DETAINING TERRORIST SUSPECTS Democracy and judicial review:The main opposition to judicial review is that it is anti democratic-

• For the most part the article is against democracy-it suggests that democracy often steps on its own feet-“ liberal democracies adopt measures infringing human rights in ways that are wholly disproportionate to the crisis”- this suggests that democracy is not working as it should. The article backs this up by stating that terrible injustices have been perpetrated in the name of the security of thousands who have no effective recourse to the law”- Saying 2 things here- democracy states that suspects and criminals have the right to fair trial but they are not being given this- it is also suggesting that national decisions are being made on behalf of thousands of people, however this is not the case especially when one looks at the idea of judicial review where the judges are not elected. How is this democracy and how can they be the voice of the people?
• There is also a strong suggestion here that democracy does not work unless it sticks by the rules and ideology which created it in the first place. Democracy should be influenced politically and by nothing else. However this was not the case when America held Japanese Americans in custody during the second world war without evidence to cast doubt on their loyalty to their adopted nation. The Americans soon admitted that the detention of the Japanese Americans was driven by racial prejudice, war time hysteria. Again it shows that democracy has failed itself.
• Democracy has evidently has loopholes which the most democratic of nations exploit. They abuse these loopholes when it best suits them and their political popularity- the Japanese detainees in 1946 and those currently in guantanamo bay are 2 examples of this.
• All these strongly support the notion that democracy is being abused- therefore who needs it if it really is not there?

How can the situation be reformed?

• Depending on the severity of the suspected crime, suspects can be left with their liberty but can be left under close government inspection- i.e bail or house arrest or constant monitoring
• Possible formation of a more supreme body which oversees actions and decisions made by the government-this could have the ability to put the government right where it goes wrong in terms of subjects such as human rights and other breaches of convention which the government is prone to making.
• The formation of a body to represent the detainees as the currently have no voice-therefore they cannot be protected- they have no knowledge of what actions they can legally take and so do not exercise their rights.
• Making all nationalities involved EVEN In the end result. For example no British citizens in guantanamo bay will be executed. This brings a new dimension to the concept of “most favoured nation”. There is no democracy in that.
• The respective laws themselves should be reformed- i.e. courts in America have no jurisdiction to examine the legality of the detention of prisoners in Cuba. They have no means of knowing whether the actions being taken by the American government is legal.