Britain-detention for 28 days without charge.

Are darker skin tourists at risk??


28 days is still too long. The French have a 4-day limit
but then they can charge anybody on a gosh and a golly
("association avec malfaiteur") and hold that person.

And of course, the Americans can hold somebody now
indefinitely.


Earl




Blair Suffers Major Defeat on Terror Bill

By ED JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer 4 minutes ago

Prime Minister Tony Blair lost a crucial parliamentary vote Wednesday on
sweeping new legislation allowing police to detain terrorism suspects for 90
days without charge ‹ the first major defeat of his premiership and a
serious blow to his authority.

Instead, lawmakers, including some from Blair's own Labour Party, voted for
a maximum detention period of 28 days without charge.

Lawmakers blocked Blair's original proposal by a 322-291 vote, and then
approved the modified plan by an almost identical 323-290 vote.

The prime minister had refused to compromise over his plan. Knowing the vote
could the tightest of his eight years in office, Blair recalled two Cabinet
ministers from overseas trips to shore up support.

Blair appeared tense and shook his head as the first result was read out.

The Terrorism Bill was drafted in the wake of the July attacks on London's
transit system. The proposal, intended to curb Muslim extremism, would
outlaw training in terrorist camps, encouraging acts of violence and
glorifying terrorism.

It must be approved by Parliament's upper chamber, the House of Lords,
before becoming law.

Wednesday's result is humiliating for Blair, who took a major political
gamble in refusing to back down on the plan. He called back Treasury chief
Gordon Brown from an official visit to Israel that was only two hours old,
and he also ordered Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to cut short an official
European Union visit to Russia.

Labour Party chairman Ian McCartney, who is recuperating from heart surgery,
volunteered to return to work for the vote.

The current maximum detention period for terror suspects without charge is
14 days, and critics argued that extending it to 90 days would erode civil
rights.

The result raises serious question about Blair's grip on power. His
popularity slumped due to the unpopular war in Iraq, and some Labour
lawmakers now regard Blair as an electoral liability.

Blair has said he will not seek a fourth term in office, and although he
could serve as prime minister until 2010, there is pressure for him to quit
sooner.

Left-wingers in the party have long been unhappy with his plans for greater
private sector involvement in state-run hospitals and schools. Many want
Blair to step aside in favor of Brown, a powerful and popular figure in the
party.

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
Are darker skin tourists at risk??


Only if they carry bombs or support jihad


28 days is still too long. The French have a 4-day limit
but then they can charge anybody on a gosh and a golly
("association avec malfaiteur") and hold that person.

And of course, the Americans can hold somebody now
indefinitely.


Earl



So in fact Britain is rather enlightend

Keith

Earl Evleth wrote:
Are darker skin tourists at risk??

Why should they be? As far as I know, nobody has suggested that they
are currently while the limit is 14 days.

28 days is still too long. The French have a 4-day limit
but then they can charge anybody on a gosh and a golly
("association avec malfaiteur") and hold that person.

And of course, the Americans can hold somebody now
indefinitely.

So if 28 days is too long for you, what limit do you propose? Remember
that when dealing with suspected terrorists, gathering of evidence of
sufficient quality to ensure a conviction can be extremely difficult,
including detailed forensic investigations and research into families
and associates. By the end of the 14 days (probably 28 soon, but it
still has to be approved by the House of Lords), the police must either
charge the suspect on the basis of good evidence or release him. In
current circumstances, 28 days seems about right to me.
--
Richard J.

On Wed, 09 Nov 2005 23:05:58 GMT, "Richard J."
wrote:

Earl Evleth wrote:
28 days is still too long. The French have a 4-day limit
but then they can charge anybody on a gosh and a golly
("association avec malfaiteur") and hold that person.

And of course, the Americans can hold somebody now
indefinitely.

So if 28 days is too long for you, what limit do you propose?

7 is plenty, the 28 days requires a judge view the evidence available
and to decide if the detention warranted, given that there exists
evidence to suggest that it is warranted, then charge him and remand
him in custody, there should no situations where evidence can be given
to a judge to enable detention that is not sufficient for a judge to
enable detention....

Remember
that when dealing with suspected terrorists, gathering of evidence of
sufficient quality to ensure a conviction can be extremely difficult,

You don't need sufficient evidence to ensure a conviction to charge,
you need sufficient evidence to charge them, and to remand them in
custody, not much evidence at all really.

