42 days may not be enough
42 days may not be enough to build a case against suspected terrorists. The complex web of IT and the international aspects of likely plots mean that suspects should be held for longer. Surely MPs can propose a law requiring investigators to provide evidence, on a confidential basis, to hold suspects for as long as necessary. Our lives may depend on it.
One of ContingencyToday.com's news items today is how Polish researchers have revealed that messages can be hidden in Skype telephone calls. This is just another in the numerous technological advances which criminals, including terrorists, will soon be using. Some experts believe that China was behind recent power blackouts in the USA. How long before terrorists try to shut down a power station, perhaps a nuclear one? Both are examples of actions, which can be carried out abroad, thousands of miles away from the target, but requiring a degree of local knowledge.
The former head of MI6, Sir Richard Dearlove, has already pointed out in these pages that it is a major challenge just to establish someone's identity and in one recent terrorist prosecution, the investigation involved 270 computers, 2000 discs and 8224 exhibits spread across eight different national jurisdictions. Peter Clarke, the former head of the Metropolitan Police's anti-terrorist unit, has pleaded for politics to be kept out of the debate about extending the current 28 day detention limit to 42 days. MI5 has confirmed that it is not the Security Service's job to advise government on the law, while acknowledging the increasing complexity of bringing cases to court.
The latest opinion poll published in today's Daily Telegraph shows that nearly 70 per cent of people support the extension to 42 days. This despite the overwhelming opposition in most of Fleet Street. Only The Sun has come out in favour of the proposal.
The harsh reality is that 42 days may not be enough. The IT skills and international aspects of some cases will more than likely demand the incarceration of terrorist suspects for much longer while investigators try to build a case robust enough to secure a conviction. Surely it is possible for our politicians to propose a law in which the police must show evidence to a judge(s), sitting in camera, that for reasons of national security a particular suspect should be held for long as needed?
The current scenario of a terrorist being set free after 28 days, for lack of hard evidence, and then planting a bomb is all too real. Who will our MPs and Fleet Street blame then?
Jonathan Rush, Editor
