| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
03 What it is taking to win the War on Terror
What was the War on Terror meant to defend? Life, most obviously, of those who may suffer at the hands of acts of terrorism. As is now quite obvious, however, the War on Terror has itself required the loss of life to achieve that sense of security. Afghans and Iraqis have been sacrificed to keep the streets of western capitals free from foreign, terrorist attack. Whether this has bred a cycle of violence that has ultimately made life less secure featured in the post 7/7 debate: has military occupation of Iraq made Britain a target for terrorist activity and therefore more exposed? Ironically, the War on Terror has rendered life more, not less, vulnerable, whether in the West or otherwise.
The War on Terror was also meant to protect the West's 'way of life'. Governments would act to ensure terror did not disable western capitals with fear and that people could continue to enjoy their cherished liberties. But particularly in Britain and the US, governments have done more to erode those liberties than to protect them. Anti-terror legislation proposed by the British government after 7/7, for example, has entered its final leg in the House of Lords. As with much of debate since 9/11, it has grappled with the 'balance' between protecting civil liberties and guaranteeing security.That has been a recipe for curtailing civil liberties because the two appear mutually exclusive: to secure more of one, some of the other must be sacrificed. As the language of 'imminent' threats remains, the pendulum continues to swing more resolutely in favour of security at the expense of liberty. UK-based civil liberties organisations such as Liberty argue that there is no need for new legislation to deal with Britain's terrorist threat, but the government has still moved to create new speech offences and to widen the powers to proscribe political association. President Bush has also recently come under fire for authorising wiretaps, devices that allow US intelligence to listen in on conversations, to be deployed without judicial consent. He too has argued that his decision was taken with the best interests of national security at heart, even though most agree it was a serious infringement on the civil liberties of American citizens.
There is, ultimately, no civil liberty that cannot be sacrificed in the name of protecting the right to life.We may yet see further curtailment therefore as we are continually reminded of the inevitability of further attacks. But if that is so, the West needs to decide what the War on Terror was meant to defend. If life is more vulnerable, fear more palpable and governments continue to roll back civil liberties, what success can the War on Terror hail? On every count - life, fear and liberty - the war is failing; it demonstrates that it is sacrificing the very values and goals it intended to further, a fact that brings the intellectual resilience of these values into question.
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 >
Page 3 of 4 pages
| |
|
|
