David Davis stands down over 42-day detention

[Laivasse]

For anyone who knows what this is about, you have to have some kind of view on it. For those who don't, it's actually slightly more interesting that the dry-ass thread title and huge-ass block of text makes it seem. The bit in italics is the bit you can feel free to skip if you already know who the hell David Davis is and you are familiar with the 42-day detention issue.

NEWS PIECE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/13/daviddavis.terrorism
FULL TEXT OF HIS SPEECH: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7450899.stm

BIT OF BACKGROUND - The BBC have a basic FAQ on the issue but here's a bit more background for Americans and other aliens (Good Omens joke, no offense), or for those otherwise uninformed:

David Davis is a Member of Parliament for the Conservative party (main opposition party in the UK), and until just the other day he was Shadow Home Secretary. This means that if the Conservative party were voted into power at the next general election (and opinion polls are looking favourable for them) Davis would become the top man who deals with matters of domestic security, law and order, stuff like that. He is not to be confused with the leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, who is a bland slick cyberclone of former PM Tony Blair, although David Davis has twice campaigned to be leader of the Conservatives (failing both times).

Davis yesterday resigned his seat as an MP and member of the Shadow Cabinet, to protest a parliamentary motion which extends the period of time that terror suspects can be detained (without charge) from 28 days to 42 days. The whole concept of detention without trial is a highly controversial one, since it appears to undermine one of the few written constitutional values we have. The government only managed to pass the old 28 day period into law fairly recently, after bargaining down from 90 days, which is the period they really wanted (and still want) to be able to hold people for without having to charge them.

It boggles my mind to think that in the UK you could be arrested and held in custody for over a month without the authorities having to prove you've done anything wrong. Perhaps I shouldn't find that surprising in a country where transparency and accountability are such defunct concepts that the police can blow a man's head off, lie through their teeth about it, destroy evidence, get found out, and then face no recrimination...

Anyway, Davis' move will force a local election in the area he represents. At that time he will run there as a candidate once more, not representing the Conservative manifesto in general but solely off the back of his opposition to this 42 day rule. Such a resignation is a very unusual move in British politics and apparently only has 2 historical precedents.

The Liberal Democrats have said they won't field a candidate in the upcoming by-election, since they they support Davis' stance. Labour most likely won't field a candidate either, since they are trying to play this down as a crazy publicity stunt. The Conservatives have said they support his move as a personal decision, but Cameron has to be pissed off that Davis has done something so unorthodox when their party are flying high in the polls and need to present a united front. Davis will surely win back the seat he just resigned, but I guess the idea is that he's winning it back in a new capacity (he won't be Shadow Home Secretary any more, for instance). And, in theory, he'll have shown the government that they can't use the Parliament Act to shoehorn this law through the House of Lords.

No one really knows what to make of it. Personally I've always kind of liked Davis, who is rare as a transparent, earnest figure in a party full of slimy unknown quantities. As such, I'm inclined to view his decision as a sincere attempt to prevent civil rights issues being steamrolled by this despicable government, by a man who feels passionately about those issues. Unfortunately his resignation speech shows that he's probably not sufficiently eloquent or charismatic to convince many other people of that. Poll suggest that 70% of Brits support 42-day detention anyway, which should go to show how desperate this situation is.

Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty, whose opinion I deeply respect, apparently urged Davis not to do this, since she feels he could do more for the cause of civil liberties from the front benches of parliament. Personally, as someone who feels desperate about the state of the UK myself, I like to think that maybe Davis feels, like myself, that this issue transcends party politics. It's frankly sickening the way this law got through the House of Commons, what with suggestions that Gordon Brown used monetary incentives to get the 9 Northern Irish DUP party members to vote his way - in a bill that was passed by 9 votes. What a ****ing sham of democracy.

Anyone feel like voicing their view? Could this be the start of a reversal in fortunes for civil liberties, in what is an increasingly authoritarian society in the UK? Am I being naive and is Davis just pointlessly seeking attention? Is the detention law actually a good thing? Was it a mistake for me to not bother getting any sleep last night, resulting in this shoddy waffling OP? THESE THINGS AND MANY MORE WILL BE DISCOVERED BELOW

 

[Solaris]

It certainly was regrettable to see it get passed.

It's a good thing Davis is doing something about it I suppose, if good men do nothing, then they'll come for the trade unionists...

 

[PimpinPenguin]

I don't see how standing down helps. Seems to me it's a gimmick to gain attention. At least while he was an MP he had a say in the commons now he useless.
If your going to walk out when things don't go your way you don't deserve to be Shadow Home Cabinet.

