From Lord Hoffmann’s remarks in the judgement by the House of Lords (PDF, 102 pages) that the British government is wrong to detain foreign terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial :
This is a nation which has been tested in adversity, which has survived physical destruction and catastrophic loss of life. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda. The Spanish people have not said that what happened in Madrid, hideous crime as it was, threatened the life of their nation. Their legendary pride would not allow it. Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community….
[S]uch a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
The vox pop on this at the BBC is predictably depressing in the main. Sample quote:
To be honest, I am getting bored of the left doing everything it can to stop us protecting our country. If you really dislike our country, which gives you a platform for your moronic views, then emigrate!
Graeme Phillips, Guildford, UK
Of course, you can’t say this in the United States. If you do, then you aren’t taking the threat seriously enough. You’re living with a pre-9/11 worldview and are therefore unfit for office.
HTML version here:
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2004/56.html
I am getting bored of the left doing everything it can to stop us protecting our country
When did the Law Lords become the “left”? Did I miss a memo? Maybe from that neo-Marxist agitator, the Queen.
Law Lords, on occasion, just rock…
Terrorist violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of government or our existence as a civil community….
[S]uch a power in any form is not compatible with our constitution. The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism may achieve. It is for Parliament to decide whether to give the terrorists such a victory.
This is a classic case of overestimating the influence of the government. Terrorism can indeed threaten the existance of our civil community—and it can do so even if the civil rights laws never change. It can threaten the enormous levels of trust which are required in a successful open society. If the people close that down on a day-to-day basis, our society is in deep trouble even if the government takes no action to ‘clamp down’ on civil rights.
But to clarify, I’m not a proponent of holding terrorist suspects indefinitely without trial.
Wait a second, wasn’t it the ‘left’ that put these dodgy laws on the books in the first place - so surely it would be the ‘right’ (which matches up to the law lords historical conservatism better anyway) that are ‘stopping us protect our country’, in this morons parlance.
It seems to me that terrorists CAN threaten the “life” of countries such as England or America. Or rather, it seems that they very well might be able to in the not-too-distant future. I would think a few nuclear devices being detonated in different major cities in either of those countries (with the threat of more detonations to come) would effectively threaten the “lives” of these countries.
That doesn’t mean that these laws are justified, of course.
Take any two cities you like, this would not destroy America as long as Americans wish to live free.
It also depends on what you mean by the life of a country.
Since it’s emergence as a nation-state, Japan has never ceased to exist, but it nevertheless was a very different place after August 1945.
Incidentally, what countries have disappeared in the last 50 years? I can think of federations disintegrating and empires falling, but can’t seem to come up with more conventionally defined nation-states disappearing (certainly not in the sense that Poland disappeared for the 19th century).
Even when it lacked any sort of governemnt, Afghanistan was still Afghanistan.
I should add, along these lines: the greatest threat to a country’s existence (in absolute terms) seems to me to be not so much a drastic change in domestic policy, but the devaluation of sovereignty in the international community. A number of countries could have been wiped off the globe as a result of wars past, but nations have generally found it to be in their interest to keep alive the idea of sovereign nationhood. Just in case they end up on the losing side in the future, of course.
The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these.
As a purely historical matter, this is a load of steaming bovine excrement. The United Kingdom has a very, very long tradition of enacting laws far more draconian than these to deal with foreign threats. The woolly-minded internationalist civil libertarianism the Lords are invoking is essentially a postwar American import, with a dash of Continental radicalism thrown in. And until very recently, the idea of enshrining such views in parliamentary tradition—let alone declaring them some kind of vital part of the British national character—wouldn’t have passed the giggle test.
What the Lords really mean, of course, when they talk about “a threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its….political values”, is the threat to their sense of a people living in accordance with the Lords’ own current political values. And as citizens of the United Kingdom, they have every right to vote and speak out in favor of their own preferred (and undoubtedly tiny minority) vision of the ideal British society. Fortunately, though, another grand British tradition—a sovereign, democratic parliament—will consign the Lords’ fatuous pomposity to well-deserved irrelevance.
Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!
More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man’s laws, not God’s - and if you cut them down - and you’re just the man to do it - d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.
Where will the British government hide, once they have finished cutting England’s laws flat?
It takes a certain amount of chutzpah for Lord Hoffman (a South African) to lecture the British on their national interests. Some may recall that Hoffman was also the judge who screwed up the first decision on the Pinochet extradition by forgetting to mention that his (Hoffman’s) wife was a big cheese in Amnesty International.
I think Dan S that you may be confusing a Law Lord with the Law Lords with the House of Lords. They are all related but not quite all the same thing.
