Liberty v Security

[JohnFKennedy]

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, Tony Blair has announced new powers for the government in tackling terrorism. Is it more important that we breach civil liberties in an atttempt to maintain security or is it more important that we maintain civil liberties and the rule of law?

[Emsworth]

No.

The only circumstance that would warrant a suspension of some civil liberties, like habeas corpus, is actual invasion or rebellion.

[Giant Saguaro]

Here in the US? Depends on what we want to think of as civil liberties I guess. If it's racial profiling and such things as the FBI keeping an eye on eco terrorist groups, I have no trouble at all with that stuff. Clerics preaching jihad while terrorists are attacking the city, as with London, need to be cracked down on.

A nuclear attack or something similar would be the only think I could see resulting in a suspension of many consitutional rights until order could be established and the safety of people in hand.

[Richard]

Which civil liberties are thou speaking of?

[Ebowed]

No.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't really think that any civil liberties are being threatend; at least not for ordinary citizens.

[JohnFKennedy]

Which civil liberties are thou speaking of?

I was speaking in a very general sense but as I am approaching this from a  UK point-of-view I would say those laid down by the Human Rights Act 1998 with a specific focus on Articles 5,6 and 7:

Article 5
Right to liberty and security

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law:

(a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court;

(b) the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so;

(d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority;

(e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics or drug addicts or vagrants;

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

2. Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reasons for his arrest and of any charge against him.

3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1(c) of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.

4. Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.

5. Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.

Article 6
Right to a fair trial

1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:

(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;

(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;

(d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

(e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Article 7
No punishment without law

1. No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.

2. This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.


Here is a link to the full text of the Act.

[JohnFKennedy]

I don't really think that any civil liberties are being threatend; at least not for ordinary citizens.

Controversial Al, controversial. I can bring up a few examples if you wish.

Example 1: In summer 2003 at the ExCel exhibition centre in East London there was an arms fair which was marched upon by peaceful protesters. They were stopped and searched under Article 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a power meant only to be used if officers consider it "expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism." When the act was passed the Home Secretary said that it was only to be used in the case of a "high risk" terrorist attack.

Example 2: Huge abuse of non-UK nationals. I can cite you a specific example of a person here; Mahmoud abu Rideh, a Palestinian refugee and torture victim was detained indefinitely at Belmarsh before being moved to Broadmoor as a sufferer of severe post-traumatic stress. He was refused bail against the advice of doctors. He was never tried for his crimes and held for four years without charge or trial.

To speak generally, how about the erosion of the preferred truth in criminal cases. The gradual change within the criminal legal system away from a burden of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" towards the "balance of probabilities" of the civil courts. (Anti-social behaviour orders are especially guilty of this)

These issues for the most part aren't new in the UK either as well, they were similarly applicable with IRA terrorists where many people were unjustly imprisoned for crimes they did not commit.

You can say that all these things only apply to terrorists or suspected terrorists, but that is not how it works out as inevitably these legal changes seep into the criminal justice system. The right to silence was deprived in Northern Ireland in 1988 in order to deal with terrorists but it has since been extended to the criminal justice system by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

[Virginian87]

Let's just throw in a huge debate on the Patriot Act because you know that's where this is going.  In times of war it is necessary for the government to take certain precautions to keep our country secure from terrorist/enemy attacks and to prevent our enemies from receiving any crucial intelligence.  These measures have been taken in almost every war we've ever fought in (Remember the "Loose lips sink ships" posters of WWII?).  However, these measures may also be considered as extreme and unnecessary in some cases, such as the Japanese internment camps of WWII and Lincoln's suspension of some civil liberties during the War Between the States.

[MODU]

I'll take Security and Liberty (you can have both comfortably).  Temporary restrictions on Liberty is to be expected during wartime, so it's a non-issue. 

[The Duke]

Infringements on liberty are overstated these days.  I'd not at all mind a series of regulations that affect my daily life, and am disappointed that none have come.  Too much concern for liberties that aren't protected in the Constitution has crippled this country, and too much political correctness got a bunch of Britons killed.

These will not be the last deaths in this war that were preventable.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't really think that any civil liberties are being threatend; at least not for ordinary citizens.

They can now declare US citizens enemy combantants and detain them indefinitely.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Controversial Al, controversial.

But of course

I should have added "none of the new stuff threatens the civil liberties of ordinary citizens". Not as much as the terrorists do anyway.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Controversial Al, controversial.

But of course

I should have added "none of the new stuff threatens the civil liberties of ordinary citizens". Not as much as the terrorists do anyway.

Damn Reichstag burning terrorists. Oh, wait, wrong script.

[Hitchabrut]

Yes.

[Democratic Hawk]

Yes, for as long as there are those who violate liberties by taking them

Sh*t, if I'd noticed this one I wouldn't have set my security vs privacy poll away (but then privacy, I guess, isn't quite the same thing as liberty)

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Damn Reichstag burning terrorists. Oh, wait, wrong script.

Have you gone entirely insane?

[DanielX]

Damn Reichstag burning terrorists. Oh, wait, wrong script.

Have you gone entirely insane?

That question predisposes that he was sane in the first place...

