UK: Probably not a terrorist? You are in trouble, Joseph K
BBCNews: Tory leader Michael Howard says he accepts the prime minister's offer of new laws that will deal with his concerns over the anti-terror bill. Mr Howard said Tony Blair's pledge to give MPs a chance to review the law in a year's time was a "sunset clause in all but name".
This was earlier denied by Mr Blair - but Mr Howard said his party had got what it had been asking for.
The moves look set to end the deadlock between MPs and peers over the bill. The House of Commons and the House of Lords had earlier failed to reach agreement over the government's Prevention of Terrorism Bill despite more than 30-hours of debate. Peers had refused to give up amendments that would put a 12-month time limit on the bill and place a higher standard of proof on suspects. [see below]
Instead the bill "ping ponged" between the two houses four times as the two sides failed to reach agreement. The stand-off even threatened to stretch into the weekend.
Mr Blair told reporters that the new plan was "our best attempt to get this legislation on the statute book" - and he warned the Tories there would be no more concessions on the bill.
DB: It looks like the government has got its way regarding what had been a core issue for the opposition parties which concerned the level of proof needed to impose a control order on a suspect. The government demanded that proof of 'guilt' needed only to meet a definition of 'reasonable suspicion' in order for a suspect to be deprived of his or her liberty. Opposition wanted a slightly more reasonable "on the balance of probability" - this was rejected. So it would seem now that if you are 'probably not' a terrorist (or indeed 'supportive' of terrorism) you will consequently be running the risk of being subject to these new laws.
When the Law takes necessity as its model, justice is doomed.
"...it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary." This seems to be the modus operandi of the Law, the dynamo within the great machine of the Court, the divine principle before which the functionaries - and eventually the accused men - prostrate themselves. It is, as K. declares, a "melancholy thought" because it "turns lying into a universal principle." That universal lie of necessity - the mother of detention - keeps the mechanism moving forward and squelches potential challenges to the system. When the Law takes necessity as its model, justice is doomed. The terrible fact of The Trial, and of the parable, is that the men seeking justice eventually accept this warped universal principle and its skewed criteria; they submit to the necessity of their own exclusion or death. Link
This was earlier denied by Mr Blair - but Mr Howard said his party had got what it had been asking for.
The moves look set to end the deadlock between MPs and peers over the bill. The House of Commons and the House of Lords had earlier failed to reach agreement over the government's Prevention of Terrorism Bill despite more than 30-hours of debate. Peers had refused to give up amendments that would put a 12-month time limit on the bill and place a higher standard of proof on suspects. [see below]
Instead the bill "ping ponged" between the two houses four times as the two sides failed to reach agreement. The stand-off even threatened to stretch into the weekend.
Mr Blair told reporters that the new plan was "our best attempt to get this legislation on the statute book" - and he warned the Tories there would be no more concessions on the bill.
DB: It looks like the government has got its way regarding what had been a core issue for the opposition parties which concerned the level of proof needed to impose a control order on a suspect. The government demanded that proof of 'guilt' needed only to meet a definition of 'reasonable suspicion' in order for a suspect to be deprived of his or her liberty. Opposition wanted a slightly more reasonable "on the balance of probability" - this was rejected. So it would seem now that if you are 'probably not' a terrorist (or indeed 'supportive' of terrorism) you will consequently be running the risk of being subject to these new laws.
When the Law takes necessity as its model, justice is doomed.
"...it is not necessary to accept everything as true, one must only accept it as necessary." This seems to be the modus operandi of the Law, the dynamo within the great machine of the Court, the divine principle before which the functionaries - and eventually the accused men - prostrate themselves. It is, as K. declares, a "melancholy thought" because it "turns lying into a universal principle." That universal lie of necessity - the mother of detention - keeps the mechanism moving forward and squelches potential challenges to the system. When the Law takes necessity as its model, justice is doomed. The terrible fact of The Trial, and of the parable, is that the men seeking justice eventually accept this warped universal principle and its skewed criteria; they submit to the necessity of their own exclusion or death. Link
posted by exoplanet at 8:27 PM
<< Home