Insights from a person of questionable sanity

Yeah, it's a bit scary what the government can do now. I haven't been happy for a long time, but the whole issue of detaining people indefinitely without charge really got me scared. What will it be next? And if the guy is a threat, as seems to be the case, then surely the MI5 agents who gave this 'secret' evidence are keeping a close watchful eye on him anyway, you'd have thought. Or perhaps they could charge him with a crime if there is evidence suggesting his possible guilt? How easily we are all scaremongered into giving up our rights, or accepting the sacrifice of the rights of others.

Opti, I think you're misreading the article. He wasn't locked up for crimes he might commit. His bail was revoked based on a threat that he may not show up in court:

The radical Islamist cleric Abu Qatada today had his bail revoked and was returned to indefinite detention in a maximum security prison, pending the outcome of a legal battle over his deportation to Jordan.

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission, in effect Britain's national security court, ruled that evidence from the security services heard in secret, had convinced them that there was now an increased risk that Qatada would try to abscond.

I don't know how it works in your country, but bail in the US is based on risk of criminal not showing up in court. If a crimial is a flight risk (based on many thngs I guess) he can be denied bail. That is not uncommon. And basically that's how I read this article.

As always thank you both for commenting.

Virgil, I guess we've interpreted things differently. Absconding bail is a crime - we agree on that right? A crime which he hasn't committed yet - we agree on that as well? Therefore - he is being locked for a crime he has not committed and may not even commit. That's how I read it.

Yes, and in order to need bail you should also have been charged with a criminal offence, but it this case, or at least as I read it, there is no mention of a criminal offence. If he has committed a crime then the normal rules apply and bail terms should be discussed in open court and be subject to public scrutiny, and not in secret. I have been very unhappy with the hysteria over terrorism, considering the measures which have been put in place in recent years one would think that terrorism was a new thing to UK. If this wasn't required in the days of the IRA, why is it needed now?

You're missing my point. He's only on bail because he's already committed a crime and the court assessed he's not a flight risk. However they have reassessed the flight risk issue and have deemed him to be a flight risk and so have revoked bail.. He already has committed the crime for which they are either allowing him or not allowing him to be released on bail. At least this is how it works in my country. I suspect it's the same for you.