The terrorists really have won

A recurring theme in the blogosphere is that our reaction to the terrorist threats is disproportionate and fundamentally subversive of our social structure and freedoms. This is usually cast in terms of the rollback of civil liberties, the denial of natural justice and the overweening ambitions of the present Administration in the United States, and possibly also Britain. But it happens here in Australia too.

Here is a case in which an Australian who trained with Al Quaeda, but took no part in terrorist activities, was arrested in Pakistan and tortured for a confession, was acquitted due to the tainted nature of the evidence against him, being restricted in his freedom because of untested and secret allegations by the Federal Police and the Attorney General. Why? Because he is a "threat" to Australian citizens, so they say. And they are planning to restrict the rights and freedoms of others as well. It's as if the Magna Carta never existed.

Our society fought hard against this sort of authoritarian paternalism for centuries to establish our rights before the law. There are rules to the rule of law that prohibit governments from taking liberties away for political (and this is truly political), practical or convenient reasons, which are being slowly but surely eroded by governments and instrumentalities that find it useful to bolster their own positions. There's a word for this kind of government: fascism.

Now I don't like the automatic leftist claim that anyone who does anything the left doesn't like is a fascist, but there's meat on this claim. Democractic liberal societies are based on the notion, well established in history, that control over the citizenry by governments for any reason, no matter how well intentioned, leads to corruption and injustice. For that reason we have a balance of power spread between the judiciary, the legislature and the instruments of government, all accountable to the ballot. But what we are seeing is the perversion of this because of a hysteria about an abstract threat. Whereas in Britain, under the threat of IRA terrorism, eventually they came out the other side with their rights intact and injustices addressed under the traditional rule of law and democracy, we are seeing precedents set that will fundamentally destroy our civil order. And why? Because a few insurgents do evil things? Insurgents will always do evil things - the anarchists in the 19th century did this, and they will do this long after the Wahabist threat is past. Do we really want to set up an ongoing ability for the police to corrupt the law, for politicians to cause fear and loathing against minorities, and for court protections to be overturned by bureaucrats, because of the actions of a minority?

More people die from road accidents, cigarettes, and fatty foods than from all the terrorist actions combined, in the west. So is it really sensible to make the international travel system unworkable, to racially profile hundreds of thousands of citizens, and to cause unending ethnic unrest, because of a few? If so, then the terrorists truly have won, and the vultures of the political parties who support this are the only beneficiaries. I fear for the world my children will live in.

Tags

More like this

David Hicks, the Australian held without trial or charge for five years and tortured in Guantanamo by the American military at the behest of the clearly criminal administration in the United States (there! I feel much better now) is being charged and tried for "providing material support for…
A while back, Martin Cothran (who, in keeping with long tradition here, it must be noted remains a bigot in a staggering diversity of realms, not least his apparent desire to defend a dictator's decision to cut internet access to his nation in hopes of stymieing a revolution) declared: A person…
Both AmericaBlog and TPMCafe have posts up about how the Republicans in 1995 and 1996 refused to give Clinton the power for both roving and warrantless wiretaps in an anti-terrorism bill. And they're right. Clinton wanted both kinds of wiretaps as part of a larger anti-terrorism package and the…
The stupidity of this take on why 9/11 matters is agonizing. We have to remember because … it helps the president's poll numbers. I won't re-debunk the silliness of the Patriot Act arguments, except to say that the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, or biometric whatzits wouldn't have prevented 9/…

Ah, but those abstract threats are the worst of all -- you can't go shoot them, there's no beginning or end to them, and they're always just a few words away from CONTAMINATING OUR PRECIOUS BODILY FLUIDS!

They live in our minds, that's why the only way to deal with them is to arrest and torture anyone with a mind....
[/satire]

Seriously though, getting actual training from Al Quaeda really ought to count for something, but that assumes that those allegations are valid ... and having F-ed up the prosecution, your gov isn't in a great position to justify the restrictions.

By David Harmon (not verified) on 30 Aug 2006 #permalink

At the time he went, Al Quaeda was not a prohibited organisation, so far as I know. He was, as was, I think, David Hicks, an idealist religious person who went to do something that was not at that time illegal under Australian law. It was disgusting, fighting on behalf of the Taliban or Al Quaeda, but he had broken no laws. Or at least that is the state of both men's legal record to date.

Yeah... The thing is, I don't think the terrorists have realized just how big the rest of the world is.... As the developed and developing nations become more militaristic, eventually they'll be able to reconquer the area "properly", and those terrorists will get ground into the dirt.

By David Harmon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink