This is an archived version of this page. The current blog is here
Thank you for your prompt reply to my somewhat intemperate letter. I amvery pleased to hear that you are unhappy with the idea of detention without trial.You've made a number of points that I feel I should respond to.
Firstly, on the question of the existing detainees at Belmarsh: I actually take the view that law governing their detention that was recently ruled unlawful by the Law Lords actually sidestepped the difficult issue which we now confront quite neatly.
Obviously, I would prefer nobody to be detained without trial (we all agree that it's a Bad Thing), however, in the case of the existing detainees we are dealing with foreign nationals who we would normally deport (I assume).
The reason we don't do so in these cases is the threat to their human rights in their countries of origin. However, as I understand it, the detainees are free to leave at any time if they choose to return home, or can find a third country that will take them. I don't mean to be flippant about the difficulties that they face in this, but they do have options.
Conversely, because the law applies only to foreign nationals, I don't see it as a threat to the freedoms of UK citizens. I've tried to give the Government this much credit: that the measure imposed was as limited as possible.
Now the Law Lords have taken a higher stand on principle, but the Government's response to this seems wholly disproportionate to me.
I feel sure that you understand at least as well as I do the idea that we are free people, and that the Goverment is our servant. Central to that is the idea that if we're accused of something, we get a day in court to argue our case before our peers.
The current proposals undermine that fatally - Governments cannot be trusted with the sole power to determine who shall be detained. Nor can a secret review process be trusted to uphold the rights of the people detained. It's not a question of the goodwill or integrity of the people entrusted with the power. It's just a fact of those kind of systems. Only openness ensures justice will (eventually) prevail.
I've read the summary on Abu Qattara, and he sounds like a dangerous fanatic. You ask how we should deal with him - implicitly I suppose you mean if not by detaining him without trial? If I see someone in the street doing something dangerous, and I tell them to stop, I don't think I'm actually obliged to offer them an alternative occupation.
The Government has access to much smarter people than me, and I can't believe this is the best they can do. If you want my opinion, then I would say there seems to be plenty of scope for prosecuting Mr Qattara with, say, receiving stolen money, or perhaps incitement to racial hatred.
In the more general case, I appreciate the difficulty of exposing secret operations in the course of prosecutions, but I think it's wildly overstated - we know that phones and emails can be intercepted (the Government must be the only people still pretending not to know what Echelon is) and that evidence should be admissible in court. Everyone has a right to a fair trial.
I would appreciate it if you would pass my concerns on to the Home Office. I'd also like to know whether your distaste for detention without trial would extend as far as voting against the current proposals.
Posted by MFreestone at February 1, 2005 09:51 PM