“And until very recently, the idea of enshrining such views in parliamentary tradition—let alone declaring them some kind of vital part of the British national character—wouldn’t have passed the giggle test.”
Start with the Putney Debates and work forward. Centuries of refutable fun there.
Dan:
I’d like instances of legislation enacted by Parliament in the past which allows for detention without trial. Preferrably outside of war-time.
Further, it seems to me that you are utterly wrong with respect to the absence of a legal and philosophical tradition in the UK which supports the right of a man to be free from the risk of imprisonment except after facing trial.
Today’s Independent newspaper helpfully provides a list of quotes:
“No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights [etc. etc.] except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land” - Habeas Corpus Act, 1679
“No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned.. except by the lawful judgement of his peers or by the law of the land” - Magna Carta, 1215
“Every court of criminal justice must have the power of correcting the greatest and most dangerous of all abuses of the forms of law — that of the protracted imprisonment of the accused, untried, perhaps not ever intended to be tried, nay, it may be, not informed of the nature of the charge against him, or the name of accuser”, David Hume, 1797
They supply a dozen or so more similar quotes. Covering the whole of the period from 1215 to the 1970s at the height of the IRA mainland terror campaign.
The right to freedom from imprisonment without trial is an ancient one indeed, and it’s certainly not an import from the USA or continental Europe.
I’d like instances of legislation enacted by Parliament in the past which allows for detention without trial. Preferrably outside of war-time.
You mean, because the abrogation of Habeas Corpus in wartime, particularly with respect to foreign detainees—say, prisoners of war—is so common in British (and world) history as to be completely routine?
Further, it seems to me that you are utterly wrong with respect to the absence of a legal and philosophical tradition in the UK which supports the right of a man to be free from the risk of imprisonment except after facing trial.
The principal of Habeas Corpus certainly has a long, esteemed tradition in Great Britain. The breadth of its application, however, has evolved over time—note, for example, the use of the term “free man” or “freeman” in the quotations you provided. The notion that foreigners suspected of terrorism might fall under its purview is a very recent one indeed.
Yes, Dan, but the whole point is that this is not war-time. Unless you think of the erroneously named ‘War on Terror’ as bearing any kind of structural similarity with the past wars under which Habeas Corpus was suspended and also think, erroneously, that the actions (whether alleged or genuine) of the men detained at Belmarsh in any way resemble the actions of combatants in a war.
Well, I don’t know about you but I can’t wait until this war on tourism is over. A very foolish idea in the first place, if you ask me.
They are absolutely right. What, exactly, are people afraid that these terrorists might do?
Bomb central London? Already been done, by the IRA; hence the “Ring of Steel” security there.
Put communities into a state of war? Already been done, by the IRA and the UVF, the former using American weapons bought with American money.
Blow up the Cabinet? Already been tried; the Brighton Hotel bombing had miraculously few casualties despite demolishing the building.
Flatten a major city? Already been done, by the Nazis.
Compared to what the country has withstood, a few angry militants are just another matter for the police.
“And as citizens of the United Kingdom, they have every right to vote and speak out in favor of their own preferred (and undoubtedly tiny minority) vision of the ideal British society. Fortunately, though, another grand British tradition—a sovereign, democratic parliament—will consign the Lords’ fatuous pomposity to well-deserved irrelevance.”
Indeed. Germany was still Germany, under Bismarck, under Hitler, and under Adenauer. Much ado about nothing.
“Indeed. Germany was still Germany, under Bismarck, under Hitler, and under Adenauer. Much ado about nothing.”
Hilarious. Germany was still Germany under Hitler?
Germany, like any free state, is only Germany when free. Enslavement under Hitler was not freedom. Had Hitler enslaved Britain, Britain would have ceased to be, until restored to freedom.
Confusing culture for free states is a major error — the failure to understand that our freedoms are NOT given us by government or law, not taken away by terrorists, or traitors, and not found in the rule of any majority.
They are innate.
—
“Indeed. Germany was still Germany, under Bismarck, under Hitler, and under Adenauer. Much ado about nothing.”
Hilarious. Germany was still Germany under Hitler?
Germany, like any free state, is only Germany when free. Enslavement under Hitler was not freedom. Had Hitler enslaved Britain, Britain would have ceased to be, until restored to freedom.
Confusing culture for free states is a major error — the failure to understand that our freedoms are NOT given us by government or law, not taken away by terrorists, or traitors, and not found in the rule of any majority.
They are innate.
—
Incidentally, what countries have disappeared in the last 50 years?
By assimilation: Tibet, Sikkim, Zanzibar, Western (Spanish) Sahara, South Yemen, temporarily East Timor, Kuwait.
By disintegration: Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review