Fighting Terrorism

The headlines this week have been dominated by the passage through Parliament of the new anti-terror bill. The central debate has been between the government, which wishes to give the Home Office powers to detain suspected terrorists, and its opponents, who wish to see judges involved in the process to a greater extent than is proposed. This has been discussed in the broader context of an ethical question of “life versus liberty”; to what extent should we be prepared to give up our civil liberties to defend ourselves against terrorist attack? But, as is so often the case, the political debate has served as a grand and elaborate distraction from the real issues relating to the fight against terrorism.

The government has tried to create an inextricable link in the public mind between preventing terrorist attack and approving the bill. Frequently ministers avoid defending the actual substance of the bill, instead repeating that a terrorist threat exists. This creates a simple equation in the debate; if you accept that there is a terrorist threat then you must support the government. It then follows that any opponents of the bill must reside in a dangerous liberal fantasyland where civil liberties are more important than civilian lives and the reality of the threat facing us is not properly acknowledged or understood. It’s an elaborate spin the Bush maxim “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” and its cynicism is positively chilling. But, as any good propagandist knows, emotionally potent oversimplifications are very effective tools for keeping the rabble in line.

We are therefore treated to meaningless platitudes like “extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures” and, much more seriously, some truly fantastic exaggerations. The Home Secretary Charles Clarke repeatedly warns that terrorists wish to "destroy the fundamental nature of our society ... freedom of expression and democracy, the rule of law, religious tolerance, the rights of women". Plainly the threat of a massive terrorist attack is quite real. But the prospect of Osama bin Laden conquering the UK, with legions of al-Qaeda overwhelming our armed forces, occupying our country and imposing a taliban-style government is, frankly, somewhat less plausible. The terror threat is extremely serious, with the real potential for catastrophe. But, unlike in the Second World War, the life of the nation itself is clearly not endangered. The only threat posed to Britain’s essential nature is that of politicians invoking the spectre of terrorism as a pretext to undermine democracy and the impartial rule of law.

Few would argue that the security services should not be able to detain someone suspected of planning atrocities in order to prevent such crimes from being commited. Its simply that there is no adequate reason why a judge cannot do this instead of the Home Secretary. A decision has to be made in either case. There is no good reason why that decision should not be made by an independent judge applying a properly rigourous process in every case.

This is essential to ensure that the new legal frameworks aren’t open to abuse by government. There is a very good reason for separating powers in a democracy. A tyrannical or over-powerful government is one where power is concentrated in the hands of an individual or a political faction, which may then abuse that power for its own ends. Free and popular government is therefore best defended by dividing powers among separate and relatively independent institutions to make it difficult for one person or faction to gain control of all of them at the same time. Hence we have governments to create laws and a separate and independent judiciary to apply them.

So the supposed choice between life and liberty, between the anti-terror bill and national security, is an entirely false one. In fact there are plenty of much more effective measures the government could take to combat terrorism, if it were serious. One would be to avoid involvement in the colonisation of Arab countries and the slaughter tens of thousands of their civilians. Another might be the cessation of support for hated and tyrannical regimes like those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the Gulf Emirates, or for Israeli repression and expansionism. These policies have a real cost in human life and as such are the cause of serious grievance for millions upon millions of people. It’s wholly predictable that a small minority of them will be prepared to commit atrocities in revenge. Its also wholly predictable that they will be able to draw grudging but crucial support where none would have existed had our governments not committed these crimes. Of course there will always be psychopaths, but it seems sensible to avoid making life easy for them by validating every syllable of their propaganda.

After the House of Lords rejected the anti-terror bill a government source was reported to have said, "I'm astonished that unelected politicians are gambling with people's lives”. In fact it’s the British government that’s repeatedly gambled with British lives by following George Bush on every step of his bloody crusade; fanning the flames and creating the conditions for extremism to flourish. The consequences are entirely predictable, and it will take a good deal more than control orders to prevent them from occurring.

The best methods for reducing the threat of terrorism are both uncontroversial and well understood, and they have little to do with making judges of politicians. Firstly, international police work to target the terrorists themselves, as has been carried out successfully worldwide. Secondly, the cessation of involvement in violence and repression in the Middle East, be it carried out by ourselves or by local client elites, thereby weakening the terrorist’s ability to mobilise support.

If, as is likely, a terrorist atrocity is carried out on UK soil, the government will proceed to blame all those who obstructed its efforts to combat evil. At that point we would do well to recall the decisive contribution our government made in helping that evil to prosper.