(no subject)
Oct. 4th, 2004 09:23 pmWe in the UK might detain people indefinitely without charge, but at least we aren't considering outsourcing torture. What sort of moral code comes up with the idea that it's ok to torture suspects so long as it's done somewhere else?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-06 04:31 am (UTC)We are only holding 11 people. This is 11 more than I would like but it does suggest a selective approach rather than a lets lock them all up to be on the safe side approach.
They are held in normal prisons not seperate camps.
I believe all of them are free to leave if they can find a country that will take them. Effectively what the government want to do is deport them but it cannot do so as there is no where that will take them which the prsoners will agree to go to.
So we have three choices
1) Send them to a country they don't want to go to. In most if not all cases this would result in death or torture.
2) Let them loose when the government regards them as a threat to public safety. Not keen on this and not a risk most politicians will run.
3) Detain them as we are now.
Anyone got a better idea?
(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-06 08:12 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-10-13 08:08 am (UTC)Neither the detainee nor their lawyer has access to the evidence against them but this is the same for anyone detained in the UK. The police do not disclose details of an ongoing investigation, details are only passed to the defence when the CPS decides to proceed with a prosecution.
Effectively these guys are held nt because we want to imprison them but because we want to deport them and cannot safely do so.
Breakdown of people detained so far.
16 detained in total, all are north african muslims.
2 have opted to leave the country
1 has been released on bail
1 released having won his appeal against detention
1 released as no longer considered a threat
Eight of the nine detainees appealing to the law lords have appealed against their detention and failed.