Let's ignore the desirability or not of this further move to an authoritarian State for a moment and look at the motivation for it. John Reid intends to push this huge measure through in four weeks and if the LibDems and Conservatives don't play ball (which they won't) he will accuse them of playing politics with terrorism.
David Davis is quite right in his comments (just released) when he says this:
The driving imperative of these draconian announcements appears to be more of a
wish to project the reputation of Mr Reid and Mr Blair in their last weeks in
office, than a need to protect the British public. The Government should
understand that no amount of new draconian laws will make up for incompetent
implementation. We will consider carefully every proposal the Government comes
up with and support those we judge to be effective, reasonable, and will not act
as a recruiting sergeant for terrorism. This cannot, and will not, be concluded
in four weeks.
Surely in this so-called war on terror we show weakness if we introduce the very kind of measures the terrorists will view as a small victory. Anyone who is concerned about our civil liberties should be very worried indeed by these developments. If a Conservative government had proposed these measures it would be accused of being on the road to a semi-fascist state.
We are on the road to being a totalitarian state. Hazel Blears thinks that elections are an inefficient way of deciding policy - she's probably not alone in her party on that.
ReplyDeleteIf we are so inundated with terrorists then why has there only been one proper terrorist attack by "extremists"?
NuLabor just gets more dictatorial.
ReplyDeleteOff topic, Iain any comment on kite's latest article and the quote from Bridges that we won the locals by being nice about the Fib Dems? Tell that to the North Devon Conservatives who went after the Fib Dems on their record and won.
It's apalling political positioning. The Tories and LibDems will oppose this ludicrous measure, so Reid and Blair will say they are "soft on Terrorism"....to cover up the fact that NuLabs control orders haven't worked and they have lost track of many potentailly very dangerous terrorists.
ReplyDeleteSo this is the reality of life in Brown's new 'open, fair and democratic' society. A quasi-fascist surveillance state.
ReplyDeleteThis proposal - together with the raft of other sinister nulab public control measures which hugely erode our freedom and civil liberties- is all too evocative of Germany in 1933 and obnoxious measures to enforce S. African Apartheid. It would increase nulab's existing abuse of power.
What next, Muslims made to wear yellow stars? Shoot on suspicion?
Thank you, Iain and David Davis for opposing this disgusting, fascist proposal.
anyonebutblair said...
ReplyDeleteIt's apalling political positioning. The Tories and LibDems will oppose this ludicrous measure, so Reid and Blair will say they are "soft on Terrorism"....
Have a look at the massive and overwhelming oppostion to this proposal on BBC's current Have Your Say.
Joe and Jill public are much more politically literate now than we were pre-Blair and nulab. And 99% of us are opposed to these quasi-facist proposals.
But why did Hague not attack it on Mar's prog this morning? I hope the NuConservatives are not going to play for the popular vote and go along with this most awful turn of events.
ReplyDeleteI do have some respect for the Government and the Police, but if things continue to decline I may start using lower case Gs and Ps.
ReplyDeleteStop and Search is ineffective, so the answer is Stop and Question?
It would be nothing less then giving the Police a licence to go trawling. Don't answer their questions and they'll probably have grounds to arrest you, let alone issue you with a hefty fine.
Arresting you will get you on their fingerprint and DNA databases whether you are charged with anything or not.
It would be another quick and underhand way of getting as many people on their lists as possible and producing statistics that make Police forces look effective.
Does bugger all to deter perps though.
What a facist.
ReplyDeleteThere has been plenty of anti terrorist legilslation on the books since the 70's, in conjunction with this and an aggressive security force the IRA were defeated, more than once.
New laws are NOT required, proper policing and competent intelligence services are.
Why has Blair's Gvnt never understood or seen the evidence of their own eyes that sitting in Parliament passing a plethora of new laws DOES NOT WORK without the apparatus to enforce them, all you do is bring the law into contempt, something Labour are passed masters at.
The Gvnt seems to be at war with its own people turning them into mere serfs before the power of the state.
Great legacy Tone and a fine example of the inherent fascism of the left's 'We know what's best for you'.
It is the Sus Law repackaged.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBut why did Hague not attack it on Mar's prog this morning?
