Trading civil rights for a safer society...

[mrph]

Various politicians and columnists seem to be talking about how swapping some civil rights for increased protection from terrorists is a fair trade.

There are lots of reasons why I don't agree with that, but here's one of the main ones: would it actually work? Has anyone got a case study, an example of a country that's actually done this and seen some tangible benefits as a result?

Because right now, I'm having real trouble thinking of one...

Comments

[mrph.livejournal.com]

Those communities use the press and other means to vehemently oppose the accusations, to state or suggest conspiracy theories over why they are being blamed, play the minority entitlement and discrimination card, etc. Even after video confessions of the terrorists from their community are played by mass media outlets.

Which is something we've seen before anyway, back in the days when people were Suspiciously Irish. Part of the problem is these aren't things that are discussed openly within a community - because the terrorists know that most of the community won't agree with them. And part of the problem is the - sometimes justified - belief that the authorities haven't got a clue.

If you're certain your co-worker is up to something, you report him (as jambon_gris pointed out a while back, one would-be extremist got reported by his imam when he started shooting his mouth off at the mosque...). If you're just... unsure... which is probably far more likely, you might not report him if you think that could lead to a miscarriage of justice for an innocent man (seven shots to the head, for example). Basically: do you trust the system?

Can the government persuade British muslims that it's after the genuine extremists, not just looking to silence free speech and jail/deport a few convenient people so that it looks like it's making progress? If they can do that, the community will work with them. If not, the community will be busy trying to stand together and less concerned with policing itself.

IMHO, of course. But with 3% of the UK population muslim, I don't think any other response is practical. Looking for a handful of needles in a worried and unhelpful haystack just won't work. And yes, I know I'm mangling my metaphors... :)

Whether the local authorities are enabled to do anything with that information is a different problem. That's where civil liberties come into play. And the existing wiretap and survellience laws in the US and the UK are sufficient for that purpose. Along with the protections built into those.

Agreed (although wiretap evidence is something of an issue here, I think). In fact, most of the UK laws are sufficient. I think it's just easier for the goverment to make a lot of noise about new ones - to prove that they're doing something - than to point out that adequate laws have been there all along and they're just having trouble catching and prosecuting people (or haven't bothered to try to enforce them).