General Chat

indefinitely on the grounds that the Security Services think that they are terrorists.

At least they are safe if they are locked up. Better safe than sorry is what I think. There have been so many blunders made on security measures, innocent people killed, that I reiterate "better safe than sorry". Sylvia xxx

I think it is wrong to imprison indefinitely without trial but having said that I don't mean that suspected terrorists should therefore be released, but that the authorities who suspect them should gather the evidence and prosecute so that they can be tried and imprisoned lawfully. Judith

Yes These suspected terrorists are not locked up on a whim. There must be sufficiant evidence for them to be a suspect in the first place. And its this countrys right to protect its citizens and visitors from overseas that come to our country. Elaine x

I agree too. There is too much liberalism nowadays in general. The powers that be must have information to hand regarding what these people are up too. We must protect our country. We need to be vigilant otherwise we could be the next victims of another 9/11. I'd rather a few innocent people were locked up at the end of the day than thousands killed. Just my opinion. Diane

It is wrong to lock anyone up indefinately without charge, be it in Belmarsh, Guantanamo Bay or anywhere else. If there is enough evidence for the authorities to believe they are terrorists, then there should be enough evidence to charge them. The youngest person to be released from Guantanamo Bay was 13. He'd been there for over a year. In other words, the Americans had detained a twelve year old child because they believed him to be a devious terrorist mastermind. The simple fact is that the governments are making no effort to lock up any suspected terrorist who isn't a Middle-Eastern Muslim. Where are the prisons bulging with Irish Catholics? Or Chechens? Or Spanish Basques?

They are not locked up, they can leave the country when they wish but don't want that , wonder why? Bob

The idea that it is OK to lock anyone up without giving them the chance to face their accusers was thrown out in this country 300 years ago. For a “Socialist” government to re-introduce it seems somewhat ironic to say the least. If the people who are detained in Belmarsh think that is better than their country of origin then we can be sure that they are pretty certain of their fate if they return there. For some people “human rights” has become a synonym for being soft on criminals and it is true that there are some that have taken advantage. Human Rights are OUR rights and fundamental to that is the right to a fair trial; to see the evidence against us and to be given the opportunity to argue or explain. MI5 and MI6 are not infallible (WMD anyone?) so let these “terrorists” be judged and the evidence tested. If the government gets away with this how long will it be before it is extended to British Citizens – You and me? Bob

Totally wrong - if there is not enough evidence to charge them they should be deported, some of these people have been locked up for 3 years. And yes, I agree that 'human rights' are often seen as being 'soft' on criminals, however the right to justice and a fair trial is fundamental. I try to think how I would feel if one of my family were locked up without being charged for such a long time.

I am not wrong about this, they are free to leave. This has been stated more than once by the government. See BBC article http://news.bbc(.)co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4107299.stm Bob

It seems difficult to deport some as their own country won't take them back. What then? Create an island somewhere? Sylvia xxx

We have created an Island it's called England

As Sylvia said "better safe than sorry", but I think they should have the right to a fair trial. Lucia

Lucia, if we give these detainees the benefit of a doubt, They May be innocent, BUT "Old Bill, MI5 MI6" dont do this sort of thing without having good grounds for suspicion.........after all is said and done, These murderers dont give their victims a fair trial , do they?

Yes, I'll agree with you on that one. On the website it says: The Law Lords said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status". What do you think of this? Lucia

As far as I can recall, there always has been "nationalities", that have 'natural' tendencies, tongue in cheek here, sicilians were the fore runners of the mafia, carribeans were into various exotic 'erbs......I havent yet heard of any white suicide bombers....... and so, races get tainted with assumptions........ and to be honest are possibly not far wrong..........allegedly......

Of course we and the Americans can fly over at 20,000 feet and drop our bombs...

Were foreigners locked up during the 1st WW and 2nd WW? [Rhetorical question.] What's the difference now?

Bob, Rightly or Wrongly, that is warfare............these people are suspected of aiding terrorism in one way or another.,,yes they Should be tried, the sooner the better really, and then chucked back to their mother nation.......ASAP.

I feel that it is a retrograde step for civilization to arbitrarily imprison another. EVERYONE has a right to his day in Court to plead his innocence. The alternatives are 1) Swift justice to prove innocence or guilt. or 2) Immediate deportation back to where they came from. Locking someone up because you "have reason to believe" that they are going to commit a Crime? that is sooooo 1984!!!!