A good question. Another panic stricken u-turn by Conservative spin doctors like the one on FOI? Was Davis muzzled until angry public opposition on BBC's Have Your Say etc went so ballistic that HO had to allow him to speak out?
Anyway, thank God for David Davis who's instinctive response was so sound on this. As a Liberal I never liked Davis. I thought he was a hard man control freak who would destroy our civil liberties and supported Cameron's leadership bid because I thought he would me more protective of democracy.
More and more these days I feel I owe Davis an apology. Cameron undeniably has the winning face, but David has the winning policies.
Maybe ten years ago I would object. Since then I have been too close for comfort to a terror attack and my life will never be the same. There have been people killed and aimed in this country by terorists. There will be many more unless something is done.
ReplyDeleteSometimes these truths do not hit home until they strike home.
woops, meant to state:
ReplyDeletesupported Cameron's leadership bid because I thought he would be more protective of democracy.
More and more these days I feel I owe Davis an apology. Cameron undeniably has the winning face, but Davis has the winning policies.
Anon @ 2.16
ReplyDeleteHow will new laws stop people making bombs and taking them onto the Tube?
Last time I checked, that was already illegal.
Anon 2:16 PM said:
ReplyDeleteThere have been people killed and aimed in this country by terorists. There will be many more unless something is done.
These measures will lead to further radicalisation and therebye increase the security threat to us - while eroding more of our freedom.
This is 'justice' by suspicion and the government's track record demonstrates that they will further abuse these powers for purely political reasons.
If this becomes law, how many more 83 year olds would be arrested for criticising nulab?
how long before more innocent people are shot on suspicion as Jean de Menzies was?
I've lived in a Police State let's not pretend we're anywhere near one.
ReplyDeleteReally if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?
"Muslims made to wear yellow stars?"
ReplyDeleteThey're actually wearing happy green moons. They call them their "Mourning Tony Crescents"
if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?
ReplyDeleteNot that old chestnut!
"if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?"
ReplyDeleteI've actually been stopped and searched, many years ago by the police at a time when it was in fact illegal to do so without good reason. You appear, Rachel, to have some sort of naive belief that all the Police are good guys. There are some who would stitch up anyone whose face they don't like without blinking. Plant anything they like on you. Most of their colleagues know who most of these blokes are, even though there is a bit of a 'blind eye' turned except in the worst cases - they won't share cars or shifts with them. These particular 'rotten rozzers' also seem to have a chip on their shoulder about people whose skin isn't pink and who earn more money than your average policeman. Pick on them whenever they get the opprtunity.
"if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?"
ReplyDeleteI've actually been stopped and searched, many years ago by the police at a time when it was in fact illegal to do so without good reason. You appear, Rachel, to have some sort of naive belief that all the Police are good guys. There are some who would stitch up anyone whose face they don't like without blinking. Plant anything they like on you. Most of their colleagues know who most of these blokes are, even though there is a bit of a 'blind eye' turned except in the worst cases - they won't share cars or shifts with them. These particular 'rotten rozzers' also seem to have a chip on their shoulder about people whose skin isn't pink and who earn more money than your average policeman. Pick on them whenever they get the opprtunity.
Rachel at 2.52pm: i'd refuse because it's none of their bleeding business. If they suspect that i've done something wrong they should arrest me. They get evidence of wrong-doing first, then bring charges, not the other way round - it's called police work.
ReplyDeleteIt's not John Reid, it's the Labour party executive who threaten our civil liberties, indeed have already removed our civil liberties in large measure.
ReplyDeleteThe voters who voted them to power may care to have the opportunity to endorse their continuance in power when Blair goes, considering that even Labour party members have been disenfranchised in choosing their New Leader,let alone the rest of us. Corporatism is a nasty form of governance that had been beaten back by our grandfathers.
"Surely in this so-called war on terror we show weakness if we introduce the very kind of measures the terrorists will view as a small victory."
ReplyDeleteNonsense. A large victory.
Reid is like one of those kids who are no good at a game, but every time they lose, they just want to change the rules, rather than looking at it as good practice.
"if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?"
ReplyDeleteThis is the variation of "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.".
