Hold it. In the recent terrorist arrests, the British were able to do their job while supporting the rule of law, and the US pressured them to rush the arrests for political gain?
It’s amazing how this administration is so good at turning even great successes into spotlights into their own incompetence and corruption. David Neiwert’s new substitute teacher does a fine job of exploring the psyche of the Republican clown show—coasting by on dogma, authority, and a black & white view of the world seems to work well for getting elected, but man, it sucks as a way to run a country.
Supporting the rule of law is so…so…unamerican.
Here’s a detailed comparison of the law in the US and UK on these matters for anyone who’s interested:
http://cisac.stanford.edu/publications/criminal_law_angloamerican_privacy_and_surveillance/
There ought to be limits to freedom
G. W. Bush, May 21, 1999
The “war on terror” has simply given them the opportunity to do what they always wanted to – strip away all criminal procedure protections. The authoritarian mind believes that when there’s smoke there’s fire, an arrest is as good as a conviction, and it will never happen to them. They can not recognize that the rights of another are in fact their own rights, so they are happy to bargain away another person’s rights. Patrick Henry would be ashamed of us.
I’m ashamed of us. At least Patrick Henry is dead.
Some of the best writing on this subject and the foul right wing political exploitation of fear can be found at Glenn Greenwald’s blog:
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/08/legal-surveillance-not-illegal.html
While there is the possibility that political gain was the prime mover here, it might also be a matter of caution:
“Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11.”
US authorities might have been worried that the dry run would turn out to be for real and the loss of an aircraft with lots of Americans on board would be a political disaster. If as a result he police jumped too soon and there is not enough evidence to convict – that will be a real disaster.
This case also points out another flaw in Republican thinking: that we can prevent attacks primarily through racial profiling. If reports are to be beleived, the case was cracked because a Muslim informer went to the police with concerns about the alleged plotters. If we begin to treat all Muslims as terrorist, we should expect this cooperation to be less forthcoming.
As I commented on Lindsay’s blog, where the #$%& are the Democrats who should be hammering on this point every time they talk to a reporter?
Home Secretary John Reid says that “terror may cause curbs on freedoms.” (Aug 9th)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5257518.stm
While the British government may have more respect for the rule of law, they are certainly not above reproach, and are also lacking an opposition party that offers a legitimate check on the government’s whims.
Cheers,
John
Echoing Bungsoil, it’s important to note that while the British government has generally followed the rule of law in its pursuit of the war on terror, it’s equally important to note that several of its measures have been overturned by the courts and that it had to abrogate from article 5 of the ECHR to implement them. The difference is that all these things were debated openly in parliament and voted on by elected representatives.