War on Terror Watch (2): Former British Intelligence Chief, Judges/Lawyers Break Ranks

Stella Rimington (pictured), the former head of MI5, the British domestic intelligence service, has launched a scathing attack on the "security" measures adopted in the US and Britain after the attacks of 11 September 2001:

It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state.

Rimington singled out the American "enhanced interrogation" regime for criticism: "The US has gone too far with Guantánamo and the tortures...It has achieved the opposite effect: there are more and more suicide terrorists finding a greater justification."

Rimington's charges are given substance by the International Commission of Jurists, which has issued a report after a three-year investigation of measures in more than 40 countries. The lead judge of the study summarises, "We have been shocked by the extent of the damage done over the past seven years by excessive or abusive counterterrorism measures."

Particularly pertinent is the Commission's identification of the case of British resident Binyam Mohamed, still held at Guantanamo Bay:

UK security services facilitated in various ways the questioning of Binyam Mohamed in Pakistan and the US detention, while being held incommunicado and subjected to ill-treatment. The relationship between the UK government and the US authorities was far beyond that of a bystander or witness to the alleged wrongdoing.

Comments

[Dave]

"It would be better that the Government recognised that there are risks, rather than frightening people in order to be able to pass laws which restrict civil liberties, precisely one of the objects of terrorism: that we live in fear and under a police state."

--------

It seems that Rimington and others in European national governments care more about the civil liberties of those who are a threat to Western civilization (the jihadists) than for those who try to protect it. Geert Wilders, for example. Where was Rimington when Wilders was arrested, interrogated and deported a few days ago? I haven't heard anything from her on the incident. As former head of MI5, how can she not have something to say about it?

[Dave]

And what about the police forces and the Church of England firing personnel who have membership in the British National Party? BNP positions may not be popular with the masses, but it's a legal party. She wails on about civil liberties and the police state but is silient on this issue as well.

It seems we should only be concerned about the civil liberties of terror suspects.

[Ian Gwinn]

Geert Wilders is trying to protect civil liberties? That's news to me.

Also, I take Rimington's point to be far broader than the protection of civil liberties for apparent terror 'suspects'.

[Dave]

Well, that's what she said -- civil liberties.

On Geert Wilders -- Where should we draw the line on free speech and incitement of hatred? Rimington is right to be concerned about new legislation resticting civil liberties of detainees, but her attention should also be focused on the indigenous people here in Britain (especially non-Muslims). Some of the things that William Gladstone said about Islam more than a 100 years ago could be interpreted today as hate speech/incitement of hatred. Anybody convicted of 'inciting hatred' against Islam and Muslims simply by expressing their views (criticisms) of the faith and literature actually emboldens radical Islamists and strengthens their cause. So I would think that such a violation of civil liberties would actually undermine state security. I don't see Rimington tackling that issue.

If civil liberties are under threat for the general UK and US populous, then detainees will be affected in the same way (probably worse).

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?page=print_article&id_article=903