Under this proposal, not answering a question will result in a charge of obstructing a police officer in his / her duty. This means that absolutely anyone could end up with a DNA test, criminal record, difficulty travelling to countries such as US, etc. etc.
The conversation would go something like this:
Officer: Excuse me Sir / Madam, where have you just been?
Citizen: Why do you want to know?
Officer: You're nicked
It's dangerous because of this Government's mania for targets. Should the police be down one week, how easy to get to make it up by stopping, searching and arresting any old person with any old excuse.
ReplyDeleteEd, we are crawling with terrorists if you must know what do you think they wear signs? But we're not going to apprehend them by this newly packaged 'sus' law.
And even though I have nothing to hide I very much mind being stopped and questioned or searched just because I have nothing to hide. The police would only be looking for suspcious Middle Easter types which I am decidedly not and if I was stopped it would be to show 'them' that 'they' are not being picked up. Well, not at my expense, buddy.
Had we not had utterly porous borders, joke asylum laws and the stupidity to allow fanatical 'preachers' to operate in our midst we wouldn't be in this pickle. The Government still doggedly refuses to allow intercept evidence and questioning after charging - why because it's a Tory idea?
Ed, we are crawling with terrorists if you must know
ReplyDeleteReally? Prove it. I'd be interested to know where you get your information from because it's clearly not in the public domain. If these people are known to the authorities then they should be arrested, charged and tried by a jury of their peers. If they are found guilty they should be imprisoned until they are no longer a threat to others.
This is how the legal system used to work in England and worked well for many centuries. Blair has pulled the system down and we are now left with a situation where people **think** that we are under constant attack from our neighbours.
If there are so many terrorists floating how come so more of them haven't bought fertiliser and made bombs. It's not hard to make a bomb so anyone with an internet connection and a few quid who wanted to could do. BUT THEY DON'T.
The real issue behind all this again is the great white elephant in the room that everyone is pretending doesn't exist: UNCONTROLLED 'IMMIGRATION'!!!(actually invasion) If Labour hadn't let in so many foriegners who hate our way of life they wouldn't have to stop anyone, would they? Create the problem then offer the solution; the sign of all political nervous breakdowns!
ReplyDeleteIt is one thing for the Executive to be given Emergency Powers in times of war. Quite another for the Executive to be demanding them in times of peace. It is frightening that John Reid has not been subjected to a Control Order. The man is obviously quite mad, bad, and dangerous to know. This measure should be stopped at all costs. John Reid has taken it upon himself to become the Head of the Stasi or the KGB. When the police and psychiatrists join forces to lock people up without trial, it is more like Soviet Psycho-Prisons than a democracy we live in.
ReplyDeleteEd, your view is very simplistic and shows an ignorance of law as well as naivete. Throwing bombs willy nilly isn't the point - this is far more sophisticated than the IRA. It's a propaganda war which they are fighting on their terms. And you cannot arrest people for their associations much as you might like to.
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think 9/11 and 7/7 were - Zionistic plots?
We are constantly expected to sacrifice liberty for this war on terror and see little in return.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to hear the Police opinion on these proposals. Do they think we can gain any security from them?
The Labour Party, now headless, is rushing about like a maddened dog -snapping and barking in all directions.
ReplyDeleteIt is the natural instinct of socialists to attempt to control all aspects of society. Ming, as head of the Wets, cannot oppose them and Cameron, leading the Fops, is scared of getting bitten if he interposes.
Victor
Ed, your view is very simplistic and shows an ignorance of law as well as naivete.
ReplyDeleteOUCH!
I don't think it's simplistic to have a rigorous legal system which is predictable and open to scrutiny.
The propaganda war is being operated out of 10 Downing Street where every event is spun in a way to make us all feel insecure and tempt us into thinking that more authoritarian regulations are needed. They are not.
There is no "they". These supposed extremists are not some organised political unit intent on destroying whatever our "way of life" is supposed to be. The 7/7 bombers were kids who got duped into thinking that Allah wants commuters blown up. If there was an "organisation" then there would have been bombs on the Tube every Thursday until people stopped going to work out of fear.
The only "winner" in the "war on terror" is the Home Secretary as he is now able to give himself extra powers whenever he likes and if they are opposed he cries "you are playing politics with security".
