Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Ian Blair goes Sci-Fi, reveals 50-day Determinism

I'm probably wrong about this, but the simplified logic of Ian Blair's argument for more detention time makes it difficult to discuss details. He say: More people wanting to be terrorists means more need to extend the 28-day limit.

Isn't this a parallel-vs-serial thing*? Originally, the extension was put forward because yadda-something-about-hard-drives-yadda. More time was needed because the case of an individual required it. Yet here the argument seems to be that we need more time because there are more cases abound (probably in the lead up to Halloween when witches and terrorists are abroad).

To me, that's a bit like saying there are more motorists on the road, so individual car drivers need more time at the petrol pump**. Surely what's needed is more petrol pumps, not more time.

Maybe there's an argument to be made in terms of resources - more cases to investigate (after detention) means less resources, spread more thinly, so more time is needed per individual? But then surely you just need more pumps resources? And besides, more people, being held for more time drastically increases the resources and overheads you need to cover.

Where are the fora for debate over this? I'm getting tired of poor logic and insubstantial argument being used to back-up what are effectively rhetoric- and emotion-based policy. Strip away the "veneer" and the argument is this: if you don't want to be blown up, let us detain you all for 3 months. As it is, Blair's explanation for increasing detention time is based on fear and rumour, and leaves "inevitability" as the only reason for doing anything.

* Sidenote: Heh, a "parallel killer" would be an interesting news story.
** Wow, I pulled that analogy out of my arse... Must be a Tuesday.

No comments: