Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiConservatism vs. Authoritarianism: The British vs. The US Right
In Britain, the Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is attempting to enact legislation empowering the Government to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days without bothering to charge them with any crime (as a result of post-9/11 legislation, the British Government may do so now for 28 days). Much of the opposition to this expansion of the Government's detention power comes from the British Right, which sees it as an intolerable expansion of unchecked government power and a severe erosion of core Western liberties. Factions within the British Left are opposed to the legislation for the same reason.
The official position of the British Conservative Party is to oppose the legislation, and former Tory Prime Minister John Major -- who himself was the target of a 1991 bombing-assassination plot by the IRA -- wrote an Op-Ed in the Times Online emphatically opposing these increased detention powers and also opposing new DNA and other domestic surveillance programs. Headlined "42-day detention: the threat to our liberty -- The Government's plan is simply part of an assault on our ancient rights," the conservative former Prime Minister wrote:
[T]he case for war was embellished by linking the Iraqi regime to the 9/11 attacks on New York -- for which there is not one shred of evidence. As we moved towards war, that misinformation was compounded by the implication that Saddam's Iraq was a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom, which plainly it was not.
These actions damaged our reputation overseas. And, at home -- on the back of the threat of terror and two serious incidents in London -- they foreshadowed a political climate in which civil liberties are slowly being sacrificed.
We now know that, despite repeated denials, our Government was complicit in rendition, or -- to put it in plain terms -- the transfer of suspects out of civilised jurisdiction to a place where they could be held without charge for a lengthy period.
Although the intention was presumably to garner information, such action is hardly in the spirit of the nation that gave the world Magna Carta, or the Parliament that gave it habeas corpus.
I don't believe that sacrifice of due process can be justified. If we are seen to defend our own values in a manner that does violence to them, then we run the risk of losing those values. Even worse, if our own standards fall, it will serve to recruit terrorists more effectively than their own propaganda could ever hope to. . . .
The Government has introduced measures to protect against terrorism. These go beyond anything contemplated when Britain faced far more regular -- and no less violent -- assaults from the IRA. The justification of these has sometimes come close to scaremongering. . . .
The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." This is a demagogue's trick. We do have something to fear -- the total loss of privacy to an intrusive state with authoritarian tendencies. . .
So is a society in which the right to personal privacy is downgraded. These days a police superintendent can authorise bugging in public places. A chief constable can authorise bugging our homes or cars.
The Home Secretary can approve telephone tapping and the interception of our letters and e-mails. All of this is legal under an Act passed by the Labour Government. None of this requires -- as it should -- the sanction of a High Court Judge. . .
No one can rule out the possibility of another atrocity -- but a free and open society is worth a certain amount of risk. A siege society is alien to our core instincts and -- once in place - will be difficult to dismantle. It is a road down which we should not go.
That is an expression of conservatism true to its ostensible principles of individual liberty and limited government power. And, in England, principled conservatism on such issues is not unique to Major. The Tory MP leading the opposition to expanded detention powers, David Davis, resigned his seat in order to run again specifically on a platform of opposing due-process-less detentions and similar expansions of government surveillance power:
In his resignation statement, he said he feared 42 days was just the beginning and next "we'll next see 56 days, 70 days, 90 days". But, he added: "In truth, 42 days is just one -- perhaps the most salient example -- of the insidious, surreptitious and relentless erosion of fundamental British freedoms."
He listed the growth of the "database state," government "snooping" ID cards, the erosion of jury trials and other issues.
"This cannot go on. It must be stopped and for that reason today I feel it is incumbent on me to make a stand," said Mr Davis.
This skepticism of Government power -- which lies not only at the heart of most key British reforms over the last 8 centuries but also at the heart of the American Founding -- is precisely what has been missing almost completely from the American Right, for which there is now no federal government power too great or too unlimited to embrace. The American right-wing faction which now dominates the Republican Party is defined largely by their insatiable lust for limitless government power in virtually every realm -- spying, detentions, interrogations, and war-making. Hence, while British conservatives largely oppose a policy merely to allow the Government to detain terrorist suspects for 42 days with no charges, our "conservatives" react with fury over the U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the President's claimed authority to hold such suspects in Guantanamo for 6 years -- really indefinitely -- without providing them any meaningful process at all. In fact, the Bush administration asserted the right to detain even U.S. citizens, arrested on U.S. soil, indefinitely, with no charges or any contact with the outside world, for years, and they proceeded to do so, with virtually no opposition of any kind from our self-proclaimed right-wing defenders of individual liberty or limited government.
The rare exceptions on the U.S. Right which have opposed such Draconian powers -- the Ron Pauls, Bruce Feins and Bob Barrs -- have largely been excommunicated from the GOP Church, because the greatest blasphemy on the American Right is to oppose endless expansions of Government power or to insist on some limits on the Government's surveillance and detention authority.
While British conservatives rally to defeat the Government's attempt to increase its detention powers, the U.S Right is plagued by -- defined by -- a truly warped, deeply authoritarian and profoundly un-American mentality. That mentality is exemplified by this characteristically deranged reaction to yesterday's Supreme Court ruling by National Review's in-house legal expert, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy:
A Courtroom, er, Battlefield We Can Win On [Andy McCarthy] An old government friend emails with a practical response to the Supreme Court:
Let's free all Gitmo detainees...on a vast, deserted, open and contested Afghan battlefield. C-130 gunship circling overhead for security. Give them all a two minute running head start.
To our country's pseudo-tough-guy "conservatives," the very idea of merely requiring the Government to prove the guilt of the people it wants to imprison for life or execute is so intolerable, so offensive, that they want instead to release them all -- including detainees who are indisputably innocent -- onto a battlefield so that they can be slaughtered by our planes with no trial at all. Moments earlier, McCarthy declared the Supreme Court ruling to mean that "the American people had lost to radical Islam, 5 to 4" -- in the authoritarian eyes of the American Right, the American people "lose" when our Government is required to prove the guilt of people before it can imprison them for life or kill them. The contrast between the British Right and the American Right could not be more glaring. The former is at least mildly faithful to the principles they espouse, while the latter has morphed completely into an authoritarian, government-power-worshiping faction that fantasizes it's waging glorious war against -- to use Antonin Scalia's politicized term -- "radical Islamists," but which is only at war with its own claimed principles and the principles on which the country was founded.
UPDATE: I was just on WNYC debating yesterday's Supreme Court ruling with Jed Babbin, one of the most enthusiastic and active participants in the Pentagon's "military analyst" program (Babbin was one of the "military analysts" on the indescribably propagandistic trip to Guantanamo, where they were led around by the Pentagon for a grand total of 3 hours and then came back and, in unison, pronounced Guantanamo free of abuse; Babbin is still squeezing propaganda mileage out of that trip, as he said this morning that he was at Guantanamo and there was no abuse. Detainees even play soccer there, he said).
The question I put to him again and again was one that he simply couldn't answer: how and why would any American object to the mere requirement that our Government prove that someone is guilty before we imprison them indefinitely or execute them? That is all that yesterday's Supreme Court ruling required -- not that detainees be released, but that their guilt be proven in a fair proceeding. The fact that the Right is so enraged by this basic requirement vividly reveals the authoritarian impulses which define them. After all, key McCain ally Lindsey Graham is actually threatening to amend our Constitution to limit the right of habeas corpus in response to yesterday's ruling. The authoritarian radicalism of this faction can't be overstated.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
19 Comments so far
Show AllchrisB sez:
"...if they do have a plan i'm betting it's called "The Noah's Ark option"
acceptable losses…death toll in millions possibly even billions…wipe out the best part of the world population so they can get on with the serious buisness of goverment - without the annoying inconvenience of all these gosh darn people every-where…once achieved there will be plenty of resources to go around…and they can sit there with their fine houses, champagne and lobsters, smoking fine cigars and create a genticaly modified race of servants to do the job properly…go on we all know.. deep down..that that's what they really want… ..."
That nearly sums it up, but they are not looking to get on with the serious buisness of government, but the buisness of buisness(with religious extremism throw in to keep the peasants under control.
Kinda like the dark ages
Two thumbs up for Gleen Greenwald.
Too bad Hannity doesn't know what a "real American Patriot" is.
Glenn Greeenwald is one of the best !!!
I caught the Fox spin on the Supreme Court Gitmo ruling on O'Reilly. They had this pretty lady pretending to be upset, and all they could come up with was something about a waste of taxpayers money trying these guys in civilian courts, and how they will ALL turn into suicide bombers when released. No mention of the completely innocent al jazeera cameraman and others. Pretty lame.
for a fun yet accurate insight into British Politics take a look at the BBC comedy series "Yes ..Minister"....
The difference is, in Britian the underlying motivation for conservatives is politcal. In America the underlying motivation is religious. And this difference shows itself in the fact that in America, the right is strictly "Ends justify the means", which reflects its purely religious mindset.
As soon as I read that the word "England" used instead of the correct "Britain", I stopped reading. Who can be bothered with the analysis of a writer who makes basic errors that suggest a degree of political and historical illiteracy?
"Two questions: 1.) What's up with the 42 days? Why 42 and not 44 or 39 or whatever? 28, then 42 - seems completely random."
42, 4+2 = 6. Six is a magic number, as is 7, and 6 x 7 = 42.
"2.) What's the ultimate point of all the effort to monitor "us" all the time and restrict rights and the rest? "They" already got the "power" and the money and the resources, and they've pretty much made it impossible for anyone not in their club to grab a slice, and they're clearly not the least bit interested in stopping "terrorism" or spreading "democracy," so… what's the goal? Once "we're" all controlled and databased and penniless… then what do they plan to do? It's like they're on this crazy mission to nowhere…"
It is a plan for One World Government following the religion of Social Darwinism.
The police state apparatus is to crush dissent once they decide to shove it down our throat. You can see it in Europe with the Lisbon Treaty. Only Ireland was allowed to vote, they said nay, but still they will force it down the Europeans throat.
We have now reached a population of 6.66 billion people. So the time is now. Once they have achieved the One World Government and Global Police State, and they have pretty much already done so except for a few dissenting countries who will be dealt with, they will cull the herd.
Those of unworthy or defective genetic stock, based on DNA testing, will be disposed of. Some estimates of the target population range from 600 million to 2 billion to serve the 600,000 elite. So we are looking at up to 6 billion dead. This will be accomplished by famine, bioengineered disease, denial of credit (money will be eliminated, credit will be controlled with implanted microchips-the mark of the beast 666, the unworthy or unchipped will have no means of purchasing food), poisonous chemicals or toxins in food and drugs, health care denial, Orwellian type wars, etc.
Once all is said and done, the vision is to bioengineer a master race and turn man into Gods. They will modify the slave - worker class races to be more productive. For example, it would be nice to have labourers who do not require much education to reach full growth -strength earlier, say in 5 years instead of 14-18 years. Grow them stronger. When they can't work, they go to the ovens.
The elite will be engineered to live longer and be smarter. Sex slaves will be engineered to be more beautiful. There will be no families. Only those approved to have sex and or children may do so.
When population grows from 600 million to 6.66 billion again, over a 600 year period, they will cull the herd again and start once more.
The elite think big.
Frank,
Just a wild guess, but I'd imagine that the reason for 42 days is that they need two more weeks to manufacture enough dirt to keep someone imprisoned. i.e. 4*7=28, 6*7=42.
As to the need for surveillance, Aldous Huxley discussed this in depth in his 1958 book 'Brave New World Revisited'. He observed that in order for Hitler to maintain power, he needed to know what people were really thinking. After all, he was *telling* them what to think, so he needed to know what they really thought in private, hence the need to monitor communications.
And Huxley warned that Hitler and his crew were really amateurs and that as technology advanced, the noose of control would get tighter. I think we're seeing that with electronic communications surveillance. Now, the people can be invisibly monitored to determine how effectively the propaganda is working. And then the propaganda can be tailored to address the identified weaknesses. This idea makes an appearance in V for Vendetta, where police "sweeps" are used to learn that most citizens do not believe the government line about the death of the "terrorist" V.
Ultimately, the problem for the controllers is that there are other methods of apperceiving the truth, other ways for people to make sense of the world. Unfortunately, most people - certainly in the US, are indoctrinated in school to accept being "told what the truth is," as opposed to being taught how to reason the truth by thinking for themselves. CD, it seems to me, attracts people who have learned to think for themselves, despite the best efforts of the government to stupify them. But when the controllers start losing control, one of the oldest techniques of regaining control is to just wipe out people who think for themselves. I fully expect this to happen here, it's just a matter of time.
There are areas of US society that authoritarian Right do not believe the government should intrude. And they have been actively cutting back government in these areas.
Those areas are: health and safety of workers, environmental oversight, corporate crime and white collar crime prevention, etc.
citizenblog, thanks for listening to my post the other day re: meetings with Dennis and Conyers. video is in YouTube on Veterans for Peace Channel, the about 1 hour version contains both meetings, they chopped up the video with Dennis, but it's all there.
I have been watching the House of Commons on Cspan re; the terrorist detainee thing. I don't know much about the way they operate inside of that House but they seemed to have a damn lot of support FOR it.
"If they do have a plan I'm betting it's called "The Noah's Ark option"
acceptable losses…death toll in millions possibly even billions…wipe out the best part of the world population..."
Neutron bombs, anyone? I'm sure we still have a few stashed away.
frank..
"Two questions: 1.) What's up with the 42 days? Why 42 and not 44 or 39 or whatever? 28, then 42 - seems completely random. "
it is because , as it is now widely known, 42 is in fact the answer to life the universe and "everything"..
Frank
"It's like they're on this crazy mission to nowhere..."
i'm glad i'm not the only one who is scratching his head on this!!
it is exacty as if they are on a crazy mission to nowhere..
lets face it they either have a plan..or they are insane...which is scaryier is any-bodys guess
if they do have a plan i'm betting it's called "The Noah's Ark option"
acceptable losses...death toll in millions possibly even billions...wipe out the best part of the world population so they can get on with the serious buisness of goverment - without the annoying inconvenience of all these gosh darn people every-where...once achieved there will be plenty of resources to go around...and they can sit there with their fine houses, champagne and lobsters, smoking fine cigars and create a genticaly modified race of servants to do the job properly...go on we all know.. deep down..that that's what they really want...
secretarybird June 14th, 2008 1:54 pm — 'Dubya would never have risen through a party system that required its leaders to be effective members of a parliament.'
The parliamentary system, while imperfect as any human system of governance is bound to be, is clearly superior in every respect to the self-declared and much-vaunted 'greatest democracy on earth'. When it was rejected by USA Incorporated's founders, they not only 'threw out the baby with the bath water', they established the basis for a presidency that now has far greater and more tyrannical powers than George III or any other European monarch of that era could have dreamed of in his wildest imaginings.
Combining the powers of head-of-state, head-of-government and commander-in-chief in a single office with absolutely no day-to-day parliamentary accountability is just about the dumbest anti-democratic idea imaginable. But who knows. Maybe the USA's founders knew exactly what they were doing. They were, after all, not nearly so concerned with eliminating tyranny as they were with establishing their own regime to pursue unfettered westward expansion and land grabs that nasty old George III had (unwisely?) proscribed.
Two questions: 1.) What's up with the 42 days? Why 42 and not 44 or 39 or whatever? 28, then 42 - seems completely random.
2.) What's the ultimate point of all the effort to monitor "us" all the time and restrict rights and the rest? "They" already got the "power" and the money and the resources, and they've pretty much made it impossible for anyone not in their club to grab a slice, and they're clearly not the least bit interested in stopping "terrorism" or spreading "democracy," so... what's the goal? Once "we're" all controlled and databased and penniless... then what do they plan to do? It's like they're on this crazy mission to nowhere...
In Britain (and other European countries) the really barking mad right wingers tend to be in small fringe parties rather than the big centre-right parties. They might become part of temporary coalitions (as with the neo-Fascists in Italy) or have no substantial political power (as with the racist British National Party, or the anti-European UK Independence Party).
It seems to me that the Republican Party in the US finds a home for a lot of people who are so right-wing, they'd languish on the lunatic fringes of politics in Europe. And Dubya would never have risen through a party system that required its leaders to be effective members of a parliament.
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
For a really thorough exploration of the authoritarian way of thinking of both authoritarian leaders and followers check this link.
The opposite of "liberal" is "authoritarian". "Conservative" just sounds nicer than "authoritarian".
Glenn is confusing "conservative" with its opposite, "conservationist".
This way it has a chance of building momentum with a flood of calls to the House Judiciary Committee. Furthermore, 24 Republicans voted for it! Now, that's something to build upon! (Call 1-800-828-0498 ask for Conyers, then Smith, then Wexler, then Nadler, then any republican on the Judiciary Committee who are: Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, Lungren, Cannon, Keller, Issa, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert and Jordan). Kucinich told the IVAW and Veterans For Peace, that if the Judiciary doesn't move on this within 30 days, he will introduce a new Resolution with sixty articles! Whew!
http://republicansforimpeachment.com/
Surprise, surprise, the current crop of Republicans are neo-Fascists combined with crony capitalists to whom money and power are the only goal.