Days of angry deadlock in Parliament were finally brought to an end in mid-March when Tony Blair managed to push the Government’s Prevention of Terrorism Bill through the House of Commons and the Lords.

The Prime Minister’s insistence that measures to restrict (without trial) the liberty of terror suspects – British or otherwise – are essential in order to protect the civil liberties of the majority has been the major bone of contention.

Suspected terrorists can now be subjected to a range of control orders under the new legislation, the most severe of which is house arrest. Others may include curfews, electronic tagging and restrictions on whom the suspects may contact, where they are allowed to go and whether or not they are permitted to work in the local community.

The Assocation of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is fully supportive of Blair’s vision. “These are extraordinary times which call for extraordinary measures,” suggests ACPO spokesperson Ken Jones on the BBC News web site.

Human Rights campaigners, of course, would suggest otherwise. In their world, the whole system is designed to deny the protection of a fair and open trial. Those branded as terrorists will, they claim, have no rights to know what they are accused of, and no opportunity to view – nor refute – the evidence against them.

Is this Prevention of Terrorism Bill the sign of a despotic regime seeking to overturn 800 years of civil liberties dating back to the Magna Carta? Or are Blair & Co merely making a timely stand in the wake of former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens’ recent statement that nigh on 200 Al-Qaeda “trained fighters” are presently walking the streets of the UK totally unchallenged, with the potential for carrying out devastating terror attacks?

Terror suspects – no matter their skin colour, religious faith or nation state of origin – must be caught and tried. If found guilty by the judicial process, they should then be imprisoned under the stiffest possible sentencing. Life must mean life.

As for detaining indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism, the nation needs to ask itself a fundamental question...

... What would the Human Rights lobby have to say about the Bill if the UK were attacked tomorrow by one cell among those 200 activists on Sir John’s list, and lives were lost on the same scale as 9/11? Would it still be wrong?

Source

SMT