This September will be the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers: the tenth anniversary of, in effect, the "War on Terror".
Not longer after the 9/11 attacks, there was a Richard Curtis film called Love Actually (2003). This film referenced the post 9/11 environment in many ways, including a populist scene where the ever-so-nice British Prime Minister shows plucker in standing up to the ever-so-beastly US President. (I remember this defiance being clapped in the London cinema.) There is also a vomit-worthy voiceover by the supposed Prime Minister saying how we are all joined together with bonds of love.
But it is another scene in that film which I think, all these years later, is more significant for the "War on Terror". In one of the final scenes, the boy-stalker Sam runs and dodges through airport security to say good bye to the object of his affections. It is a fun, slapstick sequence.
And it took place in a film released just two years after 9/11. At the time it was just about credible.
However, ten years after 9/11, we all know what would happen to such a boy at such an airport.
He would be shot dead.
The constant ramping up of security since 2001 has made the UK and the USA illiberal and often dangerous places.
But, with a couple of exceptions, there have been no further acts of terrorism in the UK and USA since 2001; but the grind of anti-terrorism carries on.
It is almost as if anti-terrorism is getting worse the less we terrorism we have.
I was brought up in the Birmingham of the 1970s, where everyone knew someone who had been in the city centre when the pub bombs went off. A friend was in Deal when the barracks were bombed. Another friend's mother worked in Harrods when that bomb went off.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the British mainland was under constant threat from terrorism; the news of another incident sometimes did not even make the top item on that evening's news.
In a way, the fact there was actual terrorism helped keep day-to-day things in proportion; people just carried on.
But since 9/11, with a couple of exceptions, there has been little actual terrorism, and against this silence, anti-terrorism is getting out of proportion.
And it will carry on getting more excessive, more intrusive, more restrictive: making our society as a whole worse off than if the terrorists had actually been more active.
Anti-terrorism is now an end in itself; a version of Orwell's boot stamping on a human face forever; the policy of O'Brien seeking power and control simply for its own sake.
What is happening to our society is not because of terrorism; it is because those who wish to exercise and extend power have found a perfect excuse in terrorism.
Don't we know there is a "War on Terrorism" on?
Yes, still on, some ten years later.
COMMENTS MODERATION
No purely anonymous comments will be published; always use a name for ease of reference by other commenters.
Sunday, 2 January 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
57 comments:
"But, with a couple of exceptions, there have been no further acts of terrorism in the UK and USA since 2001."
Let's overlook the shameful smugness of this comment for a while, and ask why it doesn't strike you that security might have prevented this?
This piece is massively beneath you.
You can't win a war on a noun.
They have even pretty much invented or at least reinvented "terrorism" from the start.
Great post. It shows that you've gripped the fundamentals, facts very few others seems to understand.
The point you are making isn’t clear enough to me I’m afraid.
“Yes, still on, some ten years later.”
Are you bemoaning the timescale? Asking why the fundamental problem of terrorism is still with us? Highlighting that the ‘war on terror’ is a misnomer?
“What is happening to our society is not because of terrorism; it is because that (sic) those who wish to exercise and extent (sic) power have found a perfect excuse in terrorism.”
If this were the main point you wish to make then rather than a simple assertion I’d have expected some evidence to back the point up. It’s not as if such evidence is not available…
C minus; needs more careful consideration before blogging with this little substance.
redarsedbaboon, I have some leopard insurance I'd like to sell you.
@redarsedbaboon
Depends what you mean by "security".
If you mean that (say) intelligence gathering by the security services may have prevented some attacks (eg the fertiliser bomb plot to blow up the Bluewater shopping centre http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1725608.ece) then "yes", "security" has prevented some attacks.
If you mean (say) harassing people taking photographs of buildings in London or prosecuting Paul Chambers for his Twitter joke, then "no", increased "security" inflicted on the general public has not prevented any attacks and is unlikely to do so.
@Schroedinger99
I've noticed the vast privatisation of the security services and military in the US creating a vast mercenary industry. They have a vested interest in shouting 'fire', hence the continual need for high security.
How far down that road have we gone?
@AllanW
Corrrections made to that sentence. Thank you.
Hmm JOK where to start? More straw men here than the local scarecrow festival. Its no good trying to start from anywhere other than where we are. We are caught up in an arms race but I don't see anything like SALT on the horizon, do you?
