BBC source
MPs are to debate the government's controversial proposals to detain terror suspects for up to 42 days without charge.
The Home Secretary Jacqui Smith says she is confident the government will succeed in getting its plans through.
But there is opposition from the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and a
number of Labour backbenchers, who say the proposals are unnecessary.
The current laws allow suspects to be detained for 28 days.
Ms Smith has said that the 42-day detention would only be used temporarily and in exceptional circumstances.
MPs would also get to debate the extension within 30 days of it being triggered.
But according to BBC Political Correspondent Reeta Chakrabarti,
that timescale could mean MPs are debating a case after a 42-day time
period had lapsed.
The plans to extend the limit could also face an Equality and Human Rights Commission court challenge.
The commission says the proposed law Counter Terror Bill could
contravene race equality legislation, as it is being established to
deal with a particular religious and racial minority.
UK's
Fascist New Labour government is attempting to introduce legislation
that would allow it to prevent juries at inquests or even to impose its
own favoured coroner. There is absolutely no reason to do this other
than to make it easier for them to get away with murder.
Outstanding inquests include Dr. David Kelly, Jean Charles de Menezes and the victims of 7 July 2005 London PSYOPS event. Azelle Rodney's inquest revealed Fascist RIPA bullshit.New Labour are Fascist scum A
little-noticed clause in the Counter Terrorism Bill would also enable
the home secretary to change the coroner if deemed to be in the
national interest.
Ministers insist the vast majority of inquests will still stay public.
But the Joint Committee on Human Rights warned the measures could affect cases like that of Jean Charles de Menezes.
The Brazilian electrician was shot dead in 2005 by police who mistook him for a terrorist after the London bombings.
'Late' entry
The
government plans are intended to avoid the risk of sensitive
information - such as details of phone-taps or surveillance operations
- being revealed to jurors and other members of the public.
But
it is not explicitly restricted to terrorism cases and could in theory
be applied to cases of deaths where no such link is suspected. BBC sourceWhile I have some research to complete and write up, the truth will be told.
| 
