In the wake of the successful operation against an alleged plot to blow up aircraft, Tony and friends are having another crack at removing little things like habeus corpus, 90 days without trial is back on the agenda. 90 days is six month prison sentence (with time off for good behaviour). Without trial.
Surely if there is enough evidence to keep someone for 28 days, there is enough evidence to make some charge stick whilst more serious allegations are investigated?
A spokesman for Mr Reid said the Home Secretary had been "entirely focused on the current operation" and had "given no thought to what needs to happen in the future".
However, a source close to him confirmed that he, Mr Blair and Mr Brown were "as one" on the issue and claimed that Labour could score a victory over the Tories, who last year voted against the 90-day limit.
Oh, that's why. Party politics, how wonderful. The rights of a British citizen, that silly little habeas corpus thing that is the basis of all of our other freedoms, the essential liberty that no one can just lock us up because they don't like the look of us...
"Going back only a few years ago, police had just two or three days to release or charge suspects and that figure has repeatedly been increased by Parliament with little opposition.
"The danger is that by increasing it steadily, you get up to 90 days and then people will start saying 90 days isn't enough."
In the same article Liberty is quoted to have said:
"The doubling of the detention limit - from 14 days to 28 - only took effect last month. We should be observing how satisfactory that is before rushing off and demanding a higher limit."
See also: Tim Worstall's post on the issue
In the meantime, it's possible that John Reid, by making sweeping public statements, may have prejudiced a future trial.
The Home Secretary was accused of prejudicing a future trial after he had claimed that the police had caught the "main players" in a plot to blow up airliners leaving British airports.
The Attorney General has privately told ministers and the police that they must be careful not to prejudice a future trial by making sweeping public statements. Lord Goldsmith fears defence lawyers for the suspects could contend that their clients will not get a fair hearing in court if it is implied that they are guilty before any trial.
To my mind, there should be a ban on reporting the details on any accused prior to a trial, in order to avoid prejudicing that trial. If the person is guilty, we don't want them to get off due to this reporting, and if they're innocent then they need to return to everyday life.
I thought they'd use this to first push ID cards again. One might wonder if they already know that they don't have any evidence against one of those arrested, and have worked this out as a way to save face in 25 days time...
One might wonder, but that would be rather cynical. Surely.