The Sketch: How's an honest terrorist to know what's going on?

One after the other, MPs stood up goggling at their individual and collective helplessness

Simon Carr
Wednesday 08 February 2012 01:00 GMT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

So many rights, so many courts, so many jurisdictions – they've built a system so complex an honest terrorist doesn't know whether he's coming or going. The MPs all agreed Abu Qatada is a "vicious terrorist" driven by "murderous hatred" but, other than David Winnick, no one asked the question: if he's so wicked, vile and guilty – why isn't he in court?

Hazel Blears popped up defending her contribution to anti-terrorism. I'd forgotten about her. She was responsible for the loathsome novelty of control orders. She told the Commons all those years ago that they weren't a punishment for wrongdoing but a way to prevent people doing wrong. Why aren't we all under control orders, in that case?

One after the other MPs stood up goggling at their individual and collective helplessness. The Home Secretary kept saying she was keen to reform. How she always wanted to prosecute. Why she was constantly seeking assurances from Jordan's government. It was all wish and whitewash.

Would they actually reform the Strasbourg court, Eleanor Laing asked? "Considerable effort" was being made. "The Prime Minister had given a speech." That always works.

When Bill Cash congratulated her on her "robust" attitude and asked her if she was going to repeal the Human Rights Act, she replied, "I said I thought it should be repealed, not that I was about to." I had a more robust custard for lunch.

If he does manage to organise some outrage over the Olympics, or for the Queen's jubilee – imagine the penalty the Government will pay. It might be worth it, for some. Dominic Grieve sat grieving at the grievous Euroscepticism behind him. But we can't resist extradition requests from the US or from the EU – and we can't deport hate-mongering criminals. Oh, the helplessness of our leaders when, as Julian Brazier said, we confuse the "the rule of law and the tyranny of lawyers".

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in