Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda
Total hypocrisy.
The Conservatives think it's totally okay to hold suspected terrorist without charge for four weeks, but six weeks is bang out of order?
What on earth is the difference?
That's just about a time scale, and nothing at all to do with principles.
If you really believed in the principle of freedom you'd be lobbying that people shouldn't be held without charge at all.
|
I don't agree with andrew but I don't agree with this view either. There is such thing as 'excessiveness'.
For example, I personally think 24 weeks is excessive for abortions, and a much shorter time was appropriate. I guess the difference is the effect on ones being after being held captive for such a long period without charge or knowledge of what is likely to be decided. Like a baby that is allowed to develop too long in the womb before being aborted, it feels pain. Allowing the government to hold people captive for so long without reason causes [in some cases at least] unnecessary stress and anxiety.
That's the way I see this issue.
How many terrorists are expected to be held for these kind of periods? I imagine that they are only going to be held within good reason for this extended period, so I don't see a problem with legalising it, but I can see andrews view of it not being needed to date so why now.
I'm in favour of it I think, but I don't really know enough about it.