Many people see through his charade but not yet enough to cause this government to be ousted. It may be too late by then.
Lady Finchley do you REALLY think that banning protests outside Parliament saves us from terrorism?
Male body-armour for wear when meeting inquiring police officer
ReplyDeleteBody Armour
Whoa, Ed! I never said a word about protesting against Parliament. Nor did I say I agreed with the mad Home Secretary. The threat, no matter how extreme does not justify his increasingly desperate actions.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the 7/7 bombers were not just 'kids' who wanted to make it with 72 virgins. Deluded they might have been but they were being manipulated by outside forces and there are plenty more whey they came from. If 10% of the 1 million Muslims who live in this country think 7/7 was justified that is 100,000. If even 10% of that 100,000 are prepared to do something about it then we are in deep trouble.
The legal system is not black and white - it is full of complexities, shades of gray and the onus of proof is on the one who accuses.
Don't lull yourself into a false sense of security by thinking we are being manipulated to think there is a grave terror threat when there is not. If I thought the new 'sus' laws would be effective I'd be willing to forego my civil liberties - but they won't be any more effective than control orders, tagging and all the other gimmicks this Government comes up with to disguise the fact that their laissez faire policy towards 'immigration' and the Abu Hamzas have done to irreparably damage this country. Not to mention their landing us with the Human Rights Act.
Even if you have no reason to I wonder what the police would do if the first thing you did when they stopped you was ask for a solicitor?
ReplyDeleteThis is just bliar and the piss heads reids backshot at bruun cos if he doesnt stop it he gets blamed and if he does and something happens he gets blamed and bliar and reid and clarke et al snipe on the tv.its quite amusing watching them fight.They can make all the stupid law they want they never enforce them if they try the judges overturn them and there arnt any police to see you do them.
ReplyDeleteYou don't hear much about the 'scare' last August anymore, do you?
ReplyDeleteJohn Reid is a nasty piece of work, as is Bliar.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 main reasons for these proposal:
1. To make it easier to suppress dissent. I bet that Brian Haw will end up in psychiatric custody if these measures are passed.
2. I have a great deal of sympathy for the concept of a DNA database, but the fundamental reason for its existence (like CCTV) is to cut costs. Preventative policing is too expensive and actually requires police on the beat, so if everyone's DNA is on file then they should be easily detected after committing a crime. The trouble is, that the victim will be dead/injured/raped/robbed, tough luck for them!
The notion of some sort of special task force to protect those in the public eye from nutters is thoroughly sickening. Those in the public eye tend to be mega-rich celebs or slightly poorer politicians protected by armed police anyway. Make them pay for their own protection - it is an occupational hazard. After all, troops have to take out their own life insurance and the principle is similar!
anaoymous said:
ReplyDelete"You appear, Rachel, to have some sort of naive belief that all the Police are good guys."
I spent @15 years in South America (1982-1997) witnessing many armed wings for the State machine killing their own people so I really don't need to be preached to how terrible the UK Police are. Compared to 95% of the World they're cuddly softies.
The fact is we are in the situation where people are leaving this country in an apparent attempt go to foreign lands and kill British soldiers. We also have others in this country who even though we know they've been linked to terrorist groups in other countries we can't deport because of their 'human rights'
If you put scrapping the ECHR and imposition of house arrest on terrorist suspects to a referendum it'd win hands down. It's only neo-libel hand wringers who care about the civil liberties of those who want to deprive us of civil society.
We 'know' Rachel??? Like I KNOW you are really that bird from Steps? Like the police KNEW that those guys whose house they pulled to bits in London were terrorists? Like they KNEW that Brazilian lad was a terrorist when they shot him on the tube?
ReplyDeleteWell, I KNOW that the hopeless incompetent narcissist Tony Blair is responsible for lying to the British public (and himself along the way) and backing George Bush's illegal regime-change operation causing the death of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis and he went in with no plans for the post-war period, leading to civil war and the loss of many good British soldiers' lives. I KNOW that given the psychology of a small number of young Muslim lads in the West (and many more around the globe), Tony Blair has been the most active and effective recruiting sergeant for AlQaeda thare could be if it wasn't for Bush, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Perle pipping him at the post. That is why he has been thrown out, every bit as unceremoniously as Margaret Thatcher ever was, but somehow he is trying to warp history right to the bitter end and some media fools are going along with him.
