Terrorism

The issue of whether the state can lock-you up indefinitely  for up to 42 days without even the courtesy of telling you why is back. Happily, the House of Lords seems certain to reject the government's plans, sending them back to the Commons where, again hopefully, they will finally die. Here's Labour MP Tom Harris, however, explaining that if you opposed giving the state these powers you're a "civil liberties" (feel the sneer with which he writes these words!) nutcase and if there's another terrorist attack on Britain, it will be your fault... It’s no secret that, along with the great, wise majority of our nation, I support a radical extension of the length of time the police can detain terrorist suspects without trial.

Meanwhile, in America habeas corpus is also in the news, prompting an excellent column from George Will today: McCain, co-author of the McCain-Feingold law that abridges the right of free political speech, has referred disparagingly to, as he puts it, "quote 'First Amendment rights.' " Now he dismissively speaks of "so-called, quote 'habeas corpus suits.' " He who wants to reassure constitutionalist conservatives that he understands the importance of limited government should be reminded why the habeas right has long been known as "the great writ of liberty." True that.

It's a measure of Gordon Brown's weakness that he's come so close to losing the vote on 42 Days. But, as Ben Brogan reports, he's done it: The DUP are on board, Diane Abbott has been spoken to by Gordon Brown for the first time in 20 years, cash for sick miners and help for Cuba has been whistled out of nowhere, and so the vote is won. I spoke to David Davis earlier, who knows a thing or two about whipping and numbers. The 54 Labour rebels he knew about on Friday were down to 44 last night, and the DUP will support Mr Brown. At that rate the game is up. But what use is this shabby triumph? The DUP and other rebels have been bribed and everyone knows that the government has retreated in a shambles, all order and discipline lost.

A heartening, very interesting - and highly unusual - intervention by the Lord Advocate: Scotland's top prosecutor has said the case has not been made for extending the length of time terror suspects can be detained without charge to 42 days. BBC Scotland has learnt that Lord Advocate Elish Angiolini gave her opinion in a letter to the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael. She said the change from the current 28 days was not supported by "prosecution experience to date"... "While there has been a limited number of cases in Scotland which were investigated in terms of the Terrorism Act 2000, I am not aware of any case where an extension of the period beyond 28 days would have been required.

The government's proposals for incarcerating suspects for up to 42 days before being required, however inconveniently, to produce a charge are, naturally, appalling. How can you be so sure? Well, they must be: 65% of the public supports them. In other poll news, ICM puts the Tories on 42%, Labour 26% and the Liberal Democrats on 21%. This is extraordinary: how can one in five Britons be prepared to vote for the Lib Dems?

I suspect that MPs are sufficiently craven - and willing to put the government's political prospects ahead of any petty concerns about principle or, god help us, justice - that they will endorse the government's appalling proposal that terrorist suspects can be held for up to 42 days before the state need produce a charge. In a better, more sensible world, all MPs would read John Major's article in The Times yesterday. For good measure Major, who of course survived an IRA assassination attempt himself (a mortar attack on Downing Street that blew in the windows during a cabinet meeting), decries the illiberality of the government's ID card proposals and (in England) its determination to have everyone's DNA held on a government database.

Via Samizdata, this seems to be a quite appalling story. The Guardian reports that:A masters student researching terrorist tactics who was arrested and detained for six days after his university informed police about al-Qaida-related material he downloaded has spoken of the "psychological torture" he endured in custody.Despite his Nottingham University supervisors insisting the materials were directly relevant to his research, Rizwaan Sabir, 22, was held for nearly a week under the Terrorism Act, accused of downloading the materials for illegal use. The student had obtained a copy of the al-Qaida training manual from a US government website for his research into terrorist tactics.

Gordon Brown flies to Washington today (where, inter alia, he will have meetings with McCain, Clinton and Obama) so, naturally, this is the cue for fresh fretting over US-UK relations. Nile Gardner, currently exiled at the Heritage Foundation, duly volunteers for duty: Divine intervention might be required to improve the state of U.S.-UK relations, which have deteriorated since Blair left Downing Street last June. While the Anglo-American “special relationship” continues at many levels behind the scenes — from intelligence cooperation to collaboration over missile defense — significant signs of strain are beginning to show over the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the broader war against Islamist terrorism.

Matt Yglesias sees walls going up in Baghdad and wonders if the US Army is using Northern Ireland as its template: I believe this technique comes to the US Army's counterinsurgency theorists via Belfast, where I believe they have been effective in helping the British maintain a degree of order. To some extent, this brings us back to the question of strategy. If tactics employed in Northern Ireland can be made to work in Iraq (and maybe they can) even though Iraq has ten times as many people as Northern Ireland does and even though Iraqis don't speak English and even though the sectarian violence in Iraq is undergirded by concrete fighting over valuable resources, then does this really seem like a wise strategic undertaking? It doesn't seem that way to me.

Melanie Philips, I'm afraid, continues to show signs of becoming Britain's answer to David Horowitz. Her latest salvo culminates in this absurdity: Annapolis is America’s Munich — and Israel is the new Czechoslovakia. Previously Philips, unsurprisingly, lamented John Howard's defeat in Australia. For myself, I rather think that 12 years in office is long enough and, absent an entirely hapless opposition, it's important to turf incumbents out of office, regardless of which party they happen to be. (It is not a good sign for Gordon Brown that Labour will have been in power for 13 years when the next election is held). Still, none of that matters.