MarcFrans: "I cannot vouch for conditions in the immediate aftermath of WW2, as I was then too young."

...or it was before your time. Due to the anonymity of the Internet, neither possibility can be verified.

MarcFrans: "We agree on the need for "surveillance", even of law-abiding citizens, on the basis of "sociopolitical beliefs and association"."

Some of your prior libertarian-esque comments seemed opposed to this. Yes we agree on this point, given that I do not hold either the community or the individual to be sacrosanct, although I see the need to communicate the sanctity of one, the other or some combination thereof to the masses in order to solidify a political culture, be it in 1930s Germany or in 1980s America.

MarcFrans: "It is unwise to confuse 'common legislation' (about 'privacy rights' and the like) with 'constitutional law', and that is where 'Europe' is going so terribly wrong today."

I am not a constitutionalist: I emphasize political culture over political structure.

MarcFrans: "That is precisely why immigration should be 'limited and controlled', focused on individuals rather than on 'groups', and aimed at integration/assimilation."

...so long as these non-European immigrants to Europe or their descendants are not a "visible" minority or statistically significant. Homogeneity can be maintained with an ethnic purity level of some 90-95%. This will also provide incentives for Europeans to procreate, because if they expand their numbers, they are assured of more "ethnic" restaurants and the like.

MarcFrans: "...there had always been numerous examples of INDIVIUAL muslim immigrants, particularly in the USA and France, who had no significant problems with "supporting western civilisation"."

The French are an ethnic nationality, as opposed to Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders. Though some French Muslims may be supportive of the West, they cannot be true French nationalists.

MarcFrans: "Any serious fruitful discussion about the ongoing 'long war' with radical islam would require that you could suppress or put aside your shortsighted anti-Americanism."

I figured you would bite on that one. At least you referred to it as a "joke." Unfortunately, it is rather un-comedic given that Saddam Hussein through some stroke of fortune never had to endure the civil war and low-level guerrilla harrying that the Americans and their allies are now experiencing in Iraq in general, and Baghdad in particular.

@ KA

1) Your comments were interesting, but they do NOT disprove my contention that there was respect for freedom of political speech in Western Europe "40 or even 30 years ago".  Certainly in Britain and in the Benelux countries, and probably in France too (but not Germany).  I cannot vouch for conditions in the immediate aftermath of WW2, as I was then too young.  The main point was that communist 'speech' was fully tolerated, even at the height of the Cold War with Stalin's armies at the gate.   

2) We agree on the need for "surveillance", even of law-abiding citizens, on the basis of "sociopolitical beliefs and association".  That is only common sense itself, which means that Amsterdamsky is unlikely to agree.   I doubt that this has anything to do with "cherished American freedoms", but then I am a 'European'.  In any case, democratic constitutions talk about freedom of (political) speech, not freedom FROM 'surveillance'.  It is unwise to confuse 'common or ordinary legislation' (about 'privacy rights' and the like) with 'constitutional law', and that is where 'Europe' is going so terribly wrong today.    

3)  We also agree that "this clash is one of culture" (a whiff of Huntington again?), not of religion. Furthermore, we agree that "neutralising muslim fundamentalists" will not deal with all "those other problems" that come with large-scale immigration of peoples from very different cultures.  That is precisely why immigration should be 'limited and controlled', focused on individuals rather than on 'groups', and aimed at integration/assimilation.   

4) Sure, the radical-left and the naive-left in the West are "misguided".  That was not the point!  The point was that their actions undermine western defense more than the actions of the 'average' muslim immigrant.  Moreover, before the victory of naive-left orthodoxy in western civilisation, there had always been numerous examples of INDIVIUAL muslim immigrants, particularly in the USA and France, who had no significant problems with "supporting western civilisation" (indeed they tended to be genuine refugees from 'muslim' civilisation).  It is largely the actions of culturally naive-left Western governments which have created the 'social' problems of mass migration of 'economic' migrants.

5) Individuals should always be held accountable for their actions, anytime, war time and peace time.  But the 'procedures' to be followed wil surely differ depending on the circumstances.

6) Your joke about "riding in humvee" suggests that you are reading too fast, and not 'discriminatingly' enough.   Any serious fruitful discussion about the ongoing 'long war' with radical islam would require that you could suppress or put aside your shortsighted anti-Americanism.  That war is a global war with many "central fronts":  militarily in Irak, politically in Western Capitals (above all in Washington, as usual), diplomatically today probably in Pakistan.   All these fronts are bound to shift in the coming years.   

