UK NEWS
REID: WE'LL CHANGE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS TO FIGHT TERRORISM
John Reid
By Tom Whitehead
JOHN Reid threatened yesterday to rip up the human-rights laws as he was plunged in to a fresh crisis over handling terror suspects.
The Home Secretary said he would consider opting out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights, so that he could put suspects under strict house arrest.
And he warned that the country is in a “national emergency” over the terror threat.
His stark message came after three more potential dangermen – two of them brothers of a convicted terrorist – went on the run while supposedly under watch on control orders.
The controversial system, under which six suspects have now vanished, faced fresh criticism – but the critics said Mr Reid brought the crisis on himself.
And any tough promises once both Mr Reid and Tony Blair leave office next month.
Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: “John Reid claims he feels like he has one arm tied behind his back, but the truth is he’s been sitting on his hands. He has not used existing powers like tagging.
“He failed to enforce the latest orders, waiting two days to release the identities of the fugitives – allowing them to flee abroad. He is now blaming his own Human Rights Act. He can blame the courts and the Opposition, but the problems are of his own making.”
Mr Reid said ministers may choose to suspend parts of the European Convention on Human Rights, so they can impose tougher control orders.
This is the first time the Government has indicated it might “derogate” from the international treaty and put suspects under far stricter conditions – such as making them stay at home round the clock.
Mr Reid said: “We will consider other options – which include derogation – if we have exhausted ways of overturning previous judgments.”
Control orders were introduced in March 2005 to replace emergency laws, brought in after the 9/11 attacks, which had allowed the Government to lock up foreign nationals suspected of being international terrorists indefinitely without charge or trial.
In December 2004, the House of Lords ruled that the laws were illegal, so the Govern-ment created control orders allowing the men to be kept under virtual house arrest.
But it has suffered major setbacks in a series of court rulings that conditions breached human rights.
They varied from breaching the right to a fair trial, not to be indefinitely detained without trial and loss of liberty. The rulings meant lighter controls had to be imposed. Mr Reid is appealing against a number of them in the Lords. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg said: “John Reid reveals a worrying mix of sloppy thinking and buck-passing. It is time he stopped blaming human rights law every time something goes wrong.”
New proposals are expected to be unveiled in a few weeks.
They are likely to include moves to allow questioning after a charge and even a return to the controversial length of time a suspect can be held without charge.
The Government suffered a defeat in the Commons last year, when a planned increase in the period from 14 to 90 days was cut to 28 days.
Mr Blair’s spokesman said: “This is down to Parliament not backing us in the first place in terms of the length of additional period we wanted and in limiting the effectiveness of control orders.”
One of the latest control-order fugitives, Lamine Adam, 26, was on the fringe of the plot to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre and a London nightclub.
One of the plotters was Adam’s brother, part-time male model Anthony Garcia, 25. Last month, he was jailed for a minimum of 20 years for conspiracy to cause explosions.
Adam was never charged with any offences connected to the plan. But MI5 officers considered him so dangerous, they recommended a control order to restrict his movements..
He, his other brother Ibrahim, 20, and their friend Cerie Bullivant, 24, went on the run after breaching the terms of their control orders. Intelligence sources say they may have fled abroad and be heading for Iraq or Afghanistan.
What do YOU think? Are human rights laws ruining Britain? Comment NOW on Have Your Say.
YADA YADA YADA
27.05.07, 6:39am
Again this person gets in the papers. Why do we accomodate his publicity machine?
I suggest that the next article covering Rieds comments should start with the statement" Reids dolly left the pram again, because we were unable to find anyone else for him to blame for his indicision and lack of leadership skills"
If the cant do the job,treat them as any employer would, FIRE THEM! and dont let him go on the telly or get in the papers again.
Posted by: DeneB Report Comment
HUMAN RIGHTS ,WHAT HUMAN RIGHTS
26.05.07, 12:38am
THERE SEEMS TO BE HUMAN RIGHTS FOR EVERYONE AND EVERY THING EXCEPT THE BRITISH PEOPLE ,
THIS STUPID LAW SHOULD BE SCRAPPED
WE SHOULD WITHDRAW FROM THE EU,
CLOSE OUR BORDERS UNTIL WE GET SOME SECURE SYSTEM,TO ALLOW IMIGRATION TO WORK,,IMIGRANTS ALREADY HAD THEIR APPLICATIONS TURNED DOWN SHOULD BE DEPORTED,AND NOT PUT IN HOLDING PLACES
WE MUST BE THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD,
YES RIP UP THE HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS
LETS GET BACK TO SANITY,
Posted by: DEZG8MEC Report Comment
BLAIRS GIFT TO CHERIE
25.05.07, 11:49pm
The only reason BLAIR brought in the Human Rights legislation was that his wife, Cherie, is a Human Rights Lawyer. She has made thousands, if not millions from it via Legal Aid (and they called Tories corrupt). Maybe when Blair/Cherie go, the HRA can be consigned to the rubbish bin where it belongs.
Posted by: madazawasp Report Comment
GET RID OF IT
25.05.07, 7:57pm
The human rights act was a fantastic piece of legislation at the time. It is now long out of date when you consider that just about everyone that gets charged with something or even is under suspicion can hide behind it. Get rid of it! Either have something new that copes with today's issues or don't have it at all as far as I'm concerned. I know that a lot of people will say that if it wasn't for the human rights act blah, blah, blah.... IF YOU HAVE NOTHING TO HIDE then why do you need a human rights act. GET RID OF IT.
Posted by: GMacD Report Comment
HUMAN RIGHTS LAWS
25.05.07, 4:29pm
I find it odd, that the countries to which we cannot return their citizens are all members of the UN, sometimes members of the security council, and have governments we recognise.
It ought to be that if a country is accepted to the UN, it must be allowable to return its citizens
Posted by: exnomad Report Comment
THIS PLONKER HAS DESTROYED THE HOME OFFICE!
25.05.07, 1:53pm
Resigned and run away with his mate BLIAR and now he has all the answers, it could be something to do with the number of British Citizens trying to take action against the government under the HRA!
The Terrorist and criminal scum have been abusing the HRA for years and never was this discussed, as honest british citizens try to take action against corrupt Civil Servants and politicians they wish to scrap it.
The FOI Act was also a good idea until it applied to the MP's the Human Rights Act is now also a threat to the lying corrupt politicians who choose terrorism as a way to remove that threat in the same manner as constituents letters were used to remove the FOI Act!
Posted by: The_Way_I_See_It Report Comment
To view all 'Have Your Say' comments, click this button...