Tories and terror
4:06pmTim Montgomerie, editor of Conservative Home, and Matthew d’Ancona are debating how the Tories should respond to Brown. You can read the first part of the debate here and the second part below.
Dear Matt
Thanks for your reply to my opening post of yesterday. Because I agreed with just about everything you wrote and in the light of today's aborted bomb attack I thought we should shift our exchange to how the Tories should respond to Brown on homeland security and - furthermore - how the Tories can show some leadership on this issue. Read more.
Matt responds:
Dear Tim
I think that the whole spectrum of security – from the “hoodie” issue to the defence of the realm from terror – is Cameron’s weakest point. His strategy is worryingly confused and fails to offer the reassurance I mentioned in my first post. Today’s events bring this matter into sharp focus.
I fervently hope that you are wrong that one of these attacks will be successful, but experience suggests you are right. Whether or not Brown will take the blame or not is unknowable: what is certainly apparent already is that a few dog whistles on Iraq, particularly the dreadful appointment of Mark Malloch Brown to the FCO, will do nothing to prevent such atrocities. It is psychologically easier to believe that the Islamists hate us because of Iraq, but it is also nonsense. The Birmingham plot of 2000 makes that plain enough, as does the fact that terrorists have been arrested in Canada and France, countries which both opposed the war.
On ID cards, Charles Clarke had the honesty to admit after 7/7 that they would not have prevented the attacks and I am not persuaded of their value as a counter-terrorist tool. But on other matters – the Conservative Party’s opposition to the 90 days’ detention measure in November 2005 was, for me, one of the most shameful episodes in its recent past: the sound of braying MPs declaring they were off to open the champagne after the proposal’s defeat was truly nauseating, a moment of absolute detachment from the real world.
After July 7, it took a full fortnight to gain access to all the sites of the explosions and a further six weeks to complete forensic examinations. What if those investigations had yielded intelligence indicating imminent attack by an associated cell? What if the police had detained suspected members of that cell, but been unable to thwart the plan within the present limit of 28 days? Encrypted files, global conspiracy, diabolically complex forensic tasks: these are the realities of 21st-century counter-terrorism.
Instead, the Tory Party sounds like the provisional wing of Liberty, or the West London branch of the Shami Chakrabarti Fan Club. Grandstanding as defenders of Magna Carta, they look like they are merely jumping on the libertarian bandwagon. Except, to be frank, it isn’t much of a bandwagon. All the polls, for what it is worth, showed strong public support for 90 days. The British are indeed a freedom-loving people, but they understand that in times of crisis freedoms have to be curtailed. That was in the case in the Second World War and during the Ulster Troubles. In both cases – crucially – the restrictions upon personal liberty were lifted once the crisis had passed. I am truly puzzled by the choice of a generation of Conservatives so initially alive to the meaning of 9/11 to pursue this antiquated path.
I would love to see David Trimble – wise, calm, tough-minded – given responsibility for a comprehensive rethink of this area of policy. But what I would like to know, first of all, is this: does Cameron think we are at war or not?
Best, Matt
Previous
Comments
antifrank
June 29th, 2007 4:28pmI can't speak for David Cameron, but I don't believe we're at war. What we have is a deeply unsavoury group of terrorist criminals with medieval beliefs who command the support of a small cadre on their objectives and can draw on the loose support of a much larger number on specific emotive issues, all of which have been set up by our blundering leaders on both sides of the Atlantic. Many of the measures being put forward by the Labour party could not be better calibrated to inflame support for the terrorists. Our safety is best protected by looking after our freedom.
Evan Price
June 29th, 2007 5:18pmMatthew asks, 'After July 7, it took a full fortnight to gain access to all the sites of the explosions and a further six weeks to complete forensic examinations. What if those investigations had yielded intelligence indicating imminent attack by an associated cell? What if the police had detained suspected members of that cell, but been unable to thwart the plan within the present limit of 28 days? Encrypted files, global conspiracy, diabolically complex forensic tasks: these are the realities of 21st-century counter-terrorism.' The problem with this question is that it fails to recognise that no-one in the Police has actually said that the 14-day time limit that existed at the time of 7/7 had made any difference to any actual case before then; and no-one has said after that time that the 28-day time limit has made any difference to any actual case. The problem with all of this is that if there were actual evidence that it would make a difference to police investigations, rather than be a method to remove individuals from their usual (or even unusual) routines, then that evidence would have been given as part of the unconstitutional action of using senior police officers to tell MPs how to vote on this particular issue. We live in a free society; to oppose the proposed 90-day detention without charge is not liberal - it is merely to defend the status established in the 80th Century in the case of Entick v Carrington; that no man can be subjected to executive action without the due process of law taking place. Our MPs had a decision to take - whether they were, on balance, persuaded that the need for a 90-day detention period is more important than the liberty that people enjoy. MPs said, No. You may disagree with that decision; but rather than attack the man, use your chance to persuade ...
mary wakefield
June 29th, 2007 5:30pmDoes Gordon Brown think we are at war?
Turtlephobe
June 29th, 2007 5:37pm"I would love to see David Trimble – wise, calm, tough-minded – given responsibility for a comprehensive rethink of this area of policy"! Try, for your next ellipsis, 'panic-prone, with an explosive temper, liable to weird, Brown-like huffing, wildly uncharismatic, appaling man-management skills, and sufficiently unintegrated into wider society as to be in need of full-time professional care', and then you'll be just a touch closer to the real David Trimble. Oh, and if you're looking for someone to defeat terrorists, as opposed to putting them in office, can I really, really, *really* suggest someone else?
Mike Turvey
June 29th, 2007 10:40pmWhat a load of claptrap! "It is psychologically easier to believe that the Islamists hate us because of Iraq, but it is also nonsense." This is not what our security and intelligence services are telling us. Sure it isn't the only reason but it is undeniably another stick for the extremists to beat us with. "The British are indeed a freedom-loving people, but they understand that in times of crisis freedoms have to be curtailed." Yes it is true that many people don't give a damn about civil liberties, they just think "well I don't break the law so I'll be alright". It is largely the an issue for educated political elites because they are the ones most likely to be affected should a government abuse its executive powers. But the fact is protecting this middle-class intelligencia, safe from unjustified interference by an overmighty state is exactly what keeps our democracy healthy and the every-day law-abiding citizens safe from the terrors of a police state. How would our politicians, academics, judges, business leaders and civil society leaders hold the government to account without civil liberties? Are we not trying to promote these very freedoms around the world in places less fortunate than Britain? What is wrong with the Conservative Party being the voice of reason in the face of Blair and Brown clumsy and ineffective authoritarianism?