MarcFrans: "I doubt that their role is as destructive as the one being played by the radical left and the naive-left (particularly the media) and even by a big part of the libertarian 'right' in western civilisation."
 

One can call these individuals "misguided." Muslims have a conflict of interest that prevents them from supporting Western civilization.
 

MarcFrans: "...ultimately it is individuals that must be held accountable for their actions."
 

Not during wartime. The rules of engagement are a luxury the West can no longer afford.
 

MarcFrans: "Rather, I did advocate instilling fear, and in that sense 'respect'."
 

In that case, I suggest you begin studying Genghis Kahn, Hitler, Stalin, Milosevic, etc., because looking tough in expensive equipment while riding in humvee is apparently not working.
 

MarcFrans: "Unless that world pays a severe "price" it will continue to do so (just like the 'Barbary pirates' used to, two centuries ago)."
 

The Barbary Coast was subjugated, not unlike the Turkic tribes in Central Asia. The West is not prepared to launch a "total war" on Muslim soldiers and civilians that would drive this "price" home.
 

MarcFrans: "At the moment Irak is the "central front" in the war with radical islam in a direct military sense, and that is very temporary."

Afghanistan would make more sense, given that much of the Iraq insurgency involves "nationalist"-type resentment to American occupation.
 

MarcFrans: "Your list of European cities are the central front in a political sense, and it would be wise to add a number of American cities to that list as well.  Because it is there that the nature of 'western' immigration policies will be decided.  However, in a military sense those cities play no significant role in the ongoing war with radical islam."
 

They will play a signficant military role when they each resemble Beirut. Western immigration policies have set the stage for the single largest conflict in human history, except that there will be no clear borders or a distinction between combatant and non-combatant. Victories will be decided by the number of dead rather than the amount of territory captured or other strategic gains.

MarcFrans: "...but 40 or even 30 years ago there was respect for freedom of political speech in Western Europe (specifically in Britain, Benelux, and France). To illustrate, even at the height of the cold war...there was genuine tolerance for communist parties and communist 'speech' in those West-European countries."

However, there was little tolerance for either National Socialist or Fascist political organizations, private assocations or thought. Given that Stalin disapproved of prolific communist parties in Western Europe i.e. outside the Soviet "sphere of influence" e.g. he was actually opposed to the revolutionary tendencies of Greek communists. Furthermore, the "communist" movements in Great Britain, France, the Low Countries and Italy generally had a pre-war heritage and were not necessarily affiliated with the CPSU.

MarcFrans: "All sensible governments "monitor and infiltrate" extremist organisations...Those "persecutions" are/were not on the basis of speech or "socio-political beliefs" but on the basis of illegal DEEDS."

Due to "sensible" governments' emphasis on prevention, even law-abiding individuals or those not convicted of an offense would be subject to surveillance, etc., primarily on the basis of their socio-political beliefs and association, both of which are cherised American freedoms.

MarcFrans: "Also, legalistic distinctions between (1) "authorisations by Congress" for specific military engagements, and (2)  public declarations of 'war' by the President or the US Executive Branch, are not particularly useful nor illuminating in this regard."

For you anyways...

MarcFrans: "The "enemy" is NOT "every single muslim residing in the British isles"..."

Unfortunately, you're wrong. This is not a problem of fundamentalists v. moderates, Muslim v. Christian, religionist v. non-religionist, etc. This clash is one of culture, and religious differences are but a single facet. Neutralising Muslim fundamentalists will not impact those other problems that come with Muslim immigration, which Muslims share with other non-Europeans migrating to Western states. Rather than being a singular threat to the West, Muslims are merely the vanguard of a vast process of colonization and ultimately, conquest.

@ pet85022

I hope you can recognise that (i) words are not 'cast in stone', that (ii) there SHOULD always be room for interpretation of ANY texts, and that (iii) linking any individual to a specific text is a very 'tricky' business.   If you do not recognise that, then you would be not much different than the typical muslim 'fundamentalist'.  

We agree that radical islam is presently "the enemy" of all people who value INDIVIDUAL freedom (particularly of individual conscience).  But we disagree that every individual 'muslim' automatically is the enemy.   I do not think that a semantic discussion of the terms "muslim" and "enemy" is very useful at this point.  There truly are different kinds of 'muslims', and even of 'enemies'.  

The "enemy" is NOT "every single muslim residing in the British isles" Actually yes it is,  Sura 9:5
 “Then when the Sacred Months have passed, kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and prepare for them each and every ambush. But if they repent and observe the Islamic lifestyle, then leave their way free. Verily, Allah is Oft Forgiving, Most Merciful.”

