for those who are not afraid of the future : http://www.rael.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sacrificing our liberties won't win the war against terror
Use the justice system against terror suspects – don't corrupt it by criminalising us all, argues Dominic Raab.
Terrorists follow tried and tested tactics. In The Art of War, Sun Tzu counselled: "If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them." Russian revolutionary Sergei Nechayev – the first self-styled "terrorist" – wanted to provoke a state reaction "intensifying the evils and miseries of the people until… they are driven to a general uprising". Urban Marxist guerrilla Marighella vowed to give the state "no alternative except to intensify repression", while the IRA's Green Book pledged to make Northern Ireland "ungovernable except by colonial military rule". Al-Qaeda is following precedent.
The good news, according to Professor Audrey Cronin at the US National War College, is that terrorist campaigns always end. The only questions are when and how. The answers hinge on government policy. After the 2005 London bombings, Tony Blair proclaimed: "Let no one be in any doubt, the rules of the game are changing." Ministers proposed waves of authoritarian measures, including incursions on free speech, control orders, ID cards and extensions to detention without charge that one former chief constable labelled a "propaganda coup for Al-Qaeda". If Al-Qaeda was looking for a repressive reaction, they got it. But, was it effective?
According to MI5's Director General, the threat level rose despite these measures. In 2007, he estimated there were 4,000 terrorist suspects in Britain. By September 2010, the "overall threat" had not reduced, but rather diversified.
The previous governments made certain improvements: increasing counter-terrorism funding, regionalising MI5 and integrating intelligence and police. But they squandered political capital, legislative time and moral authority on the hubris of "sound bite" security. Ministers pawned off our freedoms, promising greater security. Yet the terrorist threat rose to an all-time high. The trade-off turns out to be a con.
We have an opportunity to change this flawed approach. Last week, the Prime Minister published the National Security Strategy, recognising terrorism as a "Tier 1" threat, but stated: "Above all, we act to maintain our way of life: to protect our people and freedoms we have built for ourselves …"
The forthcoming Home Office counter-terrorism review must deliver on that pledge. In a new report, "Fight Terror, Defend Freedom", I make the case for an overhaul in strategy based on three principles.
First, junking freedom for security is appeasement. It doesn't make us safer, and gives the terrorists what they want. ID cards could not stop terrorists and were vulnerable to fraud. The Government was right to scrap them. Random stop-and-searches rose to 250,000 per year, without leading to a single conviction between 2007 and 2009. That scatter-gun approach is intrusive, and wastes police resources. It should be scaled back.
At 28 days, we have the longest maximum period of detention without charge in the free world. Ministers claimed police investigations would be swamped without a further extension. Yet, just one person has been held longer than 14 days in more than four years, an isolated case of 19 days' detention. The limit should be reduced to 21 days (at most), and regularly reviewed.
Control orders put people, not convicted of any crime, under virtual house arrest based on scant evidence. Billed as a security backstop, they proved unreliable. By 2009, one in five "controlees" had absconded. Overall, their use has halved, leaving nine people on control orders today – a drop in the ocean, if there are 4,000 terrorist suspects roaming the UK. Labour ditched a fundamental principle of British justice for an expensive – but flimsy – security net with gaping holes in it. Control orders should be phased out in two years.
The second principle requires demarcating a clearer line between what a free society must tolerate, and what it should punish. We have to put up with – or rebut – views we find offensive, but not those instigating violence. In 2008, a
15- year-old boy was threatened with prosecution for calling Scientology a "cult", yet Abu Hamza was left free to preach violent extremism for years. We should protect free speech by repealing offences that stifle legitimate debate – like "glorification" of terrorism and religious hatred – but take a "zero-tolerance" approach to extremists inciting violence.
The third change involves the justice system. Labour regarded it as a millstone weighing down counter-terrorism policy. In reality, the justice system is a weapon – just woefully underused. The number of terrorist suspects charged has halved in three years, while convictions fell by two-thirds. The head of MI5 is right to warn that we cannot "abolish" risk. But we can sharpen our prosecutorial cutting edge to disrupt, diminish and deter terrorist networks. That includes lifting the ban on using intercept evidence in trials, strengthening plea bargaining and prosecuting to prevent – not just react to – terrorist activity. GCHQ (the intelligence listening agency) and the Home Office claim the administrative burden of using intercept evidence is too high. Yet, in 2008, they proposed an "Internet Modernisation Programme" to record every email sent, phone call made and website visited by every person in Britain. Those priorities are skewed. We should be using intercept to prosecute terrorists, not using Orwellian surveillance on every innocent citizen.
It is time to draw a line in the sand. Sacrificing British liberties will not protect us. It just plays into the hands of the terrorists. The justice system is not the problem. It is part of the solution. We can fight terror – and defend freedom.
Dominic Raab, MP for Esher
and Walton, published Fight
Terror, Defend Freedom with
Big Brother Watch, which campaigns on civil liberties.
www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk
capacity, the label "selected by RAEL" on some articles does not mean that I
agree with their content or support it. "Selected by RAEL" means that I believe
it is important for the people of this planet to know about what people think or
do, even when what they think or do is completely stupid and against our
philosophy. When I selected articles in the past about stupid Christian
fundamentalists in America praying for rain, I am sure no Rael-Science reader
was stupid enough to believe that I was supporting praying to change the
weather. So, when I select articles which are in favor of drugs, anti-semitic,
anti-Jewish, racist, revisionist, or inciting hatred against any group or
religion, or any other stupid article, it does not mean that I support them. It
just means that it is important for all human beings to know about them. Common
sense, which is usually very good among our readers, is good enough to
understand that. When, like in the recent articles on drug decriminalization, it
is necessary to make it clearer, I add a comment, which in this case was very
clear: I support decriminalizing all drugs, as it is stupid to throw depressed
and sad people (as only depressed and sad people use drugs) in prison and ruin
their life with a criminal record. That does not mean that there is any change
to the Message which says clearly that we must not use any drug except for
medical purposes. The same applies to the freedom of expression which must be
absolute. That does not mean again of course that I agree with anti-Jews,
antisemites, racists of any kind or anti-Raelians. But by knowing your enemies
or the enemies of your values, you are better equipped to fight them. With love
and respect of course, and with the wonderful sentence of the French philosopher
Voltaire in mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ethics" is simply a last-gasp attempt by deist conservatives and
orthodox dogmatics to keep humanity in ignorance and obscurantism,
through the well tried fermentation of fear, the fear of science and
new technologies.
There is nothing glorious about what our ancestors call history,
it is simply a succession of mistakes, intolerances and violations.
On the contrary, let us embrace Science and the new technologies
unfettered, for it is these which will liberate mankind from the
myth of god, and free us from our age old fears, from disease,
death and the sweat of labour.
Rael
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tell your friends who love scientific news that they can
subscribe to this list !!
They can do it by sending a blank email to:
rael-science-select-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
It's free !
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
rael-science-select-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------
To change your e-mail address, unsubscribe from the old address and subscribe from the new address (see above).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
0 comments:
Post a Comment