Lets just stop calling it The War On Terror. Lets not have a big name for it at all. Its tactics and counter tactics on many different stages. Do we need airport security to prevent a known capability to down a jet airliner with a bottle of Powerade? Maybe. What about if someone figures out a way to build bombs into Nike Airmax? What if there is a supply of suicidal bombers who delight in the idea of riding the flaming wreckage to the ground? Well that's serious isn't it? Would it occur to a jihadist to send a bomb laden child into a crowd? Of course it would. Do children so vulnerable and indoctrinated exist in the world? Of course they do.
One option is to sit tight and take our lumps but the difference between the IRA spectaculars of old and the current situation is one of potential volume I think. For Ireland there was a limiting condition which was negotiation for politcal power. PIRA ended up bombing financial targets like Spaghetti Junction, The Manchester CBD and the Baltic Exchange until we negotiated and they never had a suicide tradition.
I don't think the sources of the current threat have much intention to negotiaite for political power and if they got it, well best not to be female, gay or apostate. We are dealing with the weaponsiation of old, deeply held, easily inflamed and violently believed in grudges. No feud like an old feud they say.
We need to guard against excess such as detention without trial, torture and the rest. Certainly our leaders should be canned if they so much as thinking from resiling from the Rule of Law but lets not pretend the threat isn't lethal, serious and regular.
I recall spending the winter of 1983-84 in central London (where I studied and lived) dodging police barriers and bomb alerts down Oxford St as the IRA ran their Xmas bombing campaign.
I do not, however, recall anything like the political hysteria of the last decade, with its politicians competing to see who can make the most illiberal statement about how many days we should be able to lock people up for without charge, all the while egged on by the tabloid press.
No-one denies that there is a terrorist thread. But is tossing civil liberties out of the window, pandering to the most Stasi-like impulses of the securocrats and the police, and creating a surveillance society, the best or only way to deal with it? Not for me.
So anyway, I agree with David/Jack. For me, the point where the politicians threw away many centuries of hard-won liberties, and legal due process, for the sake of posturing about being "tough on terror" (the 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act was the last straw for me) was the point at which I lost a lot of my faith in our political process.
There's no denying that terrorist attacks are a genuine threat and that some major plots have been intercepted. However, because of fear of terrorists, the governments and authorities of the UK and US have stripped away civil liberties to an entirely disproportionate (and ineffective) degree. With (relatively) barely a squeak of protest from a frightened and paranoid public. The "war" on terrorism has succeeded only in creating a xenophobic and paranoid divide between "them" and "us", and escalated bloodshed.
The plots that have been intercepted have (as far as I'm aware) resulted from traditional intelligence gathering - not intrusive bodyscanning at airports, stopping and searching, etc.
Spot on - in the year of the London bombings over 5,000 people committed suicide, and the numbers of remained depressingly high ever since - the average Brit is more of a threat to themselves than is any terrorist group, yet there's this relentless focus on the Al Qaeda bogeyman, arguably at the expense of much deeper social problems.
Your initial point about the Love Actually airport run was something my friend and I also thought a couple of years ago, and resulted in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHPLG4Pphyc
@NightJack
Come off it.
Of the 100s of 1000s of s44 stops and searches done by your colleagues, not a single one has led to a conviction of a terrorist-related offence. The pressure by your colleagues for 90 days detention without charge was pointless. The most immediate response by your colleagues to 7/7 was to needlessly shoot an innocent man dead.
PIRA was brought to the negotation table primarily through painstaking intelligence and logistical work. Sources of arms and finance were cut off. Gerry Adams couldn't sneeze without some source or device passing it back. Similarly, if there have been any successes in this "War on Terror" they have been intelligence-led and not police power-led.
"...lets not pretend the threat isn't lethal, serious and regular."
Well, I bloody hope not, because it is down to our hapless and power-thirsty police to stop it then they will be too busy stopping and searching tourist photographers to do anything about it.
My 80 year old mum says that when she was a child they were taught that one will know when it's the end of the world when "men wither away in fear and expectation of what is to come." Since 9/11 she has cited this to me many times and laments that it is surely the end of the world, and it certainly is as we knew it.
I grew up in '70's London in an Irish immigrant family. Shunned by the wary English whenever the bombs went off. I'd say it was a lot easier to be a member of an Irish immigrant family then, than it is today to be a Muslim.
