British Government win anti-terrorist vote to detain for 42 days without trial

[belfastuniguy 18]

Brown wins crunch vote on 42 days

The proposal provoked passionate debate

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days.

It appears 37 Labour MPs joined forces with Conservative and Lib Dems to vote against the proposals.

But that was not enough to defeat the plan ministers claim is needed to deal with complex terror plots.

It was passed by 315 MPs to 306 votes. It will come as a big boost to Mr Brown after his recent troubles.

Cheers rang out as the result was announced to a packed Commons chamber after a five-hour debate.

But there were also angry shouts from Conservative opponents of the move, protesting about the role of DUP MPs, who were believed to have backed the government.

'Very tight'

Speaker Michael Martin had to intervene to restore order and quell the barracking.

Downing Street had earlier again forecast that the outcome of the vote was looking "very, very tight".

Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow John McDonnell Rebel Labour MP

Facing one of the biggest tests of his leadership, the Prime Minister had been personally calling Labour MPs to make the case for the extension.

In a sign of how tight the situation was, Foreign Secretary David Miliband had to cut short a visit to Israel to attend the crucial divisions in Westminster.

One of the Labour rebels, John McDonnell, said: "Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow.

"There will be widespread consternation among our supporters in the country seeing a Labour government prepared to use every tactic available in its determination to crush essential civil liberties, which have been won by the labour movement over generations."

Veteran former Labour MP Tony Benn said: "I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed".

He said he hoped it would be overturned in the House of Lords. .quote>

This news is just breaking so the article is short. The winning margin is 9 votes and those 9 votes are thought to have come from the Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) and some believe they will seek fundamental guarantees and assistance in relation to Northern Irish issues, including Academic Selection, Water Rates and devolution of Policing and Justice powers from Westminster to Stormont (Belfast)

Fuller report once BBC updates.

[toxicpiano 125]

*sigh*

It's unfortunate that this was played as 'keep Gordon afloat' by some people in the Labour party. It's mostly been a bribing session as well which is ridiculous as it's a serious human rights issue.

[JanYpe 17]

This is a fantastic plan! Instead of the judiciary setting and actually enforcing meaningful sentences after the police do their real job, you get far reaching measures that won't actually affect police work or have any meaningful effect on "complex terror plots". They busted out the big brains in government for this one.

[belfastuniguy 18]

I thought I would make things a but clearer for those outside the United Kingdom. The above act will not mean that every possible terrorist will automatically be held for 42 days. The police and government must ask a judge to review the evidence and then the option to hold can be approved.

This act is also supported by the majority of the British population and as such it is the government's job to listen to the people and try when possible to act on their behalf with new laws and acts. This act must first pass the House of Lords (which it won't) it will then be re-sent to the House of Commons and after a while will most likely become law as the House of Lords can not stop an act approved by the House of Commons becoming law.

Hope that does not confuse things too much. I also don't see how this drastically destroys our civil liberties such as the people from Liberty and Amnesty will have us all believe. EVERY single suspected terrorist should be held so as much information can be obtained or an attack averted. 42 days will be an incredibly rare case, but this act means the option is available.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Updated Full Article

Brown wins crunch vote on 42 days

The result of the vote is announced

Prime Minister Gordon Brown has narrowly won a House of Commons vote on extending the maximum time police can hold terror suspects to 42 days.

Thirty-six Labour MPs joined forces with Conservatives and Lib Dems to vote against the proposals.

But that was not enough to defeat them - although the government still faces a battle in the House of Lords.

The 42-day proposal was passed by 315 MPs to 306 - with votes by the nine DUP MPs proving crucial.

But there was uproar in the Commons as the result of the key vote on 42 days was announced after five hours of tense debate - with Tory and Lib Dem MPs shouting "You've been bought" at the DUP benches.

They claim the DUP was offered a string of inducements - including extra financial help for Northern Ireland - to guarantee its support.

HOW THEY VOTED Lib Dem and Tories voted against the government 36 Labour MPs voted against the government Seven ex-ministers defied the Labour whip: Frank Dobson, Mark Fisher, Kate Hoey, Glenda Jackson, Peter Kilfoyle, Michael Meacher, and Chris Mullin All nine Democratic Unionist MPs backed the government. They were: Gregory Campbell, Nigel Dodds, Jeffrey Donaldson, The Rev William McCrea, The Rev Ian Paisley, Iris Robinson, Peter Robinson, David Simpson, Sammy Wilson The only Tory MP to back the government was former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe Full list of rebels

Labour rebels claimed the DUP had obtained guarantees that the government would block efforts to use the Human Embryology and Fertility Bill, currently going through Parliament, to loosen abortion rules in Northern Ireland.

They are also said to have cut a deal to keep revenue from water rates, which Westminster had been set to claw back.

But the DUP denies it was promised any financial support and insists it voted out of principle.

DUP MP Rev William McCrea said: "The issue was on national security."

Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward told the BBC: "There was no deal. There is no deal. They decided on principle. They made up their own minds."

For the Conservatives, shadow home secretary David Davis the government had lost the argument "hands down" but had "bought the vote".

And he vowed to fight it in the Lords - predicting the 42-day proposal would never become law.

"It has no authority, it has no legitimacy and it will be thrown out," he added.

Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said the manner of Labour's victory had been "astonishing" - and for them to rely on the DUP to get such a crucial vote through the Commons would "have been laughed out of court a few weeks ago".

'National security'

Home Office minister Tony McNulty acknowledged the government still faced a battle to get 42-day detention on to the statute books.

Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow John McDonnell Rebel Labour MP Detention comparison row Analysis: Has it all been worth it? Send us your comments

"I accept fully that I continue to have a real job with some 30 or so of my colleagues to show that this is the way to go, that this is proportionate and accords with civil liberties and democracy.

"I don't profess it [the 42-days proposal] to be in a perfect state yet."

He added that he wanted to talk to Labour colleagues and opposition MPs to see "how this reserve power can be put through both houses in a consensual fashion."

Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, defended Home Secretary Jacqui Smith for offering concessions to MPs in an attempt to win them over.

Shadow home secretary David Davis gives his reaction

"That is the nature of government. How dreadful it would be that the government should decide on a particular course of action and then not consult with anyone else," he said.

Tony Lloyd, chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, said the result leaves the government "very much in tune with what the nation wants" and accuses other parties of acting "opportunistically".

And Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation, said he was "satisfied that Parliament has done the right thing".

But one of the Labour rebels, John McDonnell, said: "Any attempt to present this as some sort of victory for the government will ring absolutely hollow.

"There will be widespread consternation among our supporters in the country seeing a Labour government prepared to use every tactic available in its determination to crush essential civil liberties, which have been won by the labour movement over generations." quote>

[Easy Bakes 253]

Can i ask a question?

Supose a guy steals a car how long after the police arrest him is the trial?

Whats the average time before someone goes to trial for a crime? with how backed up the courts are its probably close to that.

Or are they talking about holding someone for 42 days without even leting them see a laywer or have an Arraignment hearing?

[belfastuniguy 18]

Can i ask a question?

Supose a guy steals a car how long after the police arrest him is the trial?

Whats the average time before someone goes to trial for a crime? with how backed up the courts are its probably close to that.

Or are they talking about holding someone for 42 days without even leting them see a laywer or have an Arraignment hearing?quote>

Completely different. This applies to terrorists and not normal crimes.

For normal crimes the period before trial can vary depending on the seriousness of the crime. If you are charged then you can be sent to jail to await trial or bailed. The police can hold you in the UK for 24 hours before they have to charge you, in special circumstances I think this can be extended to 72 hours and yes you do have a right to legal representation.

The above act is purely for terrorists not normal crimes.

[toxicpiano 125]

Luckily, The House of Lords will rip this apart and a serious game of ping pong will begin.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Luckily, The House of Lords will rip this apart and a serious game of ping pong will begin.quote>

Maybe...then again the Parliament Act could be used.

[krbe 193]

The law is only an obstacle; where's the People's Court when we need it?

[toxicpiano 125]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Luckily, The House of Lords will rip this apart and a serious game of ping pong will begin.quote>

Maybe...then again the Parliament Act could be used.quote>

Well good luck to him but that would take at least until next year and by that time Labour MPs could be even more unhappy and not be so sympathetic. Diane Abbot was furious about the Bribes they were trying to give people so I guarentee they won't get her vote.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

This act is also supported by the majority of the British population and as such it is the government's job to listen to the people and try when possible to act on their behalf with new laws and acts.quote>

That doesn't mean it's right though. Most people would bring back capital punishment, but that doesn't mean it's right. Tyranny of the majority?

