Sir, The progress of the Terrorism Bill has quite rightly prompted substantial debate, inside and outside Parliament (letter, November 4). However, at times it appears that the strong arguments that support these proposals have been drowned out, summarily dismissed by some and caught up in the cut and thrust of politics.

The fact is that the Government sought the views of the leaders of the police service on what legislative change was needed to combat the new reality of the terrorist threat. We have given that professional advice on one basis only, that these were the changes that professionals directly involved in the fight against terrorism felt were necessary to protect the people of this country from attack.

The investigative difficulties of dealing with this threat, the operational need to take executive action to counter risk earlier and the frightening implications of getting it wrong mean that changes are needed. That is the view not only of the Metropolitan Police, but of chief constables across the country and the terrorism committee that represents them.

Unfortunately, the proposal to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention to three months has attracted unhelpful and unfair comparisons with internment, which it is not.

I have been involved in cases where we have sought warrants of further detention under the current legislation and can assure you that the judicial scrutiny of police action is intense, intrusive and effective. It is no rubber stamp of police decisions, and no regular judicial scrutiny of those rare cases when detention of up to 90 days is sought would be either.

Likewise, the proposals to combat the glorification of terrorism are not only needed to counter indirect incitement, but are also subject to safeguards to ensure that they could not be abused in the way that some semi-academic arguments have suggested.

The police service has discharged its duty to provide professional advice to the Government on what is needed to deal with a very different and serious threat to our country.

Scrutiny of these proposals is obviously right and welcomed. However, it is vital that the professional view of those charged with fighting terrorism is carefully considered in the time left to us.


MICHAEL J. TODD
Member of the Association of Chief Police Officers Terrorism Committee
Manchester



Sir, Dean Godson (November 3; letters, November 4) asks whether we should trust the judgment of the Metropolitan Police and similar bodies on the subject of national security, or that of groups such as Liberty. He thinks the answer is a “no-brainer”, and so do I. But while he thinks we should trust the police and the security services, I would trust Liberty.

The police will almost always opt for more power rather than less. The proposal of up to 90 days of detention would be more likely to decrease national security by breeding terrorists where there were none among those detained and in the communities from which they came.

Allowing up to 90 days’ detention would be the first step on a slippery slope that, in the US, has led to Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and, it now appears, CIA detention camps in Eastern Europe. All these are developments that make me ashamed of my country.

Britons should be vigilant to avoid a similar result.



ANTHONY RALSTON
Professor Emeritus of Computer Science and Mathematics
State University of New York at Buffalo

Explore Letters

• Feedback