The Clipboard: Civil liberties are not luxuries

From an article¹:

Now, the government is proposing to suspend the rule of law in Britain. Throughout the 30 years war against the IRA, Britain only resorted to detention without trial once: in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. It was a disaster. The more terrorists can provoke a democratic government into taking extra-democratic actions, the more they can claim to be morally justified in their own barbarity.

The Prime Minister insists al-Qaeda is a more formidable enemy than the IRA because suicide bombers are willing to die and are prepared to kill innocent people without limit. But all soldiers are prepared to die for their cause - remember Bobby Sands and the IRA hunger strikers? Manchester, Birmingham and London were devastated by a terrorist organisation quite prepared to murder innocent civilians. If the IRA could have got their hands on a "dirty" bomb, or anthrax, who is to say they wouldn't have used it? They almost killed Margaret Thatcher in Brighton in 1984, but she didn't call for the detention of terrorists without trial...

..."Just trust us", say Labour. Well, trust is a perishable commodity and after Iraq, it's looking pretty squishy. The fact remains that Charles Clarke, or rather his predecessor, did imprison innocent people in Belmarsh prison - why else are they now to be released after three years? If they were such a threat to public safety, they should surely remain under lock and key? This was a prima facia miscarriage of justice, perpetrated by a Labour government, yet the policy is to be extended.

It is not acceptable to detain people on the say so of agencies whose intelligence is so unreliable that we went to war in Iraq on a false prospectus. In the Belmarsh case, the spooks were clearly wrong - just as they were wrong on WMD in Iraq - and innocent men were imprisoned. It took an unprecedented revolt by law lords for justice to be done.

Putting more Muslims under house arrest will only hand a propaganda victory to the enemy. We can't rely on the good will of politicians - especially before elections. British law is too important to be left to the police or home secretaries. (link)

Who will stop this train wreck before it happens?

---

Complete text of the article, Civil liberties are not luxuries, by Iain Macwhirter

So, he finally said it: "In my judgement," said Tony Blair at Prime Minister's questions last week, "considerations of national security have to come before civil liberties, no matter how important those civil liberties are." It's official: protection of the state is now more important than the freedom of the individual.
In one breathtaking rhetorical flourish, the Labour leader challenged one of the fundamental principles of British law. Namely, that every individual detained by the police, has a right to be charged with an offence and given a fair trial. Make no mistake: if Mr Blair's bill is passed this week, it will be possible for the home secretary to order that terrorist suspects are denied liberty indefinitely, without due process.

Of course, many people will applaud the Prime Minister for his bluntness. There was no spin here, or weasel words. Many will also cheer his challenge to the awkward squad of civil libertarians who, it is claimed, are more interested in abstract doctrines than with the practicalities of fighting a war. However, we are entering dangerous constitutional territory here, without a map and with only a head-strong Prime Minister's assurances that the powers now arrogated to the state are only temporary and will not harden into legal precedent.

We have no written constitution in this country, no codification of basic freedoms. Nor can we look to international law to defend liberty. The government has made clear that it is prepared to derogate, or opt out of the Human Rights Convention - which Britain helped to draft - and which affirms habeas corpus as an inalienable right.

But how can the state allow terrorists to plan bombings under our very noses, asks Mr Blair, simply because there isn't enough evidence to stand up in court? In the war against terror, there is a paramount need for speed. We are in imminent danger, the Prime Minister implies, of a Madrid-style terrorist outrage in the run-up to the general election. The lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands, are more important than civil liberties of terrorist suspects.

Well, Mr Blair, millions of people died in a world war to defend these liberties. I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister is a tyrant, but repressive regimes always cite national security as justification for eclipsing freedom. That's what they said in Nazi Germany, South Africa, Chile. Civil liberties are not optional extras - luxuries, as the Prime Minister suggests, which cannot be afforded at times like this. They are what democracy is all about.

