Sanity prevails - Blair defeated over terror laws
This from the BBC:
Tony Blair says his authority is intact despite suffering his first House of Commons defeat as prime minister. He said he hoped MPs "do not rue the day" they rejected his call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.
MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling. Following the defeat MPs backed by 323 to 290 votes a Labour backbench MP's proposal to extend the detention time limit to 28 days, from the current 14 days.
Blair said the police had told him the case for the 90-day detention proposal was "vital" and "compelling". It had been his duty to put the plan before MPs and it had been their right to vote against it, he said. But, he said: "I think it was a wrong decision - I just hope in a longer time we don't rue it." He said people would think it was "very odd" that given the advice of the police and security services, MPs had "decided to ignore their recommendation".
It's funny but when I heard the Prime Minister use the words "vital" and "compelling" I couldn't help but flashback to another "vital" and "compelling" issue concerning the Iraqi WMD. Strange that. When Blair kept saying "trust me, it's for the good of the country" I couldn't help thinking that he may be a little 'economical' with the truth. "I've seen the evidence and I am convinced" he said - well Tony, sorry but we've heard that all before.
But anyway... after a dramatic vote - complete with Ministers being flown back at the last minute - some sanity has prevailed. Liberty has trumped illusions of security and all without the help of the House of Lords this time. Politicians never cease to amaze do they?
5 comments:
Parliament voted to increase the detention period from 14 days to 28 days. That hardly adds up to a triumph for liberty over oppression. Liberty has been reduced, albeit not by as much as the government wanted. No-one wins.
Indeed. But at least the 90 day limit was defeated. Not exactly a shinning day for liberty - but not a dark one either.
90 days without monitoring would have been a potentially excessive amount of time and would have set the first stage of a precedent towards the civil rights atrocity that is Guantanamo bay.
However, the 90 day proposal came with a clause that there would be judicial review of the situation every 7 days - effectively making the ammendment more concerned with the interim rights and treatment of a detainee than is currently.
Does anyone know if the 28day motion comes with a similarly strict monitoring schedule?
ck, you said 'liberty has trumped illusions of security', that is not the case here. All that happened was that rival political parties got the whiff of blood and voted to destabilise the government. Remember how many of these MPs were talking about reaching a tri-party consensus in the wake of the July 7th bombings? Why did they all change their minds? Why are people who voted for Internment suddenly talking about protecting civil liberties?
I think that there were many & various reasons why some politicians voted as they did. Some for the 'right' reasons & others for less... ethical ones. Sticking it to Tony was probably in the mix along with the rest. This doesn't invalidate the argument that 28 days is better than 90. Not a great result (from my PoV) but not a tragic one either. Being pragmatic I have to deal with my disapointment on this - however, of course, it hasn't been through the Lords yet - so who knows?
Post a Comment