Gavin, 11 March 05
Two years ago, before the invasion of Iraq, it was fairly clear that Iraq had no attack capabilities using stockpiles of non-conventional weapons. The chemical and biological agents that our governments had sold to Iraq in the 1980s had perished or been destroyed over the preceeding years.
The conclusion that the intelligence services had reached included a suspicion that it was possible that some chemical agents remained and could possibly be used as battlefield munitions – if Iraq was attacked.
This ‘reasonable suspicion’ was presented by the government as evidence ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that WMD existed and posed an immediate threat. It was used to justify an invasion that has cost countless thousand lives, so that the world’s second largest oil reserves could be secured.
Two years on and again the government is seeking to use evidence from the security services, this time to detain British citizens without charge or trial.
Now though they have no intention of manufacturing the pretence of evidence beyond reasonable doubt – not even compelling evidence needs be provided.
The balance of the burden has moved so much that even if suspects are most probably innocent they can still be locked up. Not even on a balanace of probabilities -no, now a level of reasonable suspicion is to be the determining factor. When the burden gets to much – the answer it would seem is to weaken the strength of evidence required.
Alistair Campbell will not be re-employed to manufacture dossiers detailing the guilt of accused detainees as no evidence will need to be presented to the country, the courts or even the detainees themselves.
When Tony Blair apologised for the detention of the Guilford four, he acknowledged that even in trials where guilt had to be demonstrated ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’, with evidence in open court, appealed several times – it was still possible for the state to incarcerate the innocent. For families lives to be destroyed by evidence manufactured by the authorities.
The use of secret evidence and removing any real burden of proof – accepting only ‘reasonable suspicion’ make future human rights abuses devastating more innocent parties all the more certain.
Only in a kafkaesque abberation could considering locking people up indefinitely without trial, because of a suspicion of what they might have planned to do be put forward as a measure to defend freedom.