Every muslim MUST obey the words of allah, or you are an apostate and it is the religious, moral and legal duty of every pious moslem to kill an apostate because allah SAID "the penalty for being an apostate is death". Kind of a conundrum for moslems, you believe in the word of allah and you are an enemy of England or you don't and are marked for death by your religion (cult). The zombie masses will follow the words of allah either directly ( by actions) or indirectly by agreeing with the actions despite what the zombie masses say ( al-Taqiyya ).

Marc, I don't see that we are truly differing.  I came into this without even reading the exchange between you and Kap, so I couldn't have been addressing you.  I was pointing out things which are not brought into discussion by the establishment left, but which should be.

@ Flanders Fields

1) I think we agree that the issues of (A) necessary distinction (in law) between words and deeds and (B) the proper judicial treatment of war prisoners and/or enemy combatants, are quite separate issues.

2) Which 'issue' are you talking about in your second paragraph?   I certainly did NOT "frame the issue as being merely criminal" if you are referring to issue B.  On the contrary, I agree with you that war prisoners and/or enemy combatants should NOT be treated as 'criminals' but, rather, as being subject to the (long established) rules of war (long story).   I do, however, maintain that the distinction between citizens and noncitizens should remain firmly established in determining who can be a war prisoner and who cannot, and that it has a bearing on their respective constitutional protections and judicial treatment.  In recent times the Wall Street Journal has published a number of interesting articles by legal experts who have explained this in greater depth.

3) I have no idea what you mean by my "opposition" in your last paragraph.  Opposition to what?  In my response ("separate and unequal #2) to your intervention ("separate and unequal") I did not "oppose" anything.  I simply pointed out that you raised a different issue from the one(s) under discussion with Kapitein Andre.

4) The nature and difficulties of "democray" cannot be definitively settled here and now.  That will undoubtedly continue to be debated here at infinitum in different contexts in the future.   I repeat my main point.  The distinction  between speech and deeds (i.e. effective constitutional protection of free political speech) is necessary for ANY democratic polity to preserve its democratic character and to be able to defend itself against subversion by INTERNAL ruling 'orthodoxies'.  BY CONTRAST, the different judicial treatment of internal 'criminals' from that of 'war prisoners and/or enemy combatants', is necessary for a democracy to be able to defend itself against EXTERNAL enemies (be they states or transnational entities).

Marc,  I wasn't trying to address either your comments or Kaps.  I know that my comments were not directly on the point raised, but I never see the statement presented in the way I have raised it and think that it is necessary that it be considered. 

As to the last assertion you make, the attempts to frame the issue as being merely criminal, and applying them to all citizens (instead of only to segments of the population from which problems arise), is the new orthodoxy imposed by the ruling class.  Traditional ways of dealing with the issue are more in line with the way which I outlined. 

As to the "democratic" nature of our societies, why are the leadership allowed to change from the traditional ways of dealing with these matters (which seemed to work efficiently to protect the people) to the new "multiculturally sensitive" criminalization method?  Where is the "democratic" will which allowed such changes?   The first obligation of a democratic system of representation has always been first and foremost the protection of the people and the vital national interests.  When did the people decide that this was no longer paramount? When did the people decide that countless immigrants would become "citizens" equal to and often superior to (in what they obtain from our governments) the native born and culturally identified people who are from the native populations of the countries?

"We should not be blinded by multicultural attempts to fit all categories of wrongdoers within our regular criminal and civil systems.  This is especially true when the attempt to do so strikes at the vital security interests of our nations and peoples." ,is one excerpt from my post which refers to this and I don't see that it is off the issue which you raise. 

I really don't understand your opposition, but I am not a particular fan of the term "democracy" as being representative of what our forms of Western government are about.  I hear it often, but I don't see that the people are the ones who are being represented many times in the way it is used.  In current usage, it more often than not means that the will of the ruling class is disguised with the term democracy in an attempt to  silence detractors while they stuff unpopular items down the people's throats.

@ Flanders Fields

While I agree with the 'gist' of your statement, it must be said that you are raising a different subject than the one in my discussion with the Kapitein and in the presented quote of Brendan O'Neill (assuming that the three cyber-jihadists are British citizens).

The distinction between speech and deeds is essential for ANY democratic society to be able to adjust IN TIME to changing circumstances over time and to preserve its democracy.  

By contrast, your distinction between the judicial treatment of citizens (with constitutionally guaranteed protections) and of foreign nationals as 'war prisoners, enemy combatants, etc...' is also very valid, and rooted in both genuine 'international law' (i.e. law to which democratic nations involved in an international dispute have put their signature) as well as rooted in the actual past practice of democratic nations over past centuries.  But your subject has to do with how democracies must defend themselves against EXTERNAL enemies, whereas the subject under discussion had to do with how a democratic society must preserve its democratic character from INTERNAL subversion by ruling orthodoxies. 