Jim.

On 10/11/05 0:05, in article ,
"Richard J." wrote:

So if 28 days is too long for you, what limit do you propose? Remember
that when dealing with suspected terrorists, gathering of evidence of
sufficient quality to ensure a conviction can be extremely difficult,
including detailed forensic investigations and research into families
and associates. By the end of the 14 days (probably 28 soon, but it
still has to be approved by the House of Lords), the police must either
charge the suspect on the basis of good evidence or release him. In
current circumstances, 28 days seems about right to me.


If a person is arrested it should be for "cause", and they should be charged
within 24 hours. And brought to trial without delay, a constitutional
right in the USA.

Otherwise one gets into fishing expeditions with the authorities arresting
a lot of people but only eventually charging a few with serious crimes.

The evidence is often gathered before hand. Search warrants are issued and
evidence taken, then charges made. Further investigations can occur
after the person is initially charged.

So an investigation can proceed even after charges are made. The problem is
once the arrest and charges made, the authorities are then under pressure
to come up with the evidence that the person is guilty. It is in these
kinds of situations that evidence is sometimes manufactured to fit the needs
of the prosecutor.

Certain crimes have a high emotional charge connected with them. This
includes terrorist, murder, child molestation and a few others.
In the US prosecutorial abuse is too often connected with murder-rape
charges in which evidence indicating the innocence of the accused
is not released to the defense attorney on discovery, confessions
are coerced from the defendant etc. The State of Illinois
had a number of murder convictions overturned because of this.

In France, a few years ago, we had a massive anti-terrorist trial
of more than 100 defendants, some of whom were charged with
"association avec malfaiteur", the proof of the accusation was
the defendant's possession of an incrimination telephone number.
What is done in these cases is that the arrests are made and
evidence is THEN obtained sufficient to bring charges at
the end of a 4 day garde à vue period. Once in garde a vue
the "evidence" often magically appears.

I take depriving a person of his/her liberty as serious. The
jailed person is terrorized. There better be a good reason for
doing this.






`

On 10/11/05 10:26, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:

Any foreigner in France with or without a residency permit caught
participating in the rioting is being deported ASAP.


That is what Sarko wants. I don't know yet if that will be implemented.

Another person wants to bring back the laws of Vichy in which
foreigners were stripped of their nationality.

"Hier dans la soirée, le député UMP Jean-Paul Garraud a annoncé qu'il allait
déposer une proposition de loi donnant aux tribunaux la possibilité de
«déchoir de la nationalité française» les étrangers naturalisés «qui
participent à la guérilla urbaine» . Selon l'élu, ils cherchent «à détruire
la nation française» et expriment «leur rejet de la France» ."

As a naturalized person, one hopes that the country does not return to
the days of Petain. If so, one might have to leave for safety reasons.

********


Sarkozy veut expulser les étrangers

120 émeutiers sont concernés. Un retour en arrière sur la double peine.

par*Charlotte ROTMAN
QUOTIDIEN*:*jeudi 10 novembre 2005


Aux orties la protection contre la double peine ? Il y a deux ans, Nicolas
Sarkozy s'était refait une virginité en faisant voter l'interdiction
d'expulsion des étrangers considérés comme des «quasi-Français». Hier, à
l'Assemblée, le ministre de l'Intérieur a demandé aux préfets d'expulser
«sans délai» les étrangers condamnés dans le cadre des violences urbaines
des dernières nuits, «y compris ceux qui ont un titre de séjour» . Sur 1 800
personnes interpellées, 120 ne sont pas françaises. Certaines ont des titres
de séjour de courte, mais aussi de longue durée, d'autres pas. Place
Beauvau, on ne veut surtout pas laisser croire que le ministre revient sur
ses engagements. On explique donc que ces émeutiers ont rompu le contrat
avec la France et constituent un trouble grave à l'ordre public. Un
télégramme aux préfets est sur le point d'être envoyé.