Blair didn't want to go now - he's only going because the Labour Party are deeply, deeply ashamed of him - a shame that dare not speak its name because 90 per cent of them are guilty for going along with him (as ar a clear majority of Tories and a handful of Lib Dems)
ReplyDeleteanonymous whined:
We 'know' Rachel??? Like I KNOW you are really that bird from Steps?
There was no-one called Rachel in Steps.
The first few lines of your post pretty much set the nonsensical tone of the rest of it. No wonder you don't put your name on them.
"There was no-one called Rachel in Steps"
ReplyDeleteBut the Police know different, don't they?
You really are a very very naive person, and probably male.
Blair's latest outburst, with Reid full in tow, shows that he is basically Vioet Elizabeth Bott, thkweemin and thkweamin till WE are sick. The measures which he proposes bringing in will be no more effective against terrorism than breaking the speedomenter will slow down a car. The man is impotent in the face of a threat which is more than a little of his own making but considerably pre-dates Iraq in its gestation. The dishonest and two-faced support for the successive Israeli regimes had a lot to do with it, giving a collective view throughout the Muslim world that the US-UK axis believes that Muslim lives are expendible dross when there are pet political issues at stake.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said...
ReplyDelete"if the Police want to stop and search you why would you refuse?"
This is the variation of "if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide.".
Not at all.
The countervailing argument to these proposals here appears to be that we want crime reduced, criminals caught, convicted and locked up. However, if the Police have the temerity to stop and question us trying to achieve these goals it's a step too far.
The countervailing argument to these proposals here appears to be.. .
ReplyDeleteWhat proposals where? what countervailing argument to what? What are you talking about? Or are you just mouthing pseudo arguments and making no sense?
Speak as you eat.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehatfield girl said....
ReplyDeleteWhat proposals where?
The proposal mooted in this blog post that the Police will be allowed to stop and question you even if they don't believe a crime has been committed or you are in the process of committing one.
Many here appear to be saying that is a power too far for the Police.
What on earth does Israel have to do with it? It figures that some pro-Palestenian liberal would say that.
ReplyDeleteAs for Brian Haw, the sooner he is thrown off that pitch the better - he is not a legitimate protester - he is a sponger. How does he support himself I wonder? Our taxes, no doubt.
Quite apart from the civil liberties argument, how would these proposals help to counter the Islamist threat (which is real enough)?
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the police carried out a rigorous stop and question exercise targeting taciturn young Muslims in the vicinity of the Finsbury Park Mosque.
How much intelligence would they gain and how much flack would they have to take from the BBC, the Guardian and Matrix Chambers?
We should ban lawyers from standing as MPs.
ReplyDeleteThose in the "union" have a conflict of interest in creating clear, simple and efficient law.
Charles II did it. Why not Liz II or Charles III?
Officer: Excuse me Sir / Madam, where have you just been?
ReplyDeleteCitizen: Why do you want to know?
Officer: You're nicked,
Actually something like this happened to me. There I was driving along, and the cops pulled me over to do a road traffic survey. Now, I'm a reasonable man, I understand the point of such surveys, and if he'd just asked me where I was going and whence I came I would have told him and that would have been the end of the matter. But no, the first question was... "Is this your car?" So I told him. None of his effing business was my reply. And I am happy to say he walked away with his head bowed. I drove off.
We don't have to co-operate with these jerks.
We should ban lawyers from standing as MPs.
ReplyDeleteRoger, I've thought that for years. Not only do they have a clear conflict of interest, but t's also obvious that people cocooned in the legal business (I nearly wrote profession) live lives quite divorced from reality. Bliar has quite obviously never done a hands turn in his whole bloomin life.
Disqualify them!
Actually something like this happened to me. There I was driving along, and the cops pulled me over to do a road traffic survey. Now, I'm a reasonable man, I understand the point of such surveys, and if he'd just asked me where I was going and whence I came I would have told him and that would have been the end of the matter. But no, the first question was... "Is this your car?" So I told him. None of his effing business was my reply. And I am happy to say he walked away with his head bowed. I drove off.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to co-operate with these jerks.
