[Mb-civic] An article for you from an Economist.com reader.

Wed Nov 9 15:17:10 PST 2005

- AN ARTICLE FOR YOU, FROM ECONOMIST.COM -

Dear civic,

Michael Butler (michael at intrafi.com) wants you to see this article on Economist.com.

(Note: the sender's e-mail address above has not been verified.)

Subscribe to The Economist print edition, get great savings and FREE full access to Economist.com.  Click here to subscribe:  http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/email.cfm 

Alternatively subscribe to online only version by clicking on the link below and save 25%:

http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

LIBERTY VERSUS SECURITY EQUALS CONTROVERSY
Nov 9th 2005  

British lawmakers have handed Tony Blair a stinging defeat, opposing a
government proposal to extend to 90 days the period for which police
can hold terror suspects without charging them. In America and
Australia too, anti-terror measures are proving controversial as
governments struggle to reach the right balance between liberty and
security

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, one of America's founding fathers, wrote that "They
that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety
deserve neither liberty nor safety." He presaged an argument that is
raging almost two and a half centuries later. What precisely are the
essential liberties which, when given up, make a liberal society
unworthy of the name? In Franklin's own country, as well as in Britain,
Australia and elsewhere, these questions are proving particularly
vexing to policymakers trying to deal with terrorism.

A month after the July 7th bombings of Underground trains and a bus in
London, which killed more than 50 people, Britain's prime minister,
Tony Blair, announced that "the rules of the game are changing" and
proposed new security measures to Parliament. Many worry that he wants
to change the rules too much. His 12-point plan includes speeding up
detention of foreign-born agitators, creating a charge of "indirect
incitement" for people who glorify terrorism anywhere in the world,
using closed pre-trial hearings to examine sensitive evidence, banning
certain Islamist groups and closing troublesome mosques. Until this
week, the proposed anti-terror bill also included a proposal to extend
the period for which police can hold terror suspects without charging
them, from 14 to 90 days. But on Wednesday November 9th, in Mr Blair's
first major parliamentary defeat since becoming prime minister in 1997,
the House of Commons voted down the measure by 322 to 291.

With a significant number of backbenchers from the ruling Labour Party
bitterly opposed to 90-day detention, this was always going to be a
tough vote for the government. It was considered so important that two
top cabinet members, finance minister Gordon Brown and foreign minister
Jack Straw, were hauled back from foreign trips to vote--on the
assumption that there might be only one or two votes in it. The
resounding nature of the defeat not only casts a shadow over the new
anti-terror legislation, but raises big questions about Mr Blair's grip
on his party. Some 49 Labour MPs refused to back him, even after being
put under extreme pressure by the party's whips.

Ministers had argued vociferously in recent weeks that 14 days'
detention without charge was too short to assess lots of complex and
classified evidence. The police strongly backed the proposed extension
to 90 days. London's police chief, Sir Ian Blair, even briefed MPs from
all parties, as well as political reporters, saying that he was
hesitant to enter a political debate but supported the measure strongly
enough to put his qualms aside.

Mr Blair will still get an extension, but nothing like 90 days. Later
on Wednesday, the Commons voted in favour of a proposal tabled by a
Labour rebel, and backed by the opposition Conservatives and Liberal
Democrats, for a much lower, 28-day detention limit. 

Some of the government's other proposals are perhaps even more
controversial than detention without charge. The expanded charge of
incitement to terrorism, some worry, could criminalise too much speech,
such as academic debate on political violence. And deporting
rabble-rousing imams could mean sending them to countries where they
will be tortured. The government says it will get agreements not to
torture from any such countries, as it has from Jordan. But
human-rights groups claim these are worthless. 

ACROSS THE ATLANTIC
As Mr Blair tries to toughen anti-terror measures, George Bush is
facing accusations that America has already gone too far. The Pentagon
last week issued new guidelines on prisoner interrogations, in an
implicit response to the abuses at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison. These
would forbid "acts of mental and physical torture" and require humane
treatment "in accordance with applicable law and policy", according to
the NEW YORK TIMES, which has seen a copy of the new directive. 

But there is no agreement yet on another Pentagon directive, on the
general treatment of detainees. The debate concerns whether or not to
use language from the Geneva Conventions explicitly. The Bush
administration says it treats all prisoners in a way consistent with
the conventions, but it does not accord "unlawful combatants" (those
captured in Iraq and Afghanistan, mainly) prisoner-of-war status,
meaning that the conventions are not legally binding. The
vice-president, Dick Cheney, is particularly hostile to any reference
to Geneva in a new directive, but there is rising opposition to his
position even inside the usually unified Bush administration.

