|
April 4, 2007
George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard have made the 'war against terrorism' into a powerful political weapon. Theirs is a war without end against shifting terrorist groups, states of emergency, repressive laws that promise greater security and sacrificing rights to wage the war against terrorism. Writing in the London Review of Books Bruce Ackerman says, in response to the above scenario, that:
To avoid a repeated cycle of repression, defenders of freedom must consider a more hard-headed doctrine, one that allows short-term emergency measures, but draws the line against permanent restrictions. Above all else, we must prevent politicians from exploiting momentary panic to impose long-lasting limitations on liberty. Designing a constitutional regime for a limited state of emergency is a tricky business. Unless careful precautions are taken, emergency measures have a habit of continuing well beyond their necessity. And governments shouldn't be permitted to run wild even during the emergency - many extreme measures should remain off-limits. Nevertheless, the self-conscious design of an emergency regime may well be the best available defence against a panic-driven cycle of permanent destruction.
He suggests that the The overriding aim should be to enact a statute that not only contains tight temporal limits but requires increasing legislative supermajorities for further extensions.
|
He is wrong. I can point to Bangladesh as why that is so.