Hmmm. Thought- provoking blogpost. Liked the cultural ref to the film. Agree with much of the content including what seemed to be an opportunity for govt who jumped on it to exercise more control on the masses - would however have liked examples of this tho to justify yr comments - including inappropriate use of legislation to stop and search, eg photographers around any urban area/civic building. (Many notable cases including 6th form student doing art project). However to what reads as a brushing aside of the 7/7 tube attacks with such a casual ref seems a little insensitive if you don't mind me saying. I suppose the comment re reality of the end of the film resulting in shooting the 'child/stalker' (you are deliberately provocative Mr Green) if he really ran through customs at Heathrow is ref to the shameful shooting of Jean Charles M. It's hard to know if this WOULD happen in a UK airport to a very small white obviously middle-class child. (Elsewhere however...or indeed to a child of different ethnicity). And it's hard to tell how many attacks HAVE been prevented due to 'heightened security' aka powers granted to the police and other security agencies. I'm sure that as we are 10 years on (anniversary seems so loaded with celebration under- or overtones) this debate will be revisited many times over the coming months. Will be interesting to see how our society forms and develops a collective opinion on this. I am concerned at what I predict of further racial schisms in communities where 'communities' live in fact quite separately. Will be interesting to see how David Cameron continues to present his Big Society against a backdrop of any muslim backlash. Oh and did you mean plucker or pluck? First time caller...bit nervous lol
@schrodinger99
Your last paragraph is obviously correct. For all that JoK thinks I only ever criticise him, I am on his side on the vast majority of issues, notably (in recent months), #twitterjoketrial, #wikicult, and for the most part sex work. There's no doubt that there's a massive debate to be had about the relevance of counter-terrorism provision to everyday life, its intrusion on civil liberties, the effectiveness of measures both individually and as a suite. And there's an excellent blog post to be written on it. Alas, this ain't it.
The overall tone is reminiscent of some of the dimmer media commentators in the wake of Y2K - nothing happened, therefore nothing needed to be done. Do you think the current Dutch coalition (almost as obsessed with cutting as ours) is thinking that there have been no catastrophic flooding incidents since 1951 so let's cut down on sea defences?
There is a balance to be struck, and this piece doesn't strike it. The glossing over of 7 July 2005 ('apart from one or two incidents'), in which 52 innocent people and four bombers driven mad by theology died, not to mention other incidents worldwide (Madrid, anyone?) leaves a very nasty taste in the mouth. These incidents were too significant to be glibly dismissed as statistical anomalies. Lots of people *died*.
The introduction of Love Actually also leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. Are we seriously deputising a twee Richard Curtis schmoozefest into the argument? I didn't stick with it past my first bout of vomiting, so I don't know either of the scenes on which JoK focuses, but it all seems a bit weak. Evidence-based again: do "we all know" (tabloid columnist phrase again) the boy would be shot dead? I contend that we don't. Isn't it suspension of disbelief that he would break through in that way anyway?
As you say, s99, the counter-terrorist effort has taken many forms, but not all of them are bad. Intelligence, procedural security, physical security, human security, public vigilance all have their place in the effort. There are egregious excesses (Chambers again), but that's why we have law. Hopefully. Harrassing photographers taking photos is bad, but hostile reconnaissance does go on, and there's no use pretending it doesn't. It requires officers on the ground to use their loaves.
As Nightjack points out in his excellent comment, there are variances between the attack methods of the IRA in the last quarter of the last century and the Islamist extremist threat in the first quarter of this one. Different counter-measures are required. Getting them right is vital, and alas, wishing doesn't make it so.
This post is weak, JoK. It doesn't mean I don't like you.
redarsedbabboon
Are you aware of the concept of logical fallacy?
Lack of a terror attack due to security measures can only be proven if you can equally conclusively prove that without them there would definitely have been an attack. Which you can't. And as there is no way to prove or disprove how effective the measures will be then there is also no way to measure how proportionate they are.
Truth is we now live in a world where toner is banned from aircraft because of one terror scare. I'm sure that put a real dent in the terror plans of Al Quaeda for 2011.
Like the silly "war on piracy" the problem is your waging a campaign on the back-foot where every silly knee-jerk law passed to supposedly prevent it is generally 3 or 4 steps behind those you are trying to stop and the only people it ends up hurting or inconveniencing are those trying to innocently go about their daily business.
I'd rather be free and at risk than under an illusion of "safety" and living under constant engineered fear and intimidation.
Bollocks, a lengthy comment just failed to post. Too long, maybe.
Essentially, great comment from Nightjack, and yes, Schrodinger99, the Chambers case is absurd, but it doesn't invalidate the whole effort.
I think the use of Love Actually is misconceived and non-evidence-based, and I think the glossing over of July 2005 as 'one or two incidents' is shameful.
The whole piece has a Y2K tone of 'this hasn't happened, so let's get rid of all the countermeasures' about it. There haven't been floods for ages, why would I want to mend that hole in the defences?
I agree with JoK on most subjects (Chambers, Assange, sex work), for all that he says I don't. But I think this is oversimplified, poor in argument, full of straw men and not up to standard.
60 People died in 7/7.
Around 10,000 people died of flu in 2009. That's 27 people a day.
Perhaps we should declare a War on Bacteria.
Facemasks, quarantine etc etc.
Gotta keep the public safe from such a terror.
The basic premise of this post seems to rest on terrorism being terrorism being terrorism. In other word, the PIRA were just the same as the various Muslim groups.
Not sure that that premise isn't on shaky foundations...
Is it generally accepted then that the events of 9/11 were in fact a result of the actions of terrorist in the conventional sense?
Let's not forget that 7/7 was caused by the "War on Terror". If we hadn't got involved in an unjust and illegal war then we would never have been a target. JoK is spot on.
Nightjack neatly demonstrates everything that is wrong with the prosecution of the war on terror; hyperbolic statements ("it's an arms race!") leading to daft what-if scenarios ("suicide toddlers!"), leading to yet more hyperbolic statements ("centuries-old feuds!", "watch out if you're gay when the muslims get power!"). You'd think we were locked in titanic battle with supervillains with our very way of life at stake; not fending off diffuse attacks from people who, for the most part, struggle to blow up their own feet.
Of course the threat is real and serious (so many threats are!), but the thinking in response is paralysed by the demand to attain the unattainable. As Nightjack illustrates, we end up sitting in fear, thinking up ridiculous movie plot threats in the unfathomable hope that if we anticipate every possible attack, we can somehow make ourselves perfectly safe. We exhort ourselves to spy on our neighbours' litter in case they're a terrorist, we shut down photography in urban areas, we cultivate the most ridiculous sense of paranoia, and to what end? How does any of this help? Eternal vigilance simply isn't possible; permanently "severe" threat levels do nothing for the populace but set the backdrop for new preposterous security measures.
As for strawmen, not one sensible person is suggesting that we "sit back and take our lumps". What is suggested is that the risks of terrorism be sensibly appraised, and that the response be proportionate, with due consideration of the costs. In seeking to eliminate an already vanishingly small risk, the last Labour government wrought huge damage on the country's civil liberties, damage that has yet to be fully undone. Our notable successes against terrorist plots have been bought with intelligence, not blanket restrictions on personal freedom. What a shame, then, that so much intelligence is squandered making up ludicrous plots with which to terrorise the citizenry without recourse to actual terrorists.
@SimonC - cracking response to NightJack's comment.
@Jasper, spot on. How many of the terror plots were started because of the "anti-terror" tactics of our security services? In other words, if we were alot calmer and more measured in our responses, would there have been a lower (percieved) requirement for all of this tiresome theatrics of security?
noche said...
60 People died in 7/7.
Around 10,000 people died of flu in 2009. That's 27 people a day.
Perhaps we should declare a War on Bacteria.
Well that will be as effective as the War on Terror tactics of harrassing photographers. Or of blowing up Sadam by claiming he was involved in 9/11.
Flu is not caused by a bacteria, it is caused by the flu virus.
Well, notwithstanding that the current threat is more psychiatric than theological, I think we are giving the official response to the "Irish" threat a bit of an easy ride. When they put the "Ring of Steel" around the City of London, they closed various roads and made Southwark Bridge all but pointless - it does not go anywhere you can't go quicker by other means. Yet, in any real warfare scenario, putting a bridge out of action is generally considered a military success. We did it for them.
"As for the United States, I tell it
and its people these few words: I swear by Almighty God who raised the heavens without
pillars that neither the United States nor he who lives in the United States will enjoy
security before we can see it as a reality in Palestine and before all the infidel armies
leave the land of Muhammad, may God's peace and blessing be upon him" words of Osama Bin Laden on 07 Oct 2001 http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/ubl-fbis.pdf
Why do we still question/distort the aims of Al-Qaeda? They are there in black and white. Are they all that different to PIRA's?
Their aim was to remove the security felt by the inhabitants of US (and more recently the UK) until the same security was felt by those in Palestine
Whatever side of the fence you sit on regarding Palestine, that was and is their aim and we have collectively allowed them to succeed in doing just that.
He also by the way succeeded in ensuring the "infidel armies leave the land of Muhammad" because they moved next door into Iraq!