[angus]

In the wake of the recent terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, Tony Blair has announced new powers for the government in tackling terrorism. Is it more important that we breach civil liberties in an atttempt to maintain security or is it more important that we maintain civil liberties and the rule of law?

an excellent question.  I have long argued herein that liberty and security are mutually orthogonal constructs.  Americans, for example prefer the liberty of maintaining private medical care, while spaniards, for example, are so addicted to the security of state-funded medical care that, according to one spaniard who lived next door to me for many years, people in Spain would riot in the streets at any hint of government removing this security.  Of course, along with the freedom to get rich comes the freedom to starve, or, as Port Arthur, Texas native and filthy whore Janis Joplin used to sing:  Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose.  Well, I digress, since you were speaking of national security rather than economic security.  But I contend that the mutual orthogonality constraint still hold.  For every bit of security you attain, you must surrendur a bit of liberty.  Well, you know how I feel, as I've posted it long enough.  Open borders means free trade means a better life for all.  No gun control.  Decriminalize drugs and prostitution.  And keep your filthy government hands off my private health insurance.  I'll take my chances in a free world. 

"Those who surrender liberty in the name of security deserve neither"
  ---Benjamin Franklin (on one of those rare occasions when he wasn't drunk and buried up to his cheeks in some French whore's twat.)

You said it, Ben!

[JohnFKennedy]

"Those who surrender liberty in the name of security deserve neither"
  ---Benjamin Franklin (on one of those rare occasions when he wasn't drunk and buried up to his cheeks in some French whore's twat.)

You said it, Ben!

I have a different version of that quote in my signature you may note . I would agree with you angus, been reading an interesting book which is very UK-centric but may be worth a read for you Americans. It is called Just Law, it is all about the erosion of civil liberties and the threat to things like trial by jury. A lot of it would not make sense without a bit of knowledge of the UK system but the general principles are highly insightful.

I think the government should generally stay out of people's lives but I still think there should be a safety net - this is of course a different type of security from that which my poll really addresses though, the economic security that you spoke of in your post.

[angus]

ha!  yes you do!  well, I never get direct quotes quite right exactly.

an interesting irony is that during the so-called Dark Ages on the European continent and in Great Britian, the arabs led the world in medicine and science and technology.  It's no coincidence that so many of our modern science words begin with the definite article al known to speakers of both surviving semitic languages, arabic and hebrew.  I.e., aldehyde, alcohol, algebra, alkaline, and acid (yes, that's the alluded form, written alif laam, but pronounced with a "silent" laam in both semitic languages).  But those white bastards, religiofascists you might say, just to bring a modern phrase full circle, came from England and what would later be Germany, with their crusades and warring in the name of some notion of a commanding god, martyrdom, and guaranteed entrance to paradise upon death.  So the great universities of Cairo, Baghdad, and Syria closed their doors.  Circled the wagons, as it were.  In a fit of paranoia brought on by visions of Security, the great arabic speaking scientists of the middle east were left in insular solitude.  And their science and technology and culture suffered for it. 

Kind of ironic now that the tables are turned.  That in the interest of national security and fear from religiofascism we european peoples are closing our borders and universities from the semitic peoples of the levant and the arabian peninsula.  You'd think such a stunning historical example would show us exactly what not to do, but paranoia is a stronger motivator than precedent, I suppose.

[JohnFKennedy]

ha!  yes you do!  well, I never get direct quotes quite right exactly.

an interesting irony is that during the so-called Dark Ages on the European continent and in Great Britian, the arabs led the world in medicine and science and technology.  It's no coincidence that so many of our modern science words begin with the definite article al known to speakers of both surviving semitic languages, arabic and hebrew.  I.e., aldehyde, alcohol, algebra, alkaline, and acid (yes, that's the alluded form, written alif laam, but pronounced with a "silent" laam in both semitic languages).  But those white bastards, religiofascists you might say, just to bring a modern phrase full circle, came from England and what would later be Germany, with their crusades and warring in the name of some notion of a commanding god, martyrdom, and guaranteed entrance to paradise upon death.  So the great universities of Cairo, Baghdad, and Syria closed their doors.  Circled the wagons, as it were.  In a fit of paranoia brought on by visions of Security, the great arabic speaking scientists of the middle east were left in insular solitude.  And their science and technology and culture suffered for it. 

Kind of ironic now that the tables are turned.  That in the interest of national security and fear from religiofascism we european peoples are closing our borders and universities from the semitic peoples of the levant and the arabian peninsula.  You'd think such a stunning historical example would show us exactly what not to do, but paranoia is a stronger motivator than precedent, I suppose.

I will admit there are parallels but I don't think that things could turn out the same way to be honest, I do not believe that history repeats itself .

[angus]

Neither do I.  But the irony is delicious isn't it?  Or at least the coincidence, I should say, since there are posters here who bristle at inexact use of the word irony.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Where exactly were all the "human rights" lawyers during the miners strike? Y'know when the Government was really threatening and taking away people's civil liberties, using violence as a form of "policing", spying on ordinary citizens for no good reason, filling the NUM with moles and spies from the top down and generally acting like a petty third world dictatorship?

</rant>

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh before anyone gets the wrong idea, I think the Human Rights act is good idea, I don't support the Government prying into every little detail of people's lives, I think that Dracula Howard's recent remarks are flat out insane... you get the idea.
I also think that *sometimes* the civil liberties of the nation as a whole need to be put before the civil liberties of certain individuals* and that a lot of the hand ringing about civil liberties from human rights groups is hypocritical and counterproductive; after all which is a greater infringement of civil liberties... being locked up in Belmarsh w/o trial etc. or being sent back to a country where you will also be locked up w/o trial etc. but will probably get treated inhumanly and tortured as well. I didn't especially *like* the former and I think it's worrying that things had come to that, but I cannot see how the latter is in any way better. And no, the Government cannot allow the people in question to walk around freely; to let them do so is ultimately an infringement of the civil liberties of everyone else.

*I use public transport a lot...