Brits lose another lawfare case to the terrorist rights crowd

Telegraph:

The Government's terror strategy was dealt a blow this morning when law lords ruled that the controversial control order regime must be watered down.

Britain's most senior judges ruled that the most draconian power - an 18-hour home curfew - was in breach of the human right to liberty. They held that a 12-hour curfew was acceptable.

The human rights group Liberty, which was a party in the crucial case, said it was a "significant blow" to the controversial measures.

Indefinite control orders, imposed on foreign terror suspects by the Home Secretary, are one of the Government's key anti-terror measures.

Control orders impose restrictions currently including curfews and bans on internet access and unauthorised visitors.

The orders were introduced two years ago after the House of Lords held that the previous system for dealing with foreign suspects - keeping them detained in prison until deportation - breached their human rights.

The cases considered by the law lords involved 10 terror suspects placed under orders, including at least two who are on the run.

In the High Court and the Court of Appeal they successfully argued that the measures violated their right to liberty and a fair trial.

The lords also held that control orders must be subject to "civil fair trial procedure", which has been breached in some cases by the "special advocate procedure". This procedure allows the Government to release sensitive information to terror suspects' security-screened lawyers, on the condition that this information is not passed on to the suspect.

...


All in all, it was a good day for terrorist rights in the UK. It is hard for me to see a material difference between the two detentions for the suspects, but it does double the amount of time the government has to keep more people watching them making it much easier for them to slip the surveillance and do their mischief. It appears the law lords do not put public safety ahead of their terrorist rights agenda.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more