Good News, Bad News.

It appears that at least some politicians have some spine concerning the elimination of Habeus Corpus. That’s both good and bad news, for welcome as it is that Frank Dobson shares my views:

Frank Dobson, a former Labour health secretary, said he could not support measures that put Britons under house arrest without trial.
"I do not think there is any justification for house arrest or any other constraint on British citizens unless it goes to court," he said.

I find it something of a blow to my wordview that I share his on any subject. Others weigh in:

Charles Kennedy, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the decision to imprison an individual must always be made by a judge, not a politician.
Mr Howard called a press conference to say that he could not support the control orders. He said it was wrong in principle for anyone to be deprived of his or her liberty "on the say-so of a politician".

All good stuff but what is the really bad news?

Although Mr Blair defended the plans, insisting that nothing must stand in the way of protecting the nation's security, MPs said the Government risked defeat unless it made concessions.

Our Tone, Dear Leader and Prime Minister, actually believes that? That nothing, nothing, must stand in the way of protecting the nation’s security? If he thought for even one moment he would see that is a nonsense. Why are we all debating this in the first place?  Because they are reacting to a court judgement. If nothing should stand in the way they would flip two fingers to the judges and keep them in Belmarsh.
What is more worrying than a PM incapable of joined up thinking is what is implicit in the thought expressed, that in a democratic and free society, whether multi-culti, libertarian, socialist, authoritarian or whatever (and not all of those are mutually exclusive) we would ever put any one single goal above all others. The whole thing is a delicate balancing act between different goals. Yes, govts. need tax money but that has to be balanced against the disincentives that raising it create. Yes, we need people with guns to defend us but we make damn sure they don’t take the reins of power. Yes, children need to be protected from those that prey upon them but we do not lock up every child until they are 18 to ensure that. Balance in all things. (Sorry to start sounding slightly Bhuddist here.)
Locking up people on the whim of a politician is not balance, it is worse than what is trying to be prevented. This might sound, probably is, callous, but even the certain prevention of, say, 3,000 deaths does not justify the removal of basic freedom from 60 million. Not even on a utilitarian calculation of the greatest good of the greatest number. And yet our PM indicates that he thinks it would. And he’s a lawyer, married to another....one who specialises in the Human Rights Act.

The moment we put any one goal on a pedestal, claim that this is the only one that matters is the day we die as a free society. Even in the depths of 1941 we still allowed people to be conscientious objectors, we did not bring in slave labour, not even the fact "There’s a war on you know" meant that we threw all of the checks and balances, the safeguards against tyranny, out of the window. Some, certainly, but not all.

What is really so enraging about this whole affair is that it could be solved so simply. Allow intercept evidence in court and try the little bastards. But nooo, that would mean a reduction in the powers and secrecy available to the State and we can’t have that now can we?