"Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty."
Benjamin Franklin wrote these words in 1775, and they remain startlingly relevant today. We live in a counter-terrorism world, where the pursuit of public security has led to the erosion of civil liberties, seemingly acceptable to a complaisant population. It seems that there is no distinction being made any more between real and imagined fears, and Islamic terrorism is still being invoked to justify egregious abuses of justice. A credulous public, an undiscriminating media and populist politicians have created some dangerous changes to established laws which have been for centuries the essential foundation to democracy in both the United Kingdom and the United States.
It is deeply disturbing to think back over successive World Wars which were fought so tragically and with such great loss of life in the name of freedom, the same freedom that is being treated in so cavalier a fashion now. It is a bitter irony that there were more Hindus and Muslims in the British Army than white soldiers at one stage, and they fought alongside each other against nationalism, fascism and Stalinism. So much blood was lost in the name of freedom, yet here we are several generations later, fearful of Islamic terrorism and blandly accepting the serious erosion of our civil liberties with barely a murmur of dissent.
One measure of the need for heightened public security is obviously the loss of lives. Clearly some lives seem more valuable than others. A death of an innocent bystander when the attack is made by a foreigner appears to have more significance say, than a domestic murder victim. Over 4,000 lives were lost on 9/11 and 56 in London with the 7/7 transport bombs. Yet every year, relentlessly, 75,000 Americans and about 15,000 Britons lose their lives to alcohol abuse. That is 25 times more than the loss of life to terrorism, repeated every year, yet where is the war on alcohol, where the moral outrage, where the passionate and self-righteous speeches in Congress and Parliament? In fact, more people die every year due to having the incorrect air pressure in their tires (79 deaths each year) than by terrorists, yet this does not lead to draconian laws to protect the innocent public.
Democratic countries should be embarrassed by their overreaction to the exaggerated threat of Islamic terrorism. Disgraceful miscarriages of justices have taken place in the UK following the new powers given to the Metropolitan Police anti-terror group, including the imprisonment for seven years without a charge or trial for a Muslim computer programmer named Babar Ahmad. Fighting extradition to the U.S., he is the longest detained British citizen being held without a conviction, remaining in a legal limbo with no chance for a fair trial.
Other recent and bizarre abuses in Britain in the name of the Anti-Terrorism Act have been the brief arrest of an 82 year-old man who was thrown out of a Labour Party Conference and the taking control of an Icelandic bank's funds on the grounds that the bank's collapse might hurt the UK economy. The Counter Terrorism Bill of 2008 has extended the time the police may hold detainees without charging them to 42 days -- so much for Habeas Corpus, considered since 1301 to be the guarantee of personal liberty, now regularly suspended by governments in times of national emergency.
Entrapment of suspected terrorists in the United States is another serious concern, where law enforcement relies on preventive stings as part of its strategy. The government has become an agency which offers inducements to possible activists and then arrests them for agreeing to commit acts of terrorism -- a world of difference between law enforcement keeping us safe from real terrorists. The danger is that it compromises the public's understanding of a real threat and certainly compromises the carriage of justice.
The fear of Islamic terrorism is totally disproportionate to the facts. A European report of 300 terrorist incidents in 2009 reveals that there was just one-act committed by a Muslim -- the rest were anarchists, European separatist groups and leftists. The actual danger needs to be put in perspective and the risk of misusing laws to curtail human rights must be recognized as even more of a danger. The defense authorization bill that has just been passed by the U.S. Congress contains a very controversial provision allowing for indefinite detention without trial for U.S. citizens. Civil rights advocates are appalled and deeply disappointed that the president should sign this "flagrant subversion of the constitutionally guaranteed right to due process of law," and by assuming ''a permanent war against terrorism, extends the battlefield to our own homeland."
Senator Al Franken was outspoken against the bill in a statement made public on Dec 17, 2011, saying it was reminiscent of a dark period in American history when the government interned over 100,000 Japanese Americans during the war. For the first time in 60 years, Congress will now be able to authorize the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, a decision which he says "denigrates the very foundations of this country." He went on to say, "Our Founders were fearful of the military and they purposely created a system of checks and balances to ensure we did not become a country under military rule."
The future for frightened democracies is no longer assured if freedom is going to be bartered for security. I only hope that the fact of Habeas Corpus will not be just a footnote in the history books for my children and their children, and that Britain and the U.S. will pull back from their authoritarian stance and see terrorism for what it is -- international criminality, not international war.
With the Iraq War officially over, perhaps the new year will bring a new opportunity for freedom to regain some momentum again.
Dr Azeem Ibrahim is a Fellow and Member of the Board of Directors at the Institute of Social Policy and Understanding and a former Research Scholar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and World Fellow at Yale.
More writings here: www.azeemibrahim.com
Follow Azeem Ibrahim on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@AzeemIbrahim
Carl Gibson: Occupy Phase II: The Supreme Court
Cenk Uygur: Vote Against Obama in Iowa
Robert Scheer: Marginalizing Ron Paul
Duncan Quirk: A Brave New Fahrenheit 2012
The uprisings in the Middle East, the unrest that is tearing apart nations such as the Ivory Coast, the bubbling discontent in Greece, Ireland and Britain and the labor disputes in states such as Wisconsin and Ohio presage the collapse of globalization. They presage a world where vital resources, including food and water, jobs and security, are becoming scarcer and harder to obtain. They presage growing misery for hundreds of millions of people who find themselves trapped in failed states, suffering escalating violence and crippling poverty. They presage increasingly draconian controls and force—take a look at what is being done to Pfc. Bradley Manning—used to protect the corporate elite who are orchestrating our demise.
