Above, the House of Lords during debate.
Last week a British government proposal to lengthen the time a suspected terrorist can be detained without charge was defeated. This is the most recent of several steps suggesting a significant reordering of how best to confront the threat of terrorism. Does the British trend have implications for future US policy?
"On October 13th the second chamber voted by 309 votes to 118 to keep the period for which a terrorist suspect can be detained without charge at 28 days. The government’s counter-terrorism bill, which sought to raise the limit to 42 days, had squeaked through the House of Commons in June. But the unelected Lords, jealous of their independence and the nation’s liberties, were always likely to vote it down," according to The Economist.
Since September 11, 2001 four terrorist attacks - most dramatically the July 7, 2005 London bombings - have been executed in the United Kingdom. Several other planned attacks have been prevented, aborted, or failed. Between 1971 and 2001 the Irish Republican Army carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Britain.
Despite these long-time and more recent experiences of terrorism, Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General from 2001-2007, wrote of the cabinet's bill, "I regard it as not only unnecessary but also counterproductive; and we should fight to protect the liberties the terrorists would take from us, not destroy them ourselves. This proposal is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice."
Last week also saw the British Home Secretary withdraw a proposal that would have allowed police to monitor and collect internet-based communications. Commenting in the reliably conservative Daily Telegraph Alasdair Palmer wrote, "I am not one of those who believes that state officials are inherently evil and so bound to misuse any additional power we give them in order to destroy our freedom and our privacy. And yet: the cumulative extension of state power over the past decade is deeply worrying, even granting that each expansion has been justified. "Mission creep" is inherent in additional state surveillance or arrest powers. They nearly always end up being used for purposes very different to those for which they were granted. As we all now know, local government officials have used powers that were supposed to be used only against suspected terrorists, to spy on ordinary folk whom they suspect of such crimes as not recycling their rubbish correctly or making too much noise."
A former head of MI5, the UK's security service, goes even further. In an interview published Saturday in The Guardian, Stella Rimington calls the response to 9/11 "a huge over-reaction." She says we should "treat terrorism as a crime, and deal with it under the law - not as something extra, that you have to invent new rules to deal with." The Guardian reports Remington hopes the new US President will stop using the phrase "war on terror."
Four years ago Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry made similar comments. They were not well received by the American electorate.
A RAND study completed in the first half of 2008 found, "By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended..." Many saw the influence of this study on the new National Defense Strategy (pdf) released in June. (See prior attention by Monday (P)review.)
The 2008 US election has not given significant or sustained attention to the issue of terrorism. The lack of discussion during the campaign increases the flexibility of the new administration in choosing its policy approach.
"On October 13th the second chamber voted by 309 votes to 118 to keep the period for which a terrorist suspect can be detained without charge at 28 days. The government’s counter-terrorism bill, which sought to raise the limit to 42 days, had squeaked through the House of Commons in June. But the unelected Lords, jealous of their independence and the nation’s liberties, were always likely to vote it down," according to The Economist.
Since September 11, 2001 four terrorist attacks - most dramatically the July 7, 2005 London bombings - have been executed in the United Kingdom. Several other planned attacks have been prevented, aborted, or failed. Between 1971 and 2001 the Irish Republican Army carried out dozens of deadly attacks in Britain.
Despite these long-time and more recent experiences of terrorism, Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General from 2001-2007, wrote of the cabinet's bill, "I regard it as not only unnecessary but also counterproductive; and we should fight to protect the liberties the terrorists would take from us, not destroy them ourselves. This proposal is wrong in principle and dangerous in practice."
Last week also saw the British Home Secretary withdraw a proposal that would have allowed police to monitor and collect internet-based communications. Commenting in the reliably conservative Daily Telegraph Alasdair Palmer wrote, "I am not one of those who believes that state officials are inherently evil and so bound to misuse any additional power we give them in order to destroy our freedom and our privacy. And yet: the cumulative extension of state power over the past decade is deeply worrying, even granting that each expansion has been justified. "Mission creep" is inherent in additional state surveillance or arrest powers. They nearly always end up being used for purposes very different to those for which they were granted. As we all now know, local government officials have used powers that were supposed to be used only against suspected terrorists, to spy on ordinary folk whom they suspect of such crimes as not recycling their rubbish correctly or making too much noise."
A former head of MI5, the UK's security service, goes even further. In an interview published Saturday in The Guardian, Stella Rimington calls the response to 9/11 "a huge over-reaction." She says we should "treat terrorism as a crime, and deal with it under the law - not as something extra, that you have to invent new rules to deal with." The Guardian reports Remington hopes the new US President will stop using the phrase "war on terror."
Four years ago Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry made similar comments. They were not well received by the American electorate.
A RAND study completed in the first half of 2008 found, "By analyzing a comprehensive roster of terrorist groups that existed worldwide between 1968 and 2006, the authors found that most groups ended because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they negotiated a settlement with their governments. Military force was rarely the primary reason a terrorist group ended..." Many saw the influence of this study on the new National Defense Strategy (pdf) released in June. (See prior attention by Monday (P)review.)
The 2008 US election has not given significant or sustained attention to the issue of terrorism. The lack of discussion during the campaign increases the flexibility of the new administration in choosing its policy approach.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment