Question’s in the title. In the UK, David Blunkett wants to bring in a raft of measures under the guise of “anti-terrorist” laws. These include secret trials without juries, ID cards and indefinite detention (we already have this).
The UK lived throughout a constant terrorist threat from Northern Irish paramilitaries for decades, yet, for the most part, we managed to avoid having civil liberties infringed in such a way (I’m aware of internment in NI).
Is the supposed threat from Islamic terrorists as great as we are led to believe, or are governments from around the world using the threat for their own ends?
In France, several exceptions have been made for terrorism-related crimes. For instance, the suspected culprit can be detained longer before being formally arrested, or night searchs of houses (normally forbidden under french law) can be conducted in terrorism cases.
Until now, I’m not aware of any law seriously threatening civil liberties being passed (like unlimited detention or secret trials), though one could argue that any exception made to the general rules for a particular crime is in itself worth worrying.
As for the motives, I assume it can be both. Some may be motivated by a genuine concern or need, while in other cases, terrorism will only be a pretext used by authoritarian politicians to pass more security-oriented laws. I’m not sure the motives are that important, anyway. Allowing secret trials to be held, for instance, is as much worrying in both cases.
Terrorism kills so pitifully few people in real terms, and requires such vastly intrusive security to achieve even a probability of preventing a given act, that one wonders why governments and media give it so much attention (which is, ironically, terrorism’s oxygen). My conclusion is that governments find an external, mysterious threat useful in that they make government more necessary.
Absolutely correct. Terrorism was used to elect the current President of the U.S. A lot of center and center right folk who reported they were very unhappy with Dubya on many issues voted for him because their little minds had been scared into uselessness by the “Threat of Terrorism.”
The question is, is the appropriate word ‘manipulate’? Governments definitely have an effect…
paraphrased from the recent Pentagon report:
American direct intervention in the Muslim World has elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists. The dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Jihadists are now able to convincingly portray themselves as true defenders of an Ummah. Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
This all sound pretty familiar. The only difference is that this is now in a DoD report instead of a SDMB post.