Alas, this would have been a mundane survey. Traffic engineers need information for road building, traffic signal configuration etc. Much of this is through consultants who do computer modelling of traffic movements. However this does not take into account human behaviour and route selection. Traffic engineers can't stop traffic themselves to carry out such surveys, and need the cops to do it. Hence the encounter you mention. It wasn't sinister, they haven't got at me honest!
Trumpeter Lanfried said...
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the police carried out a rigorous stop and question exercise targeting taciturn young Muslims in the vicinity of the Finsbury Park Mosque.
There'd be a riot.
So, instead, they'll stop and interrogate non-Muslims in order to meet their detection, arrest and fine targets and to create nulab's desired climate of fear.
Rachel said:
ReplyDeleteIf you put scrapping the ECHR and imposition of house arrest on terrorist suspects to a referendum it'd win hands down. it's only neo-libel [neo-liberal?] hand wringers who care about the civil liberties of those who want to deprive us of civil society.
What a low opinion you have of the intelligence and ethics of the people of UK, rachel.
I disagree with you, I think you are seriously out of step with the mood of the majority of us. I do not believe that the majority of people of this country are stupid or unethical, indeed quite the reverse.
Today in my local pub the unanimous concensus was that our fathers and grandfathers did not fight Hitler for our freedom during WW2 in order for a British government to later erode that freedom and treat us as Hitler would have done.
Take a look at BBC's Have Your Say, the majority of responses agree with those of the people in m local - and make nonsense of your view above.
On another topic, jeremy said...
ReplyDeleteLeft my wallet containing £1,000 and my passport on the Heathrow Express (on the way to Heathrow).
Under this proposal, if we are caught carrying more than £1000, this can be confiscated unless we can prove where we got it and what we are going to do with it, according to Devil's Kitchen. The assumption is that a large sum in cash would be for criminal purposes.
Looks as though a lot of people are going to miss their flights while they're interrogated and go on holiday skint...
The unspoken part of this is that it was Labour's Europe-induced Human Rights Act, pushed all the way by Cherie Blair, which hamstrung the Police in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWith Blair going, maybe we can get back to where we were before the Blairs ruined Britain.
Tapestry
ReplyDeleteWhat a low opinion you have of the intelligence and ethics of the people of UK, rachel.
Cameron has already suggested that he'd scrap the ECHR.
Just because people don't agree with your point of view it doesn't make them stupid or amoral.
This government has to be removed as soon as possible. People are sick to death of the centralising, big-brother, dishonest and spiteful group of people.
ReplyDeleteCameron needs to oppose EVERY measure like this to build the momentum ahead of the next election. The public are opposed to EVERY policy these clowns are introducing and they will remember this come the GE.
We have NO government at this time, no accountability and no prospect of any sensible government for the next 3 years and a barrage of unpopular policy ideas. Cameron should hammer home the complete disregard and arrogance shown by NuLabour of late. The fact they can insult the country by allowing that idiot bliar 2 months of indulgence and hold their pathetic and irrelevant elections in the public arena will do them great harm come election time.
Cameron has succeeded in making the Tory Party electable, he now needs to confirn what we all know that NuLabour are now unelectable regardless of Browns attempts at change.
Hardly a great surprise from the man who considers the state of Human Rights to be "unacceptable" when terrorism is an issue: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6648849.stm
ReplyDeleteThere are two ways to change Human Rights to cope with terrorism: you either legislate against what the terrorists are doing which is not only fairly ineffective but completely irrelevant to rights, or you remove the ones getting in the way of your draconian measures. I'm guessing Reid won't be doing the first of those...
Rachel is Melanie Phillips and I claim my UKP 10!
ReplyDeleteDon't worry, in order to exercise these powers, the Police would have to step outside and patrol the streets.
ReplyDelete"It's only neo-libel hand wringers who care about the civil liberties of those who want to deprive us of civil society."
ReplyDeleteOf course, how could I be so stupid! We should /just/ remove civil liberties from Terrorists!
You dappy cow. Civil liberties apply to everyone or they apply to no-one. You may be prepared to give them up for some extra feeling of security but I am not and I don't know anyone else who is.