Control Order secrecy - how does it make us any safer ?
The Press Association reports about one of the ex-Belmarsh detainees Mahmoud Suliman Ahmed Abu Rideh, who is desparately seeking to be returned to prison or mental hospital (he seems to have had a mental breakdown as a result of his detention without trial) rather than continue to be left to fend for himself whilst subject to a Control Order under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005
The attitude of the Home Office with regard to the entirely unecessary secrecy surrounding the actual terms of the Control Orders is something out of a Franz Kafka nightmare:
'Mr Clarke’s spokeswoman went on: “The whole point of this (legislation) is that if somebody breaches a control order, we can take them to court and the ultimate sentence is a prison sentence."Mr Clarke’s official spokeswoman refused to reveal which terror suspect had been accused of breaching his control order.
"It doesn’t make any difference which one it is," she said."
"We never gave details of what were the particulars of their control orders."
"We are not going to go through in detail what he has breached or hasn’t breached because we don’t reveal what control orders he was under."'
What possible risk to national security would it be to reveal which suspect is accused of breaching which Control Order condition ?
Obviously there is no need to reveal the home address of a person subjected to a Control Order, for fear of vigilantes and/or public order offences, but there simply is no excuse for this secrecy surrounding every aspect of Control Orders.
Remember, that this "terrorist suspect" has not even been charged, let alone convicted of any of the vast number of "catch all" offences under previous terrorism legislation.
There always seems to be some media spin which accompanies any of these reports, usually of unsubstantiated allegations, which the suspect has not been able to challenge properly in court e.g. in this report
"Rideh has been accused of being involved in fundraising and distribution of money for terror groups linked to al Qaida.An appeal panel ruled in 2003 that he was a "very successful" fundraiser and "more importantly" was able to get the money to Afghanistan."
We have no sympathy for terrorists, but it seems that their aim of destroying our fundamental freedoms and way of life, such as the right to a fair trial, freedom of movement etc. is being helped by the stupid actions of the NuLabour Government.
Comments
This is classic conditioning.
Firstly, as you say, the man has never been charged with anything, so obviously the intelligence services and the police don't have even enough for that.
Secondly, they have him in prison, but then "release" him to a house, flat or somesuch, but under a control order, the terms of which none of us are allowed to know.
Thirdly, he is then accused of breaking these unknown terms, and is shipped back into prison, summoned to court (probably in secret), or has extra, even more restrictve, and unknown, terms applied to his order.
And this is how they work - by having complete control over this man's life, and by him having no way to alter that, they effectivly brainwash him.
The lack of structure, the lack of treatment based on behaviour, removes any consistancy or logic from his world, and leaves him suspended in limbo, at the whim of the powers that control him.
He is one of a growing army of "Winstons", who will probably, as on Iraqi TV, be one day paraded in front of us to publically confess their crimes before disappearing again.
This is a throughly authoritarian police state of a country we now have, a fact which is sadly unseen by many.
Posted by: jymjim | April 30, 2005 2:44 PM