UK: Terror detainees win Lords appeal

[muriel_volestrangler]

In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords law lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.

Most of the men are being held in Belmarsh prison, south London.

The law lords said the "draconian" measures were incompatible with European human rights laws and the government must pay the appeal costs.

The prison has been dubbed Britain's Guantanamo Bay by civil rights campaigners opposed to the use of emergency anti-terror laws.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4100481.stm

[Hieronymus]

1. Thank God.

:bounce:

[cal04]

2. Detention without trial 'unfair'

The government has not told the detainees why they were arrested, or on what evidence. Previous attempts to challenge their detention in the courts and at special tribunals have failed.


In a concurring opinion, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said that "it is for the government, not the courts, to decide the steps necessary to combat terrorism. But the courts must check that human rights are not disregarded as they have been here."

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_1636965,00.html

[D-Notice]

3. This on top of Blunkett resigning

It's been a good 24hrs for civil rights!

[democracy eh]

4. Deep fried mars bar kick

as this is bloody big news

[D-Notice]

5. Deep-fried Mars bars

Glasgow's finest food!

[democracy eh]

7. and the thing is as disgusting as they sound

they are not bad

wouldn't want to eat them daily, but not horrible

I think this thread needs a better headline. I don't folks get the meaning of 'Lords'. This is huge for the UK. Canada just had a similar court decision that went the other way over the use of security certificates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Too late to change the headline now

and LBN rules say you have to use the original headline - though I suppose I could have inserted '(law)'. "Terror detainees" and "appeal" give a good idea, though.

[ze_dscherman]

6. Kick for this

We need freedom worthy to be defended.

[sweetheart]

9. The antidemocratic lords do the right thing AGAIN!

I'm very impressed with those chaps. For all the hatred of that
chamber's lacking democracy, it is doing great with keeping the
authoritarian tendencies of the faux-labour leadership in check.

[D-Notice]

10. Jack Straw's reply:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4103987.stm

No suprise to see he's opposed to the decision seeing as he's Blunkett-lite...

[Englander]

11. "Who are held & why?"......

http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1375732,00.html

How many people have been detained, and who are they?

Sixteen men, all of them Muslim, have been detained under the act and certified as a "suspected international terrorist" and another is detained under other powers. Ten men remain in detention in Belmarsh and Wood Hill high security prisons, one is held in Broadmoor high security mental hospital and another, known as G, is held under house arrest. One man, M, was released after being held in Belmarsh for 16 months when the Special Immigration Appeals Commission ruled that the home secretary had "exaggerated" his links to al-Qaida and that he had been held on "unreliable" evidence. Another, D, was recently released when the government said "new information" indicated that he no longer presented a threat. Two men have chosen to return to their country of origin.

Since these men are entitled to, why don't they just go home?

They are almost all asylum seekers or refugees from such countries as Algeria, Morocco, Egypt and Tunisia, where they argue their life would be at risk should they return. One, Mahmoud Abu Rideh, is a stateless Palestinian, with nowhere to return to. All of them have wives and families in the United Kingdom. Britain is prohibited from deporting people to countries where they may be at risk of torture. The men could travel to third countries, but finding one willing to take a man classified by the British government as a suspected international terrorist would be difficult.

What is the evidence against them?

The men have never been charged and have had no evidence presented to them. During their hearings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commision, much of the evidence was heard by the panel of judges in secret and the men's lawyers were not present. The government will not reveal the evidence on grounds of national security.

Why has this legislation been so controversial?

Britain has been the only European country to opt out of the human rights convention in the wake of September 11. The majority of the men have been held for more than two years without being questioned or knowing what it is they are accused of. A number have succumbed to psychosis as a result of their detention.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. The relevant bits of the Magna Carta

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

http://www.bl.uk/collections/treasures/magnatranslation.html

789 years later, and we still haven't quite managed it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. kick