The guy is sat in his cave laughing at us all
@SimonC I found yr summary of the debate so far eloquent and useful in identifying that JOK requests a proportionate response to what is a real if unquantifiable to many of us threat - however I do wonder if your comment re Labour government's restriction of civil liberties suggests you doubt a govt of any other colour would have responded differently? And to bring the topical cost of govt action into a retrospective analysis - seems perhaps a little inappropriate - or deliberately controversial? Or indeed a little cheap?
SimonC nicked most of what I was going to say!
To add a couple of points:
AllanW asks for some evidence. What about (touched on by JoK, above) the zero terror arrests in over 100k searches under anti-terrorist legislation? http://bit.ly/cl4xhK
That's 100k searches with the given reason "that there is a war on terror on". We are told that these things need to be done because of the threat of terrorism. Yet the police (and government) know that they do not help with terrorism. Anti-terror is not the reason, it cannot be the reason for these 100k searches. "Anti-terror" is, as plain as you can get, a lie. We know, the police know and the government know that it is (as others, above, have said) intelligence that protects not the extra “enforcement” measures.
Which brings me to Orwell and a more-mundane-than-1984 reason for the “war” on terror. Somewhere in Orwell’s collected journalism (I searched on Google, but didn’t find it) is a discussion of the use of the phrase “don’t you know there’s a war on?” Then there really was “a war on”. “They” really were all out to get “us”. Orwell didn’t complain about the necessary steps taken to secure the war effort; which in this case included detainment, rationing, censorship, conscription etc.
Orwell’s complaint was that the excuse was becoming an excuse for anything. It became a ready made excuse, any inefficiency could be deflected, anything that anyone wanted to avoid could be avoided, any incompetence covered up.
I think that is what we see with this “war on terror”, it serves as a ready made block to any criticism or scrutiny. Fancy abusing some powers? Fancy stopping and searching some darkies? Easy! Use new “war on terror”™! Bored policing a parade? What to flex your muscles by arresting a schoolboy photographer? The “war on terror”™ is what you need! Just can’t be arsed to actually think about that tweet? Use the new sister-product “the times in which we live” ™!
If you want a picture of the future, imagine an incompetent, stupid, thug avoiding doing his job properly.
Forever.
Helen said:
"Flu is not caused by a bacteria, it is caused by the flu virus"
Yeah, I see you're follow things! Terrorist attacks are not caused/aided by:
1. Tweeters showing off to their girlfriends
2. Breast feeding mothers replacing expressed milk with explosives.
3. Menstruating women hiding bombs in themselves (http://bit.ly/fb8fe0) - (of course in the week before that might be the case!)
The first rule of any "war on" is "pick the wrong fucking targets!*
I had a colleague killed in the 7/7 bombing, in 2005 - one of those few acts of terrorism since 2001. Two weeks later I was at a meeting a couple of minutes walk from Warren Street tube station, one of four attempted bomb attacks that day, which only failed because of the incompetence of the bomb assemblers.
There have been several plots since, some of which got as far as actual attempts, like Glasgow Airport in 2007, the shoe bomber and attempted London car bombings. More cases have been thwarted with a number of convictions having been made. However, what cannot be so easily assessed is how many attacks would have been attempted without strenghtening airport security checks or spending more on counter terrorism intelligence.
There is also a qualitative difference between the bomb attacks of the IRA and those that we see now. In general, the IRA were, at least where civilians were concerned, more interested in economic damage that mass slaughter of civilians in the UK mainland. It suited their purpose to kill a few of course, as that meant their hoaxes were taken seriously too. However, they did have obvious political objectives. The current crop of attacks is aimed at precisely that.
There is valid concern over encroachment on civil liberties. Some laws are probably fairly useless and cause irritation and are probably counter productive (e.g. some of the issues around harrassing a few photographers). But there is also complacency and lack of balance here. For the vast majority of people, the problems are more of inconvenience that one truly of civil liberties.
There is also surely a variation of Godwin's law in the invocation of George Orwell and 1984. It is a book which I've just read again for the first time since childhood. Whilst there are always parallels that can be made, it really won't do to call the position that we are in at the moment a variation of a boot planted in the face of humanity.
As for the idiot who says we should declared war on bacteria as 'flu kills many people, if we leave aside the minor issue that it's caused by a virus, it may have escaped your attention that humanity has been doing that ever since infectious agents were identified as a cause of diseases. Indeed we spend huge amounts of money on combating both viruses and bacteria. Very succesfully I would add.
nb. I think it unlikely a young boy would be shot at a UK airport in the way you describe.
