<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Don’t renew control orders, CAMPACC, JUSTICE and the Joint Committee on Human Rights tell MPs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-tell-mps/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-tell-mps/</link>
	<description>Investigative journalist, author, filmmaker and Guantanamo expert</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:12:41 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Counter-terrorism, Rights and the Rule of Law: How Far Have We Come Since Executive Detention? - Human Rights in Ireland</title>
		<link>http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-tell-mps/comment-page-1/#comment-84148</link>
		<dc:creator>Counter-terrorism, Rights and the Rule of Law: How Far Have We Come Since Executive Detention? - Human Rights in Ireland</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 08:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=7279#comment-84148</guid>
		<description>[...] In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the rapidly enacted Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act of 2001 (‘ATCSA’) implemented a policy of executive detention of non-UK nationals (s.23). Little over four years later the House of Lords handed down the oft-cited and widely commented upon judgment in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘A’) holding that the power was incompatible with the ECHR.  The judgment was seen by some as striking a first, and significant, blow against the Government’s counter-terrorism agenda and as sending a clear rights-enforcing message. Through the subsequent enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 the Government replaced executive detention with control orders (ss.1-9).  This regime remedied one source of criticism of executive detention by allowing individuals of any nationality to be detained.  However, whilst the new powers avoided the directly discriminatory nature of executive detention in so-doing they broadened the potential applicability of other of its rights-infringing characteristics, which were retained within the new regime.  Control order restrictions cause significant disruption to the individual controlee’s life with damaging long-term effects, as illustrated by Cerie Bullivant’s account of being subject to a control order.  As a result the control orders regime has been criticised by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty and other human rights organisations. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the rapidly enacted Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act of 2001 (‘ATCSA’) implemented a policy of executive detention of non-UK nationals (s.23). Little over four years later the House of Lords handed down the oft-cited and widely commented upon judgment in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department (‘A’) holding that the power was incompatible with the ECHR.  The judgment was seen by some as striking a first, and significant, blow against the Government’s counter-terrorism agenda and as sending a clear rights-enforcing message. Through the subsequent enactment of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 the Government replaced executive detention with control orders (ss.1-9).  This regime remedied one source of criticism of executive detention by allowing individuals of any nationality to be detained.  However, whilst the new powers avoided the directly discriminatory nature of executive detention in so-doing they broadened the potential applicability of other of its rights-infringing characteristics, which were retained within the new regime.  Control order restrictions cause significant disruption to the individual controlee’s life with damaging long-term effects, as illustrated by Cerie Bullivant’s account of being subject to a control order.  As a result the control orders regime has been criticised by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Liberty and other human rights organisations. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Craig Murray &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Control Orders</title>
		<link>http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-tell-mps/comment-page-1/#comment-73103</link>
		<dc:creator>Craig Murray &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Control Orders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 13:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/?p=7279#comment-73103</guid>
		<description>[...] here from the excellent Andy Worthington http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-...        20 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] here from the excellent Andy Worthington <a href="http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-.." rel="nofollow">http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/02/28/dont-renew-control-orders-campacc-justice-and-the-joint-..</a>.        20 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

