>Yes, we don't know exactly why they were >detained, but there is a point where they >deserve some civil rights. After all, in America >one is innocent until proven guilty.
>
> What do you think?


The detention of "suspects" seems to be a general knee-jerk response to any form of calamity for which there is no obvious line of investigation - I myself have been taken to a police station and questioned about an assault that had taken place one evening because I have a shaven (bald, but the police can' tell the difference) head and was running along the street. The fact that I was running after a bus after just finishing a shift at the pub was totally immaterial to the officers at the station - they refused to take the number of the pub (where they could have got hold of the manager), and repeatedly accused me of attacking a young couple with a knife. They finally let me go when it was blatantly obvious that they would have to actually go out and do some proper investigation, or try and find someone that they could more reasonably fit up for it.

I didn't leave until I had complained *at extreme length* about my treatment, but I got the feeling that they've heard it all before and don't particularily care.

Now, I'm not trying to say that I've been through the same sort of dentention as some innocents, and possibly some guilty, have been through in the past year, but it seems that a great deal of faith is put in simply casting a very wide net after an event and seeing what you can drag in and force a confession out of. It may well catch criminals, but it also puts a lot of unnecessary stress on those who find themselves getting verbally pummelled for simply telling the truth.

In this context, "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't seem to get paid even lip service. Something along the lines of "Liars until you can squeeze a confession from them" might be more suitable.

The mass detention of suspects requires a more open system to ensure that the rights of the detainees are upheld. However, making all of the details public would be time consuming and the resultant forum for debate would be swamped to the point of chaos. An independent regulator, not answerable to the agency carrying out the investigation, possibly comprising of a number of representatives from various humanitarian and peacekeeping organisations should monitor the treatment and questioning of detainees: their appraisal of the system should then be made public *and* should be employed to improve the system itself, so that each detainee can be processed (an ugly word when dealing with people, I know) ASAP and sent home to their family.

I suppose that there is an argument saying that some terrorists might slip through the system if you don't keep them long enough, but that's why you have an investigation running parallel to the detention rather than relying on it alone.

And in the end, what would you rather have - a simpler, less harsh system of detention that *might* put a terrorist back on the streets, or a populace who no longer trust the police?

Bourne