These_Boots:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "topical cost," I'm afraid. The costs to which I referred were not purely (or even primarily) financial; use and abuse of stop and search has significantly damaged trust between public and police, and this is a cost. Running adverts encouraging us to spy on our neighbours fosters mistrust within communities, and this is a cost. I would like those proposing draconian measures to ask what they cost us as a society; what are we giving up, and to what tangible end? This is surely the underpinning of any rational policy, so I'm not sure how mentioning it could ever be inappropriate or cheap, and am positively staggered that it might be thought controversial.
And no, my mention of the word "Labour" was not intended as some party-political point. I'd hope, but would not be confident, that the current administration might have acted differently (I'm sure their sympathies lie in the right direction, but doubt their willpower when push comes to shove). I'm also well aware that a differently-led Conservative party on its own might well have outstripped even Blair in the authoritarian stakes, although it would've taken some doing. Such speculation is useless, however. The media and public are both culpable in demanding the impossible; we should hope, though, that our politicians (particularly ones with unassailable majorities) could avoid barrelling straight for the simplest, stupidest response.
Your article makes no sense to me. Had it occurred to you that increased vigilance might have actually PREVENTED attacks?
@Nightjack:
Do we need airport security to prevent a known capability to down a jet airliner with a bottle of Powerade?
What "known capability"? As any real chemist will tell you, that was just a fantasy; there was no way their proposed plan could have worked. Where did you get your degree in chemistry, or are you just spouting the same old tabloid scaremongering nonsense without checking your facts?
What about if someone figures out a way to build bombs into Nike Airmax?
Again, note that both Richard Reid and Al-Mutallab FAILED, because their plans were scientifically unworkable. As Bob Park, physicist at the Univeristy of Virginia pointed out, let's hope Al-Quaida keeps its current planner for a long time, because his plans are scientific nonsense and pie in the sky. Again I ask, before you started typing, did you bother to verify the facts with a QUALIFIED source?
What if there is a supply of suicidal bombers who delight in the idea of riding the flaming wreckage to the ground?
And what if Santa Claus decides to join the Muslim Brotherhood and deliver bombs instead of presents on Xmas Day?
"What ifs" are worthless. Present EVIDENCE for your claims, or stop wasting our time. In particular, stop stealing our civil liberties and freedoms. But then, as JofK said, the so-called "War on Terror" is really just an excuse for people in uniform like yourself to keep stamping your boots on our faces forever. It has nothing to do with genuine security. The real problem is your psychological attitude, which sees the people as a problem to be managed, rather than a citizenry to be served. You need remedial science and probability education, so instead of spouting hypothetical drivel, why don't you jump to it? It would serve us all better and, who knows, you might actually LEARN something.
Jack/David,
This makes for *very* interesting reading, and it happened 100 years ago TO THIS VERY DAY!
http://www.historyinanhour.com/historyinthenews_55444.html
It involves Winston Churchill, angst at those prepared to kill for their ideas, and higher ideals and how they were successfully defended, with common sense overwhelming knee-jerk "I must be seen to be doing something" paltry politics.
In brief:
In the Siege of Sidney Street, two gunmen - both Eastern European immigrants took hostages after a robbery - designed to provide funds for revolutionary activities, mainly abroad. This was in 1911, when Churchill was Home Secretary. According to the site, "It's still the single worst incident for British police in peacetime" - 3 dead, 2 injured.
from the page linked to:
"The siege was a media sensation of its time. Newsreel cameras had been rolling throughout, and the first films were showing in West End cinemas that same evening.
Mixed with relief that the siege was over and the gunmen dead was a sense of anxiety about the immigrant community in the East End, mostly Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe. Many called for tough new rules on immigration.
Not the Liberals though, who were in government. Josiah Wedgwood MP wrote to Churchill, just two days after the siege, urging him to oppose draconian measures: "It is fatally easy to justify them but they lower the whole character of the nation.
"You know as well as I do that human life does not matter a rap in comparison with the death of ideas and the betrayal of English traditions."
The laws were not changed."
"There is also a qualitative difference between the bomb attacks of the IRA and those that we see now."
Quite, yet it seems that so many commenters (and the blog owner himself) fail to recognise that.
Maybe I missed the PIRA tactics of using mentally-retarded suicide bombers or rectally-inserted assassination devices?
I agree the most shocking statistic is the 100,000 arrests without a single conviction under sweeping anti-terror laws. Clearly we've been successful in thwarting major terror attacks since 7/7/5 through counter-terrorism intelligence, not more aggressive police powers. And it's true that heacy-handed policing has a negative effect on social cohesion and may contribute to the number of disaffected youth, who might be open to radicalisation.
Just a few points:
1. Orwell wrote 1984 in 1948, after the war but with rationing still in place and the beginning of the rise of the latter-day USSR.
2. Get off Helen's case all of you, that was clearly *irony* intended to show the futility of a "war on" anything!
@daren
Unlike PIRA its totally unclear who to negotiate with, where to negotiate, how to negotiate with al-quaeda,and peace in NI came about a long series of negotiations. Just dismantling the state of israel overnight may very well stop al quaeda violence but i reckon its a bit more complicated than that to achieve peace in the middle east!
Al quaeda has no one face, no one identity, and no set of clear objectives and this makes it a very difficult organisation to try and use diplomacy to reach a compromise, unlike PIRA.
A great post. That sums up the war on terror nicely: it is indeed something straight out of 1984. In that book, it's a fundamental feature of the government that they must always invent some external threat to justify totalitarian measures. That seems to be what's happening here.
I would go so far as to say that not only is it illiberal, as you so rightly point out, but it's also misconceived. Surprised you didn't spot that bit ;)
A brief and deceptively simple article that has prompted some very stimulating debate, thanks for posting it.
The use of the "Love Actually" illustration really underlines the way that modern mass views are being managed. What this article has done for me is raise the way that despite us believing that we live in a modern enlightened and informed society we are, as a mass, still quite easily manipulated into prejudice and xenophobia.
JofK has I think nicely illustrated how this is being managed.
I don't believe there has ever been a successful outcome to any wars on terrorism indeed very few wars at all prove to have successful outcomes.
@Anonymous
My comment was not a suggestion on how to achieve peace in the middle east. I am well aware it's a complex issue. It was on the “War On Terror”, the subject of the blog post and specifically how the aims of both sides have been distorted. If we understood the aims of OBL then I think our response to them would be far more informed, regardless of whether we want to negotiate, capitulate or resist them. I would also ask whether the US has already capitulated.
The "War On Terror" supposedly started after 9/11 but as far as OBL is concerned the war started in the 90's when OBL declared war on the USA, surely? His speeches, declarations of jihad and interviews refer constantly to the issue of the “infidel army in the land of the two holy places" (Saudi Arabia).
If the removal of that army was his aim in the 90's is it any surprise that, in 2001, 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia? Furthermore is it a surprise that the US left 18 months later?
If I could ask one question to George Bush it would be. Did the Iraq war happen primarily because you had to get out of Saudi Arabia?
I am quite sure his answer would be no but I'd like the question asked. I would also like to ask OBL why he thinks they left and the Iraq war happened.
US pulls out of Saudi Arabia - 29 April, 2003
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2984547.stm
@SimonC Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "cost" - apologies I obviously misunderstood your point and regret if any offence was taken. I would hope from my comments that it's apparent that the non-financial cost of infringements of civil liberties are also of grave concern to me. Unfortunately however we will have to disagree as to whether any other govt AT THAT TIME would have acted less imoderately - I recall many actions appeared to be dictated by the US to its "allies". (I am also aware of other of our previous govt's actions that imposed restrictions that would make a right wing party proud - however as unrelated to the current topic they should properly be debated elsewhere). Of course prior to last May's election result a coalition govt of our current flavour was almost unimaginable. Again - unfortunately - I am confused by what seems to be a projection of current sensibilities into what I perceived to be a retrospective analysis of govt behaviour. Forgive me if I have again misunderstood your position. I'm not aware and may be misinformed that the conservative party at the time voiced much in the way of opposition in parliament when such far reaching all-encompassing legislation was rushed through. However, it will be interesting to see if/how things evolve over the coming months. I fear however that being 10 years on there will be an awful lot of repeated images of the atrocities to whip up fear paranoia and nationalism to further justify the current powers that I think a govt of any flavour would find hard to relinquish. They're too busy cracking down on non EU migration (small proportion of overall migration); cutting benefits (to the sick, disabled and most vulnerable); loosening up on parking charges and deregulation of domestic planning permission in order to keep the daily mail reader happy... It's a brave new world.
Ok,
what are the ingredients of a Police State?