[belfastuniguy 18]

That doesn't mean it's right though. Most people would bring back capital punishment, but that doesn't mean it's right. Tyranny of the majority?quote>

Its hardly tyranny. Its not as if we're opening a Guantanamo bay where they can be held forever without access to legal advice. This act only effects an absolutely tiny number of people in the UK suspected of terrorist activity, to be honest I've little sympathy for them or their fellow Islamic fundamentalists.

A judge still has to approve the detaining of a person for the maximum period of 42 days, It doesn't just happen..

[fukuda 351]

Let's go backwards! Everyone wants it!

The law is only an obstacle; where's the People's Court when we need it?quote>

Anyway, at this rate, forget the time when everyone was under one law in a country, if that ever happened. Today we make exceptions for terrorists, who will be next time?

[Bumdark 3]

I hardly see what they're crying about. I mean, this would just be, as previously stated, for "exceptional" cases, when things are looking rather bad for the suspect. By then, if the suspect is "exceptional" enough to land him a 42-day confinement time, then it means officials must have a fair bit of proof in their hands for the conviction, right? Sure, the possibility of misidentification always exists - anyone seen the based-on-true-story movie Rendition? - but chances are you've got a true terrorist in your hands.

Personally, if it really is a terror-monger they've got holed up, to hell with all those idiots crying "inhumane!" and "against human rights!" and all that BS. Hell, if it's a true terrorist, let him be tortured for eternity until he croaks. Let me do it. I'd be happy to share just a bit, a small fragment, of the pain, suffering and humiliation these "freedom fighters" have given us over the years...

(And BTW, yes I'm Canadian so I wouldn't have experienced first-hand any terrorism activities, I meant "us" as "humankind", all people.)

Sorry, only I really, REALLY don't like these guys. The day they all drop dead will be a truly blessed day for everyone alive.

[toxicpiano 125]

David Davis resigns from Commons

David Davis explains why he is resigning

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

Mr Davis told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.

The 59-year-old is one of the best known Tory MPs and his resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster.

He told reporters outside the Commons: "I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government."

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve is to take over as shadow home secretary.

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.

In his resignation statement, Mr Davis attacked the growth of the "database state" and government "snooping".

"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," he told reporters.

"At least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law," he said.

quote>

Originally posted by: Bumdark I hardly see what they're crying about. I mean, this would just be, as previously stated, for "exceptional" cases, when things are looking rather bad for the suspect. By then, if the suspect is "exceptional" enough to land him a 42-day confinement time, then it means officials must have a fair bit of proof in their hands for the conviction, right? Sure, the possibility of misidentification always exists - anyone seen the based-on-true-story movie Rendition? - but chances are you've got a true terrorist in your hands.

Personally, if it really is a terror-monger they've got holed up, to hell with all those idiots crying "inhumane!" and "against human rights!" and all that BS. Hell, if it's a true terrorist, let him be tortured for eternity until he croaks. Let me do it. I'd be happy to share just a bit, a small fragment, of the pain, suffering and humiliation these "freedom fighters" have given us over the years...

quote>

One of the defences we have against the terrorists are our values. If you can't keep those then you are letting them win.

[TheQuiltedLlama 34]

Originally posted by: TheQuiltedLlama

David Davis resigns from Commons

David Davis explains why he is resigning

Shadow home secretary David Davis has resigned as an MP.

He is to force a by-election in his Haltemprice and Howden constituency which he will fight on the issue of the new 42-day terror detention limit.

Mr Davis, 59, told reporters outside the House of Commons he believed his move was a "noble endeavour" to stop the erosion of British civil liberties.

He is one of the best-known opposition MPs and his resignation came as a complete surprise in Westminster.

This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand David Davis Analysis: High-risk strategy A profile of David Davis

He told reporters outside the Commons: "I will argue in this by-election against the slow strangulation of fundamental British freedoms by this government."

BBC Political Editor Nick Robinson said it was an extraordinary move which was almost without precedent in British politics.

Mr Davis has led the opposition to Labour's plans to extend the maximum limit terror suspects can be held beyond the current 28 day maximum.

On Wednesday, he accused the government of "buying" the nine votes they needed to get the legislation through the Commons.

He vowed that the Conservatives, who are the official opposition and favourites to win at the next election, would continue the fight in the House of Lords.

'Personal decision'

Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve, who will take over as shadow home secretary, rubbished reports the Tory leadership was split on the issue and said a future Conservative government would repeal it.