We must embrace, and embrace rapidly, a radical new ethic of simplicity and rigorous protection of our ecosystem—especially the climate—or we will all be holding on to life by our fingertips. We must rebuild radical socialist movements that demand that the resources of the state and the nation provide for the welfare of all citizens and the heavy hand of state power be employed to prohibit the plunder by the corporate power elite. We must view the corporate capitalists who have seized control of our money, our food, our energy, our education, our press, our health care system and our governance as mortal enemies to be vanquished
much more:http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_collapse_of_globalization_20110328/
Pentagon inventory of military bases around world, our empire consists of 865 facilities in more than 40 countries and overseas U.S. territories. We deploy over 190,000 troops in 46 countries and territories. In just one such country, Japan, at the end of March 2008, we still had 99,295 people connected to U.S. military forces living and working there — 49,364 members of our armed services, 45,753 dependent family members, and 4,178 civilian employees. Some 13,975 of these were crowded into small island of Okinawa, the largest concentration of foreign troops anywhere in Japan.
These massive concentrations of American military power outside United States are not needed for our defense. They are, if anything, a prime contributor to our numerous conflicts with other countries
http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/07/three-good-reasons-liquidate-our-empire
"Which is more important to 'the security of' the United States?"
(a)(1) Spending $10 billion dollars to perfect a bird-like drone that can sit on your windowsill and spy on you; and ...
(a)(2) Ignoring and suppressing American securities laws in order to hide the money-laundering that is used to "bury" multiple Trillions (that's with a "T") of dollars per year of "defense" (sic...) spending?
... or ...
(b)(1) Spending even $1 billion to feed the poor, to clothe the naked, or simply to help the formerly middle-class person who lost his investments to the securities fraud in (a)(2); and ...
(b)(2) Actually prosecuting the corrupt lawmakers who betrayed everything and everyone just to get another body-part into that multi-trillion dollar pie?
"Ike" Eisenhower was 100% right. He wasn't a perfect President (no one is), but he wore five count 'em FIVE stars on his lapel and he earned every single one of them in battle. He knew. He saw. He warned. He was ignored...
Until now?
thomas jefferson
and action really
done anyone of them? instead, we stayed in iraq, went to afghanistan, now about to bomb
iran, and we have the new total over the top ndaa. george orwell was a genius, how did he
know?
ndaa, is the latest measure against we the people. if you don't start sqirming now, you
never will, therefore you will get what you want, tyranny to the nines.
George Orwell would recognize this place. He wrote about it in his books "1984" and "Animal Farm." Where using the wrong politispeak can land you in internment. If we let these radical new laws stand, we deserve what we get.
This author makes such an important point that we have become so completely apathetic, that we have given away our constitutional rights without a even a whimper. Just try to find information about this tragedy in the main stream media. It is not there. It has barely been mentioned since it was first debated in congress. So, here's the question:
How many other rights have been stolen without our knowledge? And now that the military can use police powers inside our own borders, we officially live in a police/military state. I am old and won't face the corporate/police state that our children will inhabit, but if younger, perhaps I would immigrate to a free country where people still love freedom.
It is confusing unless you know the history and history must not repeat itself.
Animal farm as an adult who studied history and political science- dear God, dont make me the horse and if I am unlucky enough- teach me to jump over the fence.
It's all sleight-of-hand, while you watch the scary movie they steal
your birthright using the legislature they bought with your money.
Indeed the new Conservative Government in Britain actually reduced the time suspects could be held without trial from 28 days to 14 days. They also relaxed other counter-terrorism measures and are in the middle of passing the Protection of Freedoms Bill, that would restrict stop-and-search powers, restrict CCTV use and would ban the retention of DNA of innocent people by the police.
Also, 140,000 Britons have signed a petition to free Babar Ahmad, his extradition has been indefinitely halted by the European Court of Human Rights and the House of Commons passed back in December a significant review of the extradition law between the UK and USA that would make it harder to extradite.
Seems one country is heading in the right direction, while the other heads closer towards the tyranny the NDAA promises.
But that does not follow that a person should be retained indefinably without access to justice. Innocent people need protection in cases where errors are made. Also, a system with no access to self-defense is an invitation for abuse of power.
Once apprehended, and the immediate threat is off, security is accomplished for the time being, and a suspect should have access to attempt self-defense (the right to representation while facing the accuser…).
The question is: WHY congress (both parties) and the President (a constitution specialist) wants to have the NDAA in the defense bill?
Some people suggest that the “ruling class” want a tool to deal with the OWS movement. Others suggest that the new law will serve the MIC interests by oppressing future demonstrations against a new war (Iran?).
I don’t know the reason for that NDAA. I know it is in direct conflict with the constitution, and against what is good for humanity. It also goes against what the constitution that those politicians swore to uphold.
I found no clear answers!
The "standard answer" is “for security". But again, for security, one needs to be able to stop terror. And once the suspect is stopped, and law enforcement did their part, I don't see WHY justice and the courts needs to be replaced with indefinite detention in secrete.
But I agree that this makes no sense. We, the people, must start to fight for our freedoms as we see them and not as a political pundit explains them to us.