As the Tory leader Michael Howard said at Prime Minister's questions, there are ways of protecting the lives of British citizens without undermining the British way of life. There is no reason why existing anti-terror legislation could not be adapted to the new situation without granting to the home secretary the right effectively to imprison people indefinitely without trial. Under existing law, terrorist suspects can be detained for 14 days. Once charged, they can then be kept under house arrest - it is called bail.

The Prime Minister may not be particularly concerned about what the rest of the world thinks of him, but Britain and America are very much in the dock of international opinion right now. Last week brought further accounts of torture in Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and Bagram in Afghanistan. British soldiers have been court-martialled for abusing prisoners in Basra. It emerged that the government's legal advice on the eve of the Iraq war may initially have agreed with the UN chief, Kofi Annan, that it was unlawful without a second UN resolution. The deputy legal adviser at the foreign office at the time, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, resigned because she regarded the war as illegal and amounting to a "crime of aggression".

Now, the government is proposing to suspend the rule of law in Britain. Throughout the 30 years war against the IRA, Britain only resorted to detention without trial once: in the early 1970s in Northern Ireland. It was a disaster. The more terrorists can provoke a democratic government into taking extra-democratic actions, the more they can claim to be morally justified in their own barbarity.

The Prime Minister insists al-Qaeda is a more formidable enemy than the IRA because suicide bombers are willing to die and are prepared to kill innocent people without limit. But all soldiers are prepared to die for their cause - remember Bobby Sands and the IRA hunger strikers? Manchester, Birmingham and London were devastated by a terrorist organisation quite prepared to murder innocent civilians. If the IRA could have got their hands on a "dirty" bomb, or anthrax, who is to say they wouldn't have used it? They almost killed Margaret Thatcher in Brighton in 1984, but she didn't call for the detention of terrorists without trial.

And in parliament this week, the Conservatives have emerged as the defenders of civil liberty. It is a bizarre reversal of roles, for one of the most right-wing former home secretaries, Michael Howard, to be defending the rights of suspected terrorists, but make no mistake - that is what he has done. The Conservatives have taken a principled stand on this issue, one which gives them no obvious benefit in the opinion polls, and they should be congratulated for doing so.

A number of Labourites are privately rather gleeful that the Tories have found themselves on the side of civil libertarians on this issue. Defending abstract civil rights doesn't win a lot of votes; being tough on terror and tough on lefty lawyers does. What a wheeze to have manoeuvred Howard into sounding like, well, a Labour MP from the 1970s attacking state repression.

A Labour MP like, well, Patricia Hewitt - former chair of the National Council for Civil Liberties and now industry minister, or ex-Marxists like the home secretary, Charles Clarke. Labour tap their noses and say, "Look, don't worry. With these people round the Cabinet table, no-one is going to be introducing a police state in Labour Britain". Charles Clarke, it is implied, is just doing this for effect, and will this week make major concessions at third reading, which will place the judiciary firmly back in the driving seat.

The government has already promised that individuals so detained, or placed under house arrest, will have their cases reviewed by a judge within seven days. The judge may be involved earlier - but this is no substitute for due process.

"Just trust us", say Labour. Well, trust is a perishable commodity and after Iraq, it's looking pretty squishy. The fact remains that Charles Clarke, or rather his predecessor, did imprison innocent people in Belmarsh prison - why else are they now to be released after three years? If they were such a threat to public safety, they should surely remain under lock and key? This was a prima facia miscarriage of justice, perpetrated by a Labour government, yet the policy is to be extended.

It is not acceptable to detain people on the say so of agencies whose intelligence is so unreliable that we went to war in Iraq on a false prospectus. In the Belmarsh case, the spooks were clearly wrong - just as they were wrong on WMD in Iraq - and innocent men were imprisoned. It took an unprecedented revolt by law lords for justice to be done.

Putting more Muslims under house arrest will only hand a propaganda victory to the enemy. We can't rely on the good will of politicians - especially before elections. British law is too important to be left to the police or home secretaries.

reference=http://www.sundayherald.com/48034