He said he would be campaigning for Mr Davis in the by-election - but added it would be Mr Davis' own personal campaign and he would receive no financial support from Tory HQ.

This resignation is quite extraordinary and without precedent that I can think of in British politics and means that politics is now utterly unpredictable Nick Robinson BBC Political Editor Read Nick's thoughts in full Q&A: Davis resignation

Asked about Mr Davis' resignation, Tory leader David Cameron said: "It was a personal decision, a decision he has made."

He said it was a "courageous" move and he hoped Conservatives would support Mr Davis's by-election campaign.

But he stressed the work of the shadow home secretary - on knife crime and other issues - "must go on" and he praised Mr Grieve as a "star performer".

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said: "Faced with a crucial decision on the safety and protection of the British public, the Conservatives have collapsed into total disarray on what is their first big policy test since they have come under greater scrutiny.

"David Cameron must come clean on what has really happened and why David Davis has really resigned."

Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, who also voted against 42 day detention, said his party would not be fielding a candidate in the by-election, after speaking to Mr Davis.

'Stunt'

Labour MP Denis MacShane said he was sure Mr Davis would win the by-election but added "I think this will be seen as a stunt" which showed the Conservatives were "utterly unfit" for government.

The former Europe Minister said he thought Mr Cameron had "cut the ground from under David Davis by not pledging to repeal 42 days" if the Tories won the next election.

But he said Mr Davis' decision to resign was "a bad day for Parliament" and said he did not personally think Labour should run a candidate against him in the by-election.

HAVE YOUR SAY

It has come to something when it takes the lone bravery of a Tory MP and the house of Lords to protect civil liberties in this country

Peter Hearty, London

Send us your comments

Mr Davis mounted a passionate attack on government plans to extend terror detention in the Commons on Wednesday - only to see the government win the key vote by the narrowest of margins.

In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days."

But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one - perhaps the most salient example - of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."

He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.

"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.

"At least my electorate and the nation as a whole will have had the opportunity to debate and consider one of the most fundamental issues of our day - the ever intrusive power of the state into our lives, the loss of privacy, the loss of freedom and the steady attrition undermining the rule of law," he said.

Local party

Mr Davis' local party fully backed his decision, its chairman Duncan Gilmour said.

"David discussed early in the week what he would do if the result went against us last night. "David is a man of principle and we fully back him," he said.

The Lib Dems had targeted the seat in 2005 as part of its ill-fated "decapitation" strategy to unseat key Tory figures but Mr Davis was re-elected with a 5,116 majority.

Mr Clegg said the party would fight the seat at the next general election but he said the "unnecessary and illiberal" 42 day proposal transcended party politics.quote>

quote>

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: toxicpiano

One of the defences we have against the terrorists are our values. If you can't keep those then you are letting them win.quote>

Values? That's so 1700's.

Sorry, no sacrifices from me. Blood, toil, tears, and sweat just aren't fashionable anymore. When Big Freedom clashes with Big Government, I think we're all grateful that Big Government wins. After all, there is a reason why Che Guevara shirts,  red stars and PLO-shemags are popular.

Also, please note that this is not the Greatest Generation. Why be willing to fight, and risk something when we just can lock up people?

[belfastuniguy 18]

I hardly see what they're crying about. I mean, this would just be, as previously stated, for "exceptional" cases, when things are looking rather bad for the suspect. By then, if the suspect is "exceptional" enough to land him a 42-day confinement time, then it means officials must have a fair bit of proof in their hands for the conviction, right? Sure, the possibility of misidentification always exists - anyone seen the based-on-true-story movie Rendition? - but chances are you've got a true terrorist in your hands.

Personally, if it really is a terror-monger they've got holed up, to hell with all those idiots crying "inhumane!" and "against human rights!" and all that BS. Hell, if it's a true terrorist, let him be tortured for eternity until he croaks. Let me do it. I'd be happy to share just a bit, a small fragment, of the pain, suffering and humiliation these "freedom fighters" have given us over the years...

(And BTW, yes I'm Canadian so I wouldn't have experienced first-hand any terrorism activities, I meant "us" as "humankind", all people.)

Sorry, only I really, REALLY don't like these guys. The day they all drop dead will be a truly blessed day for everyone alive.quote>

Well I don't agree with torture.

I do however agree that terrorists, if the evidence is compelling, should be detained as humanely possible. I would LOVE to see people from Liberty and the conservative party preach about rights as bombs are exploding across the country and explain to the British people why they did not do everything within their power to prevent these acts happening. Lets also remember that a majority of the people of the United Kingdom wanted this extension.

42 days sounds long, but its only about 6 weeks....OMG thats TERRIBLE....poor poor terrorist. Yeah whatever, I'd lock them up for life if I had my way nevermind 6 weeks. People need to get a grip and start looking at the reality of the situation.

We can sit here on the moral high ground defending every single 'value' we wish, that's not going to stop Islamic fundamentalists from blowing up buses and trains. A country can have all the values they want, makes them no less a terrorist target.

The rights of decent law abiding British people are not being subjected to rape and pillage by the government, these are directly solely at terrorists and terrorist cells operating within the UK..............which funnily enough are in such a number for the precise reason we are a free and tolerate society where the we have a great deal of social and civic freedoms.

Lets see if all those protesting still do so when a murderous terrorist blows himself up, killing tens or hundreds and its revealed it could have been stopped had the laws been in place....yeah you won't, becuase the disgust of the people of this country would shut them right up.

One of the defences we have against the terrorists are our values. If you can't keep those then you are letting them win.quote>

Well if you think this act will single handedly destroy every British value and freedom and give the terrorists a victory, then I suggest you go and properly assess what British values and how many we have as well as their complexity.

As for Mr Davies and his political stunt. He fails to see that the majority of the public support this Act and I hope he loses he seat for his childish toys out the pram actions.

[fukuda 351]

toxic is right, terror is a great tool to rot our values, it would be their victory, after all.

One of the objectives of terror is to produce hate that will finally be canalized to muslims or whoever, thus producing more hate in the other side and winning followers to their integrist view.. Don't let them win, there are right and wrong ways to act, independently of what populace wants.

And yes, I think that Mr Davies act was a noble endeavour

[belfastuniguy 18]

toxic is right, terror is a great tool to rot our values, it would be their victory, after all.

One of the objectives of terror is to produce hate that will finally be canalized to muslims or whoever, thus producing more hate in the other side and winning followers to their integrist view.. Don't let them win, there are right and wrong ways to act, independently of what populace wants. quote>

I don't see this act as a victory for terrorists.

Has anything fundamentally changed in the lives, values, opportunities, freedoms of normal law abiding British people?? No..the country continues to be one of freest countries on earth.

Islamic terrorists need little to rally them to their 'cause'. They will use any and every excuse. These people are dangerous and we certainly should not risk our personal or national security for fear of 'giving them a victory'...what a load of BS

Bar some narrow minded individuals, the British people have always been tolerate and welcoming to other cultures, we have one of the most diverse ethnic make ups in the developed world. I certainly and the majority of people do not hate Muslims or anyone else becuase of what a fringe and extremist element engage in. You give people very little credit....well unless you are speaking about readers of the Daily Mail...then again they are most likely currently sleeping in their gun/knife/Muslim/Gay/Pole/Foreigner proof panic room.

[fukuda 351]

Has anything fundamentally changed in the lives, values, opportunities, freedoms of normal law abiding British people??quote>

The definition of "normal law abiding people" can be easily changed by the circumstances (and law, of course), what it shouldn't change are the basic freedoms of people in general.

Islamic terrorists need little to rally them to their 'cause'. They will use any and every excuse. These people are dangerous and we certainly should not risk our personal or national security for fear of 'giving them a victory'...what a load of BSquote>

Hum, it seems that values and principles aren't trendy anymore, as other members pointed out... By the way, talking about principles, you know that calling "BS" someone else's argument is not very educated? Especially without any argumentation...

I certainly and the majority of people do not hate Muslims or anyone else becuase of what a fringe and extremist element engage in. You give people very little credit....quote>

Reread my post, it says "objectives of" it luckily doesn't talk about actual reality...

[belfastuniguy 18]

Hum, it seems that values and principles aren't trendy anymore, as other members pointed out... By the way, talking about principles, you know that calling "BS" someone else's argument is not very educated? Especially without any argumentation... quote>

BS is BS, sometimes actually needs someone with an education to make that clear and remove all the waffle and crap from statements. I also fail to see the need to back up the statement that Islamic fundamentalists do not need a complex reason to wage war on a country or its people. Hardly rocket science to determine that. National governments can go about protecting all the values they wish, still won't stop the terrorists.