Tony Blair talks rubbish on the war on terror

Tony Blair has penned this article in the Sunday Times entitled "Shacked in the war on terror".

Here are some choice quotes:

The absconding of three people on control orders because of suspicion of their involvement in terrorism has, once again, thrown into sharp relief the debate about terrorism and civil liberty. Within the next few weeks we will publish new proposals on anti-terror laws. Our aim is to reach a consensus across the main political parties.

Well, given that you do not appear to have listened to people who have considerably more anti terrorist experience than you I very much doubt you are going to achieve much in the way of a consensus.

But at the heart of these new proposals will lie the same debate: the balance between protecting the safety of the public and the rights of the individual suspected of being involved with terrorism.

The problem with saying "the individual suspected of being involved in terrorism" is that it appears to try to make it look like it is only a few people. It need not be, it could be anybody. The state can and does make mistakes in these things and the whole point of the British system is to protect the individual from the state.

And, of course, we lost the crucial vote on 90 days’ precharge detention, despite offering a week-by-week court hearing throughout the 90 days.

Yes, there is a reason for that. It is a stupid idea and would be a recruiting sergeant for the extremists.

So when there is an outcry about the three absconding, we should remember that consistently over the past few years, and even after July 7, attempts to introduce stronger powers have been knocked back in parliament and in the courts.

Again there are reasons for that. Firstly control orders that are overly strict will look like house arrest and will be a recruiting sergeant for the extremists. Secondly these people should be prosecuted with the use of intercept evidence. We are virtually alone in the western world in not allowing our own intercept evidence in court though we do allow Belgian intercept evidence. The reason for the outcry over the absconding is that we can't believe that people believed to be so dangerous are not more closely monitored. They are either dangerous or they are not. Keeping people in some kind of limbo for years at a time is simply un British and unacceptable.

So the fault is not with our services or, in this instance, with the Home Office. We have chosen as a society to put the civil liberties of the suspect, even if a foreign national, first.

I happen to believe this is misguided and wrong.

Well you would do, your a fascist prat. Seriously we have to ask what it is we are trying to defend here. It is after all key to how we defend it. Surely we are trying to defend a free society in which people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This country is about so much more than warm beer and cricket. To suggest that a suspect loses all his rights simply because he is a suspect is bonkers. Even when asked to prove things beyond reasonable doubt mistakes are made. If you look at the number of people who have been arrested under anti terrorism legislation in recent years compared to those charged the figures are stark, 90% of them being released without charge or charged under much less serious legislation.
It is clear that the police may have reasonable suspicion in many cases but then it transpires they have nothing more than that. Can we really afford to erode our liberties to a point where people can be locked up for long periods of time without charge?

Their right to traditional civil liberties comes first. I believe this is a dangerous misjudgment.

You said that earlier in the same piece, and repeating it does not make it any more more true. I note the use of the word "their" when in fact it will be every bodies civil liberties under threat. After all the police have used anti terrorism legislation to break up legitimate demonstrations.

This extremism, operating the world over, is not like anything we have faced before. It needs to be confronted with every means at our disposal. Tougher laws in themselves help, but just as crucial is the signal they send out: that Britain is an inhospitable place to practise this extremism.

Well I am not sure this is unlike any threat we have faced before but I will let that pass. However what tougher laws does Tony want? It has been the case since the 1986 public order act that you could prosecute and charge people for inciting acts of terror. In fact you can generally prosecute people for inciting most criminal acts.

This government has only used the existing law once. Yet if it used it to tackle the extremism of which he complains then he would be able to lock up those who are recruiting for the extremists. Yet this government for its own petty and stupid reasons does not want to do that, instead it wishes to damage our democracy beyond repair.