In a misguided effort to avoid these questions altogether, America put
many of the prisoners captured in the short war in Afghanistan in legal
limbo in Guantanamo Bay. But the legality of this, too, has been
eroded. The Supreme Court found last year that Guantanamo detainees
must be given some kind of review of their status, if not a full trial.
And the court decided this week to review whether the military
"commissions" proposed to try prisoners in the camp--potentially
resulting in a death sentence--are legal. 

Such commissions have not been used since the second world war. The
plaintiff in the forthcoming case, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, was allegedly
Osama bin Laden's bodyguard and driver, and is charged with murder,
terrorism and conspiracy. His lawyers, including a military lawyer, say
military commissions at Guantanamo lack legal authority, not to mention
any protection for defendants' rights, such as a guaranteed right to
attend one's own trial.

At least the world knows about Guantanamo. Last week, the WASHINGTON
POST reported that the CIA has been running secret prisons--"black
sites"--in Asia and Eastern Europe, where it holds the highest-value
prisoners in the war on terror. These include Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, a
top al-Qaeda planner, and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, co-ordinator of the
attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. Human Rights Watch claims
that such prisons are operated in Romania and Poland, based on the
flight records of aircraft believed to belong to the CIA. The two
countries have denied this.

John McCain, a Republican senator, has sponsored an amendment (to a
military spending bill) that would require all detainees in American
custody, whether in military or CIA hands, be treated in accordance
with the army field manual. This would forbid torture and degrading
treatment. The president and, more vociferously, the vice-president are
opposed. But the Senate passed the measure 90-to-9 last month, and it
will now go before the House of Representatives. Mr Bush declared
flatly on Tuesday that "we do not torture." But Mr Cheney, unable to
defeat the McCain amendment so far, has asked for an exception for the
CIA. If they are not torturing, sceptics sensibly ask, why the
exemption?

DANGER DOWN UNDER
Australia is another country with troops in Iraq and worries about
terrorism closer to home. The country has felt vulnerable since 88 of
its citizens were killed in the bombing of a Bali nightclub in 2002.
This week, the Australian authorities announced that they had arrested
17 people on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack in the country.
Officials said that those detained had had paramilitary training in
rural Australia and were gathering chemicals for a bomb. But the police
did not cite a particular target of the alleged plot. This could be
because the anti-terrorism law has just been amended to make it a
criminal offence to plan terrorism even when a specific target is not
yet chosen. 

Australia is also considering other proposals to toughen its terror
law, including lengthening the period of detention without charge to 14
days. As in other countries with strong terror laws, some worry that
this will further alienate the resident Muslim population. Ongoing
riots in France (see article[1]) have roots in the frustration of
Muslim youths with aggressive policing and a lack of jobs. 

Some libertarians misquote Benjamin Franklin as saying that giving up
any liberty for safety means deserving neither. All societies curb some
freedoms--no individual may own a nuclear bomb. But finding the right
balance between liberty and security remains tricky, not just in
America, Britain and Australia but the many other free countries that
are potential terrorist targets. Clamping down not only diminishes
liberties but can even cause the kind of backlash that makes terrorism
more likely.

-----
[1] http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_ID=5134685

See this article with graphics and related items at http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5132931&fsrc=nwl

Go to http://www.economist.com for more global news, views and analysis from the Economist Group.

- ABOUT ECONOMIST.COM -

Economist.com is the online version of The Economist newspaper, an independent weekly international news and business publication offering clear reporting, commentary and analysis on world politics, business, finance, science & technology, culture, society and the arts.
Economist.com also offers exclusive content online, including additional articles throughout the week in the Global Agenda section.

-	SUBSCRIBE NOW AND SAVE 25% -

Click here: http://www.economist.com/subscriptions/offer.cfm?campaign=168-XLMT

Subscribe now with 25% off and receive full access to:

* all the articles published in The Economist newspaper
* the online archive - allowing you to search and retrieve over 33,000 articles published in The Economist since 1997
* The World in  - The Economist's outlook on the year
* Business encyclopedia - allows you to find a definition and explanation for any business term

- ABOUT THIS E-MAIL -

This e-mail was sent to you by the person at the e-mail address listed
above through a link found on Economist.com.  We will not send you any
future messages as a result of your being the recipient of this e-mail.

- COPYRIGHT -

Economist.com privacy policy: http://www.economist.com/about/privacy.cfm