The Church of England has called on the government to drop proposals to extend the period for which terrorism suspects can be held without charge.
Ministers have published plans to increase the maximum detention period from the current 28 days to 42.
The Church’s ruling body, the General Synod, said the move would disturb the “careful balance” between individual liberty and national security.
A motion was supported by 235 out of 244 synod members meeting in London.
Read Londonistan by Melanie Phillips and see how this is now a typical British behavior pattern…and why we have to acknowledge and name this dysfunction before it unravels the whole Communion.
We used to attribute it to classic British understatement in hopes they really had some courage behind their convictions, but this last week with ++Rowan’s statement on Sharia law and +Durham’s defense, we see this sort of pacifism and denial is in their basic DNA.
Rabbi Friedman always used to say that at the head of every dysfunctional organization is a peace monger…the proof of this is right before us…and we will be the victims, as is always the case in dysfunctional systems, if we fail to address this underlying illness that is afflicting us all with its symptoms…
Since General Synod has a much larger traditionalist presence than General Convention and all but nine members supported this motion, it can hardly be dismissed as simply the ravings of a liberal fringe.
It seems plausible to me that one might doubt the wisdom of allowing the government a blanket two more weeks detention without charge, without in any way advocating passivity in the face of terrorism.
Consider, for example, the present British government’s recent fervor in support of compulsory national I.D. (on security grounds) and weigh that against several spectacular losses by government agencies of vital personal information that they had assured the general population would never be put at risk if stored electronically.
Don Armstrong said, “this is now a typical British behavior pattern”
You don’t believe there should be a careful balance between individual liberty and national security? You believe that any resistance to a pure national security agenda is “peace mongering”? If not, why precisely is it that you believe that this measure — supported by all but 9 of 244 synod members — represents a dangerous capitulation to the peace makers?
This entry provides the context within which the ABC’s remarks are properly to be understood. There is a point at which academic intellection and fair-mindedness become spinelessness in camouflage.
Why hold terrorist suspects longer? So that the chances of their doing any damage are lessened, so tht cells will collapse, and so that the ramifications of what they have been doing can be brought to light. Because they operate in secret, bringing such to light is likely to be a time consuming job. And we are talking, of course, about Muslim radicals, not Mormons or terrorist Baptists.
Neville Chamberlain is alive and well!!!!!
Larry Morse wrote: “Why hold terrorist suspects longer? So that the chances of their doing any damage are lessened, so tht cells will collapse, and so that the ramifications of what they have been doing can be brought to light. Because they operate in secret, bringing such to light is likely to be a time consuming job. And we are talking, of course, about Muslim radicals, not Mormons or terrorist Baptists.”
Actually, of course, we’re talking about suspects, not Muslim terrorists, nor even Mormons or Baptists. Suspects who have been held for what was previously agreed to be a reasonable amount of time without evidence emerging to support any charge whatsoever. Your argument doesn’t address why we don’t just lock them up forever, if longer is always better.
You last remark is nonsense, as I am sure you well know. Longer in and of itself is not inherently better, but with terrorists, who are at the heart of this resolution, short is bad and dangerous, for the reasons I have given. It is not as if Britain has given over habeas corpus. LM
Though wasn’t there talk of ending habeas corpus? I seem to remember Jack Straw (who was Home Secretary at the time) calling it an outmoded idea or somesuch, back in the late 90s.