Recent Kettling efforts and injuries seem to me to indicate that maintenance of Public Order has transformed into Interceptiona dna suppression of Public Protest.
the use of FIT to intimidate protesters and the standard approach of police officers to react to being filmed themselves is troubling.
when people are prevented from making or holding evidence of police abuse or when Police harrass people using cameras during protests, in a way which put police under the spotlight and accountable (ala Ian Tomlinson) then isnt that an attribute of the Police State that even Dame Stella Rimington warned against?
I think the concept of a war on terror is an interesting one. The choice of the word terror rather than terrorism fascinates me. In fact, all the measures that have been put in place achieve the exact opposite - they create an atmosphere of fear. I grew up in Ireland in the 70s and 80s, and despite the bombings and attacks there, there was never the media and political pressure on the public to feel fear. Now there is.
I don't know how many terrorist attcks the security measures might have stopped. There may well be a case for saying that the war on terrorism is successful (personally I don't think so, but that's a different issue). However, as a war on terror? Not a success at all.
Bojinka
@Kassto: Your comment makes no sense to me. Has it occurred to you that increased "vigilance" might have MADE THE SITUATION WORSE?
(E.g. our caring anti-terrorist invasion of Iraq - not wicked, pointless and bloody stupid, obviously - inspired the 7/7 bombings &c &c)
Shall we leave the discussion for adults with actual facts and arguments now?
NightJack said...
"Lets just stop calling it The War On Terror."
I seem to remember it originally being announced as "The War Against Terror". Presumably nobody spotted the acronym in time.
Bojinka was another FAILED plan, NightJack. No theft ofcivil liberties required to thwart it, either.
And when are you going to answer my earlier questions?
The real victory in the "fight against terrorism" is staying calm. For example, 5 years after the London terrorist attacks, we can still use the subway system without any scanning of luggage or passengers: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/5-years-after-7-7-in-london/
@kimpatsu
Sorry didn't notice any questions. In any case, others have already made the additional points I might have wanted to make. Why repeat them for our own amusement?
As for Boijinka, the family of Haruki Ikegami may dispute whether that plot was a total failure. It demonstrated financial, logistical and technological capability.
Reid had a damp fuse on an otherwise viable device and he used matches rather than a lighter. Dud delivery system rather than a dud bomb I think but you may know better.
But the reality of the threat seems to bother you far less than the fact that fear of terrorism leads to erosion of civil liberties. That's one of the reasons for carrying out terror attacks. They change the way of life for the opposition. They make life more difficult for us. I think it is also known as asymetrical warfare. It works.
Surely one simple metric to determine the effectiveness of the new powers in meeting their aim would be to note how widely these new anti-terrorist powers have been used, and how many convictions for terrorism have been made possible as a result that would not have been achievable otherwise? This certainly applies to data tapping, stop and search and similar civil liberty distortions. Airport security may perhaps have some deterrent effect, though banning things for which no scientifically plausible danger scenarios exist is a bit thick...
I would also moot, as someone born in Derry in the middle of the Troubles, that a chief difference between the IRA/Loyalists and modern Islamic terrorism is that the various IRA and Loyalist groups were relatively well-organised and competent, while most of the last decade's crop of terrorists seem barely safe around scissors without having an adult present.
In many ways I totally agree with this blog although the dead and maimed of 7/7 and the potential targets of 21/7 may well feel somewhat brushed aside in this rush to berate the security measures applied since 9/11.
The truth is - and I say this with all sincerity and having come to understand (if not appreciate) the medieval mindset of the muslim fundamentalist - we are headed for an armageddon that no amount of tightening or liberalisation of the "terror" security measures will ever stop. Even as I write I suspect some group of fanatics somewhere is planning to set off a nuclear device. The 3000+ murdered on 9/11 was just a drop in the ocean to these people and capability to effect such a super-bang has long since passed. All it needs now is the opportunity. I susp.ect that they are just laughing at this liberal hand-wringing
food for thought... I am not sure how you can define a win in the war on terrorism and if you can't define it that I am not sure how it can end. As fundamentalists 'know' they are right and however many of us disagree with them we can only oppose them through maintaining our vigilance or sacrificing our freedom and I prefer the former to the latter...
if we really want to stop terror then we have to stop trying to steal other countries riches (oil) and invest in our own. In the Uk we seem to be selling off all our resources on the cheap (Rover, Thames water e.t.c) and demolishing industries (coal, steel) without a thought as to how we can progress without going back to colonial days of thuggery and day light robbery.
Ten years on after all this effort are we really any safer today than we were at the start of all this??
One simple question....
Do you really feel any safer at home today as a result of the war on terror?
My thoughts and feelings - http://robert-strobel.com/2011/09/11/571/
Post a Comment