gonna kill you man" (something we used to say all the time because we're vulgar and thick skinned) to a guy who was a little more drunken than him and took it seriously. They called it "terrorist threats." That wouldn't have happened ten years ago of course, but that's where our paranoia has gotten us in modern times.

We fixed the whole freedom of the press problem in the 70s when the New Journalism movement eliminated any concept of responsibility or integrity in journalism in favor of doing and saying whatever keeps people interested (i.e. brings in the advertising money). Up until the late 70s journalists would be verbally crucified and out of a job for uttering a fraction of the garbage they spout these days, and the kinds of political dealings in the management that we take for granted as business as usual these days would have honestly shocked and offended people back then.

 

[kimpoy2006]

Intelligence mainly relies on well intelligence but it differs from evidence. Intelligence usually is done before the suspect does the crime, and evidence only appears after the crime.

Well lets take one scenario, what if suspect one was ordered by some terrorist cell to bomb some train station and the government had intelligence about it but suddenly the an hour before he terrorizes the station he thought about not doing it anymore? Then, while he was thinking, the FBI is on its way to capture him and imprison him. In court he says he didn't want to continue it and his conscience told him that a lot of innocent people will die, will the court believe him if it was to base it's decision on intelligence? I think no.

But, on the other hand it can prevent terrorism. They just have to revise it!
=D