[garinda]

Originally Posted by blazey

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.

It comes down to principle.

You either believe suspected terrorists can be detained without charge, or you don't.

The time scale is irrelevant, principles aren't.