Apparently the USA isn't alone in its court problems with terrorists and terrorist suspects. The Lords have spoken, and we are only hearing the answer not the question. I dislike court reporting. They so often fail to accurately report what exactly was argued and these generalization are just not enough to make coherent decisions on the topic.
But in any case, I think the court has a point, as ours does in the US. Indefinite detention is wrong. If you have them on something, put them to the appropriate trial mechanism and be done with it. I find it unlikely that they are just being held because they look middle-eastern.
The court gets it wrong in that the law sets a dangerous precedence, if this article is correct.
Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported.
But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.
It is obvious that there should be a third logical filter here. If the detainee may be persecute in their homeland and refuses deportation and they are deemed a threat to the people of the country, then they can and will be detained. Without this you're allowing the courts to dump dangerous individuals into the country. It will just form another path that requires death or destruction (or other mayhem) before you're allowed to protect yourself.
Oh, wait, you aren't allowed to protect yourself in GB.
No comments:
Post a Comment