Your editorial (5 January) argues strongly for control orders to be repealed, but how can you so glibly speak of those men under control orders as "a few dangerous people whom it is exceptionally tricky to prosecute because the intelligence is sensitive"? You thereby miss the whole point, that unless and until these people are accused and found guilty in open court, it is quite wrong in terms of both law and of natural justice to condemn them as "dangerous".
The tenet that suspects are innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental principle to which every civilised society must adhere at all times. To Labour's shame they repeatedly failed to do so when in power. If the Liberal Democrats also fail to fight for this basic principle in this case, and to hold Cameron to it, then they have further reason to hang their heads in shame. Furthermore, if none of our major parties is prepared to do what is obviously morally and legally right, how can we ask other countries to do so?
Dr Stephen Bax
Canterbury, Kent
??There is an important argument against control orders in addition to those your article covers (Control orders 'stitch-up' puts coalition needs before national security, says Balls, 7 January). The use of state power against terrorism without an open judicial process is counterproductive. Control orders are only one small step below the detention without trial we had in Northern Ireland in 1971-75. When it ended there was general agreement that the bitterness it had engendered had been a significant recruiting agent for the IRA. It would be far better for those supporting control orders to grapple with why terrorists act against us as they do rather than assisting their case.
Michael Meadowcroft
Leeds
??Dominic Raab (This is a sideshow, 7 January) lists three ways to "guarantee protection against identifiable terrorists". How about a fourth: stop killing people in Muslim countries with indiscriminate weapons such as drones, in illegal wars, which fosters anger and the desire for revenge? This might also influence potential "terrorists" who are not identified before they commit acts of violence.
Frank Jackson
Harlow, Essex
??When back in the 1960s the Italian Communist party struck a deal with the Christian Democrats, and called it the "historic compromise", the joke ran that it was the Christian Democrats who made the history, the Communists the compromise. History repeats itself; first tuition fees, now control orders. No doubt about which party is making the history and which the compromises.
Professor Hilary Rose
London
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/10/case-against-control-orders
Elizabeth Dole John Edwards Dianne Feinstein Bill Frist Newt Gingrich
No comments:
Post a Comment