And throw away the key?

The Home Secretary says she doesn't know how long (-perhaps they're waiting to see what they can get away with?), but the Government wants to lengthen the time accused may be held without trial. And with the support of Sir Ian Blair.....

If the police and security services really feel that counter terrorism requires us to adopt the longest remand period in the civilised world, something for which they have as yet offered no evidence, there must surely be other facilities to help them that would not erode our historical freedoms so savagely.

At last they seem to be countenancing allowing questioning after charge, something they have consistently rejected. The objection is made that the accused may simply refuse to answer. But this is true before charge, and any refusal is noted and may be mentioned in court, I believe. And there will be more scope for the "prisoner's dilemma" ( - "Shall I spill the beans and get a lighter sentence, before the others drop me in it first?")

There is also the admissibility of intercept evidence. The security services have always claimed that if they used "phone-tap" evidence somehow their job would become harder. Do they really want us to believe that terrorists are stupid, don't realise that their telephone conversations are being listened to and would alter their behaviour accordingly?

The argument is that terrorism is increasingly a global matter with greater complexity, and that enquiries take longer. If so, electronic communications with other cooperative governments should be able to cope. The complexity should make international cooperation more motivated.

Two final points are of concern.
1) There already exists provision for an extension of 30 days, in situations of national emergency - hedged about with protections and qualifications. We are being told that since 28 days of detention without trial so far has been sufficient, and that extension is for exceptional cases only. Does this extra 30 days not offer what is wanted for exceptional cases?

2) There is incremental creep in all this. Originally the maximum detention was 7 days, then 14, and then 28. Now were talking about 56 days. If this is granted, who would bet against the demand soon for something like the 90 days sought by President Blair?