When is a terror suspect not a terror suspect?
When the Home secretary decides that someone who has been held for 3 years is suddenly not a risk anymore.
Why? Because "weight of evidence at the current time did not justify his continued detention".
What? So it did yesterday? The day before? When was it justified?
OK, so one can feel sorry for the current holder of the post of Home Secretary, having taken over the mess left by "Mad Dog" David Blunkett. Maybe it did take this long to get around to reviewing the case of poor "Internee C". But what has this to say about the other people being held without charge?
How come, in a democracy, we have allowed ourselves to be scared into allowing this to happen in the first place?
Locking up dissenters in mental institutions is something reminiscent of the Stalinist era in the old Soviet Union. (If you are crazy enough to go against us, you must be insane, so we will treat you for mental illness).
As a defence, the UK government says that the evidence against these people is too sensitive to be brought out in court, so they have to bypass legal procedures. Would that be evidence from the intelligence community? Does the UK government think that any of us have any confidence in that kind of evidence any more (i.e WMD)?
Who is the next group of people the government would like to detain without charge or trial?
Your son? Your cousin? Immigrants? Peace activists? Homosexuals? Hunt supporters?
Remember, this practise did not work in Northern Ireland !!!!!