I really sad on how they managed to break the constitution, to get this though . And the shocking discovery of the UK Top security documents found on a train show how incompetent this government is, and to allow them to create these measures which MI5 and MI6 don't even want. The fact that not even the US need this long why do we? At least this will never get though the House of Lords, to many people there are pissed of on labours attitude to security and the war. They will love to bring this down.

 

[Laivasse]

I don't see how standing down helps. Seems to me it's a gimmick to gain attention. At least while he was an MP he had a say in the commons now he useless.
If your going to walk out when things don't go your way you don't deserve to be Shadow Home Cabinet.

I really sad on how they managed to break the constitution, to get this though . And the shocking discovery of the UK Top security documents found on a train show how incompetent this government is, and to allow them to create these measures which MI5 and MI6 don't even want. The fact that not even the US need this long why do we? At least this will never get though the House of Lords, to many people there are pissed of on labours attitude to security and the war. They will love to bring this down.

It does seem like a move with a confused end goal. He has however mentioned fears that the government will use the Parliament Act to try and get this through the Lords if that House is too awkward, using widespread public support as their mandate. However loosely grounded in reality these fears may be, too much agonising may have caused Davis to inflate the probability of this to himself. A win on this issue could make it extra difficult for the government to do this, in any case..

Another possibility is that he feels so passionately on this issue that he doesn't want to be in a government (David Cameron's) which is likely to do a U-turn and support similar measures (since Cameron is such a damn chameloen). This is an outlandish theory, but since the move itself is outlandish...

Another is that he just wants to get publicity, but that doesn't really work if the most likely outcomes are that Davis ends up on the backbenches and out of the Shadow Cabinet, or worse, beaten in his home constituency by that shitbag MacKenzie.

As for the Lords, while I think they'll vehemently oppose it, the House of lords is much like its members - belligerent, loud and mostly toothless. No matter how dented stuff gets on the way through, most stuff gets through there eventually. After that it's just a matter of the government bringing the law into practice in a way that wriggles its way around the extra wording that the Lords have tacked on. Strange now how 'the unelected House', as people who like to slag off the House of Lords are wont to call it, has becomes the only one which is legislating in the interests of personal freedoms. In any case there are the abovementioned fears over the Parliament Act - although the govt technically shouldn't be able to use it to push through a reform which was not a manifesto commitment, their apparent public support and general '**** you, buddy, we're the ****in GOVERNMENT lol' attitude may see them try to do it anyway.

If the Tories (of all parties, what has happened to the world lol) were to publicly state that they would repeal laws like this once in power, my respect level for them would go from revulsion to guarded support. But it's the Tories I have to remind myself, they would happily increase it to a year given their history...
Anyway, it won't make it through the Lords

Far be it from me to link to material that makes the Tories look angelic, and I'm having trouble finding a major news source that explicitly states this, but sources suggest that the incumbent Shadow Home Secretary has said exactly that.

Either the party has seen the error of its past ways (unlikely), or Cameron has ended up in a bind that is very fortunate for people who want to see an aggressive Opposition championing civil liberties; he may have just ended up with a choice of only 2 Home Secretaries, both of whom are firmly committed to repealing something that Cameron doesn't want to (because it's popular, after all).

Actually thinking about it, THIS could be the whole reason Davis is doing this - to get the Tories to commit to a repeal on the issue.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Its good that he is standing for democracy and freedom. Because I am sure in two months mr brown and his incomptent cronies will try and put this up further.

I really sad on how they managed to break the constitution, to get this though . And the shocking discovery of the UK Top security documents found on a train show how incompetent this government is, and to allow them to create these measures which MI5 and MI6 don't even want. The fact that not even the US need this long why do we? At least this will never get though the House of Lords, to many people there are pissed of on labours attitude to security and the war. They will love to bring this down.

You realise that the human-rights-friendly america detains terrorist suspects indefinatly, without trial or any contact with the outside world? The US does not need this long because they simply keep them for as long as they want.

 

[Laivasse]

The USA most assuredly cannot behave this way with its own nationals though. At least that's what their law says.

 

[CptStern]

The USA most assuredly cannot behave this way with its own nationals though. At least that's what their law says.

yes in practicality ..in reality not so much

The Court in Rumsfeld v. Padilla overturned a lower court?s grant of habeas corpus to another U.S. citizen
in military custody in South Carolina on jurisdictional grounds. The decisions affirm
the President?s powers to detain ?enemy combatants,?including those who are U.S.
citizens, as part of the necessary force authorized by Congress after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. However the Court appears to have limited the scope
of individuals who may be treated as enemy combatants pursuant to that authority,
and clarified that such detainees have some due process rights under the U.S.
Constitution.

Padilla was tortured despite being american