Sur le même sujet


Le ministère peut reconduire à la frontière les irréguliers. C'est même
l'une de ses missions. Mais comment faire avec les étrangers protégés par la
loi Sarkozy de 2003 en raison de l'ancienneté de leur présence en France ou
de leurs liens familiaux ? L'une des modalités juridiques envisagées est de
faire sauter cette protection, remise en cause par un comportement
«constituant des actes de provocation explicite et délibérée (...) à la
violence contre une personne déterminée ou un groupe de personnes» . En
langage clair, ces protections ne valent que si «le comportement ne dépasse
pas le plafond» . Et les «meneurs d'émeute peuvent se retrouver dans ce
champ» . Place Beauvau, on martèle le message : «On ne revient pas sur la
double peine.» Et pourtant... la porte est désormais ouverte. «Sarkozy ne va
pas s'encombrer de ses déclarations passées, il va piocher dans les notions
qui l'arrangent, sans que cela colle à la réalité du texte» , réagit
Stéphane Maugendre, du Gisti (1).

Hier dans la soirée, le député UMP Jean-Paul Garraud a annoncé qu'il allait
déposer une proposition de loi donnant aux tribunaux la possibilité de
«déchoir de la nationalité française» les étrangers naturalisés «qui
participent à la guérilla urbaine» . Selon l'élu, ils cherchent «à détruire
la nation française» et expriment «leur rejet de la France» .

(1) Groupe d'information et de soutien des immigrés.

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
On 10/11/05 0:05, in article
,
"Richard J." wrote:

So if 28 days is too long for you, what limit do you propose? Remember
that when dealing with suspected terrorists, gathering of evidence of
sufficient quality to ensure a conviction can be extremely difficult,
including detailed forensic investigations and research into families
and associates. By the end of the 14 days (probably 28 soon, but it
still has to be approved by the House of Lords), the police must either
charge the suspect on the basis of good evidence or release him. In
current circumstances, 28 days seems about right to me.


If a person is arrested it should be for "cause", and they should be
charged
within 24 hours. And brought to trial without delay, a constitutional
right in the USA.


Tell that to those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.


In point of fact the US Patriot Act permits the US Government
to hold prisoner non US Citizens for 7 days without charge
and then hold them indefinitely once charges have been laid.


I further note that Zacarias Moussaoui who was arrested in August 2001
in connection with the Sept 11 terrorist attacks has still not come to trial
even though he announced his intention to plead guilty.

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On 10/11/05 10:50, in article ,
"Keith W" wrote:


"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...

If a person is arrested it should be for "cause", and they should be
charged
within 24 hours. And brought to trial without delay, a constitutional
right in the USA.


Tell that to those imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.

The problem there is that the Bushies specifically selected
Guantanamo Bay because it is not in the USA and they argued
outside the legal jurisdiction of US courts. That latter
position has now been at least partly rejected by the
US Supreme Court.

In point of fact the US Patriot Act permits the US Government
to hold prisoner non US Citizens for 7 days without charge
and then hold them indefinitely once charges have been laid.

That still is working it way through the courts. I am not optimistic
since in the past (Japanese-American internment during WWII) the Court
has granted the President special powers during "wartime". The problem
now is with the "war on drugs" and "war on terror" and the "war on just
about anything" individual rights are being whittled away on. This is
a problem not only of concern to American liberals but American
libertarians. A visit to www.cato.org will show some of the positions
of the libertarian right.


I further note that Zacarias Moussaoui who was arrested in August 2001
in connection with the Sept 11 terrorist attacks has still not come to trial
even though he announced his intention to plead guilty.

A delay in the trial can easily be requested by the defense, but in normal
cases the prosecution is more rarely granted a delay. They are suppose to
be ready to go to court early on. I think the delays in the Moussaoui are
cause on the side of the defense, the government is ready to go to trial.
His case showed immediately "cause" for arrest and further investigation.
The presumption that he was the missing 20th person on 9/11 were great
although later where discounted.

"Keith W" wrote in message
...

"Earl Evleth" wrote in message
...
Are darker skin tourists at risk??


Only if they carry bombs or support jihad

You don't have to carry a bomb or support
jihad to be gunned down in cold blood by
the police in a summary execution.

On 10/11/05 15:02, in article ,
"Martin" wrote:


Another person wants to bring back the laws of Vichy in which
foreigners were stripped of their nationality.

Even Germans? I bet that didn't work :-)

German Jews and others politically objectionable to the Germans It worked,
they got a free train trip back to middle Europe, somewhere.

The French reviewed all naturalizations granted after 1927.

The German occupiers were deported later.