giron
Phantom's plaything
Posts: 13665
Registered: 4-9-2005
Location: Coventry, UK.
Theme: KPCH Default Blue
Member Is Offline
Mood: Inquisitive.
|
![[*]](./images/newkfblue/default_icon.gif) Post 413396 posted on 28-7-2010 at 07:45 PM |
|
|
Guilty until proven innocent?
In some cases it would seem so.
Should terrorism suspects be allowed to sue, under these circumstances?
|
|
|
Nimuae
Rajkumari
Posts: 2728
Registered: 31-8-2002
Location: Free Spirits cannot be confined by locations
Theme: KF Blue
Member Is Offline
Mood: Enigmatic !
|
| Post 413397 posted on 28-7-2010 at 08:21 PM |
|
|
In view of ...
| Quote: | | The home secretary argued that the control orders had been legally imposed, even though they were later
withdrawn. |
I would say no.
|
|
|
LSemmens
Undercover MOD
Posts: 21519
Registered: 19-11-2004
Location: Riverton, South Australia
Theme: KPCH Default Blue (Default)
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gone crazy, Back soo
|
| Post 413453 posted on 29-7-2010 at 11:29 AM |
|
|
A temporary control order should only be available to allow "police" to bring charges in a reasonable time. It would seem that the evidence that
they claimed to have was shaky or they would have charged both men! The fact that they would not reveal said evidence, even to the Judge, and the fact
that their lives were on hold for such a protracted period, sounds more like victimisation than real anti-terrorism activities. Whether these two
deserve compensation, or not, should now be in the hands of the courts.
FWIW IMO, a control order should last for, at most, six months, if more time is required then all evidence, so far, should need to be presented to
allow the detainee the benefit of the doubt. If they need more time, surrender of passport could be the best action and, perhaps, mandatory reporting,
once a week or so, but let them get on with their lives.
|
|
|
|
