Fighting terrorism, while preserving civil rights, is turning out to be a quandary for free societies.

Some writings are more revealing than their authors realize as they expose what is not meant for communication. During the last weekend of February, my paper� — it is rated among the ten best dailies of the world –� brought an interesting piece, “Free Societies Are Becoming ‘Security Communities.” According to my habit I added the page to “the pile.” In it everything interesting but never-again used is kept in� limbo between partial remembrance and full destruction. Before dust could cover up the text on the top of the yellowing stack, accidentally a word entführt (kidnapped) next to “USA” and “captives” made me return to the piece.

Fighting terrorism, while preserving civil rights, is turning out to be a quandary for free societies. The full-page essay in question puts the terms by implication in a reverse order as it is concerned with rights for the suspect whilst responding to terrorism. Time might justify the author’s priorities. This will be so in case that terrorism proves to be a passing episode resorted to by those who became weak and irrelevant by having taken the wrong path of development. If, however, terrorism is a major theme of our time, then it makes sense to prioritize the terms flexibly. And now let us move on to the shortened version of the article.

With 9/11 terrorism has become global. Under the Bushes (sic) the US strengthened her security apparatus and loosened the legal framework regulating its operation. The resulting Patriot Act “gave the authorities wide ranging authorization” for the observation and proscription of suspect organizations, for more rigorous questioning and “numerous further limitations of basic human rights.” All this is completed by “Guantanamo” where “kidnapped” persons are kept incarcerated. “Without rights” and according to “credible reports,”� “mistreated if not outright tortured.”

Not only in the US but also in Europe, anti-terror laws were promulgated and enhanced. Reacting to the bombing on “7/7 2005, London made it possible to keep suspects without being charged up to 28 days instead of the previous 14. Disturbances made France extend the video observation of public places and to keep phone calling-data filed for a year. Concurrently the period of detention of suspects was doubled while the laws regulating the stay of foreigners are being tightened. In the Federal Republic, although ordinances against racism and for the “rule of law” and the integration of aliens are held high, naturalization is restricted and the surveillance of Muslim groups is intensified. Similarly, the EU moved to disrupt the financing of terrorist organizations by freezing their assets.

The text continues under the heading “the insinuated state of emergency.” “The so-called free countries of the West” are seen as nudging in the direction of becoming societies with a security priority. A perennial state of emergency is being invoked in order to gain acceptance for the new power of the security organs and the curtailing of civil rights. In fact, the writer grants, the human rights conventions have provisions allowing the limitation of basic rights. However, a state of emergency must be declared and through the Secretary General of the UN the other signatory states need to be informed. Concurrently, the end of the emergency is to be made public. Also, the emergency is not to “discriminate” on account of “race, color or religion.” However, this is what has been the intention of the measures that affected some groups due to “racial profiling” or collective suspicion. Entire segments of the population have been, on account of assumed collective guilt, put in danger of “arbitrary arrest” and the “deprivation of basic human rights.” Thus the new “Islamophobia contributes to provoking terrorism in that it excludes Moslems instead of integrating them.” Such overreactions remind of “similar” policies in the past such as the “anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthy Era.”

Corrective trends of recent date are rated as reassuring. Human rights groups are becoming active in protecting fundamental rights endangered under the “pretext” of fighting terrorism. The Council of Europe has recognized that “the credibility of Europe is at stake” when human rights and the rule of law, which are “core components” of the European identity, are hollowed out by a “double standard” applied to foreigners and migrants. This is why right after 9/11 Europe developed a proper strategy: bolstering the legal safeguards against terrorism; the safeguarding of fundamental values; dealing with the causes or terrorism.

In conclusion — the author’s and not necessarily the paper’s –� instead of the “cult of security,” the “cult of togetherness” shall become the central effort. This should be the case in a Europe that pursues, on the basis of integration and tolerance, the examination of the “deeper causes” of terrorism and conflicts. One should remember that the exclusive concern with “national security is increasingly transforming into a threat to ‘human security’ which rests fundamentally on human rights.”�

Having summarized the essay this writer is overwhelmed by its allusions. The piece suggests that the main problem is not the Islamist threat, nor the lack of our means to cope with it, but that we might impose restrictions upon ourselves that threaten incapacitation. Historically, dictatorships have made their case by insinuating that they are the only answer to the choice between security and chaos. Numerous revolutions, notably — and in contrast to France in 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871– the English and the American ones, have avoided a related trap. The fallacy meant here is one that claimed that anarchy is freedom and that oppression is the alternative. Therefore (1689, 1787) freedom was amalgamated into an order that also included security.� In the case of the voices that are becoming louder here, the fake choice presented is freedom or security.

Freedom as a principle does not obligate us to be limited to ineffective measures in its defense. The central purpose of terrorism is not chastisement for past “crimes.” Nor is its goal to redistribute wealth or secure for someone a better place under the sun. Islamist terrorism is directed against successful and free societies. They are seen by ideologues as representing through these qualities a competing world order while they can only tolerate one. It is therefore irrational to assume that terrorism will cease once an examination –- conducted by well-funded “Peace Institutes” — finds its “roots.” The assumption that this will be followed by “convergence” and “coexistence” (do you still remember these terms from another context?) issues from a misconception. Just because those who argue this way are relativists who believe that everything is negotiable in an even-Steven deal, does not mean that the “other side,” the bin Ladens, do not believe firmly what they profess. It defines the threat that their position is not a chip to bargain away and that they –- by the way just like Hitler and Lenin — have convictions that are not up for sale.

Our traditional freedoms were developed into a system of laws and commensurate sanctions under specific circumstances. Rightly, they reflect the assumption that those in conflict with a law of state or society do so on account of their disagreement with the value that has been codified into a rule. The principled attempt to transgress in order to destroy a system and a way of life has not been foreseen by 18th century rationalists. So they formulated rights assuming that normal persons who live in a good society concur, regardless of their differences concerning specifics, in wanting it to survive and prosper for the common good.

Fighting today’s “Terror, Inc.” means responding to a challenge that is new in several respects. The relativists’ admonition that the moves to counter terrorism must not interpret sacrosanct principles in terms of a new –- albeit aberrant — situation, are understandable. At least on this level they demonstrate, if not practical common sense, then at least commitment to our shared values. Nevertheless, the problem resides in the phrase “practical common sense.” That there shall be no freedom for those who wish to use it to abolish liberty might be, since the eras of National Socialism and Communism, a common place. Still, frequent usage does not invalidate a truth, just as the repetition of a lie, even if ultimately believed by a multitude, does not make it true. Leaning in a measured manner a bit in the direction of security to the detriment of the scoundrels might be as disagreeable as it is sensible.� The case for prudent cognizance of the case for “security” as not being an antonym of “freedom” rests on an unpleasant truth: if the system of free societies is overthrown, the “rights” we wish to nurture will be nixed. Life in Islamist-dominated entities show how.