The distinction which is missing most is not that between words and deeds.  It is the decision to treat these spies, sabotuers and treasonists within the criminal system.  The missing element is common sense.

There should be no attempt to treat people involved in the activities in which they were involved within our systems, nor should they be accorded rights as if they are ordinary citizens.  A distinction is visible to any ordinary and clear thinking person between the actions and intent of such monsters and those of an ordinary citizen. 

There should be a separate tribunal set up to handle situations involving persons with foreign loyalties outside those set up for ordinary, everyday citizens.  We should not be blinded by multicultural attempts to fit all categories of wrongdoers within our regular criminal and civil systems.  This is especially true when the attempt to do so strikes at the vital security interests of our nations and peoples.  We must have a capacity to act swiftly (which our legal systems do not have) and outside the constraints imposed by regular investigations, methods and individual constitutional protections. 

We should avoid thinking of them as "just another criminal".  They are undertaking military missions and sabotage to kill ordinary citizens of our countries.  When they engage in such actions they should be treated in a manner which is more nebulous toward their rights and in a way which allows utmost discretion to the investigators and prosecutors.  Oversight by appropriate civilian or judicial observers and access to appeals in some instances can be afforded.

The people of our nations should not be subjected to the laws which are designed for identifying, and controlling the behavior of such groups.  There is a danger in doing so, in applying laws to control terrorist operatives or spies to our citizens, and it may not be easily overcome.  We are not assured, as citizens, that those laws will not be turned against us in the exercise of our daily lives.  We deserve that assurance.

For another article of interest, not directly related to the above post see, "a link between online fraud and Jihadist's Networks".

@ Kapitein Andre

1) Undoubtedly there is always a "certain ebb and flow of civil liberties and social obligations...", but 40 or even 30 years ago there was respect for freedom of political speech in Western Europe (specifically in Britain, Benelux, and France).  To illustrate, even at the height of the cold war, when Stalin's armies posed a real existential threat (that could only be contained by American military power), there was genuine tolerance for communist parties and communist 'speech' in those West-European countries.  Today, this respect for the constitutional principle of freedom of political speech is no longer there, as confirmed by a variety of laws that criminalise 'speech' and/or opinion expression, and confirmed by a variety of court cases in several West European countries. 

All sensible governments "monitor and infiltrate" extremist organisations.  Your comparison with "the KKK, Black panthers, eco-fascists etc..." in the US is not valid. Those "persecutions" are/were not on the basis of speech or "socio-political beliefs" but on the basis of illegal DEEDS.

2) Au contraire, as you like to say, the US government has publicly declared a state of war, more specifically it has declared war on 'Al Qaeda and similar organisations (with similar objectives) AND on their state sponsors'.   Needless to say, these distinctions are not always clearcut and easy to make, and a lot of 'tactical compromises' are being made in a variety of places to facilitate the prosecution of this 'long (inevitable) war'.  Pakistan is an obvious and major example of this. Also, while this war is currently being fought openly and militarily in perhaps 15 countries or so, for obvious reasons it is not YET being fought directly (or openly) in other places. Iran is an obvious example of that. 

Also, legalistic distinctions between (1) "authorisations by Congress" for specific military engagements, and (2)  public declarations of 'war' by the President or the US Executive Branch, are not particularly useful nor illuminating in this regard.    

3) The "enemy" is NOT "every single muslim residing in the British isles", although I have no illusions about the negative role most muslims play in this conflict, mainly through passive succeptability to intimidation.  I doubt that their role is as destructive as the one being played by the radical left and the naive-left (particularly the media) and even by a big part of the libertarian 'right' in western civilisation.

4) A distinction must be made between Islam and Islamism, because ultimately it is individuals that must be held accountable for their actions. 

5) I agree that the armed forces of the west could prevent muslims from "expanding in Western Territories".   Islamism originates in culturally-stagnant intolerant societies that currently live off the 'economic rent' of natural resources.  They are not likely to present a significant military threat in the foreseeable future, although they could do great damage through the acquisition and use of WMD. The real military threat for the West comes from the contemporary 'Return of Authoritarian Great Powers', more specifically China and Russia, since their adoption of 'market capitalism'.

6)  We agree on the need to prevent large-scale islamic immigration to the West.   I did not advocate teaching any "lesson".  Rather, I did advocate instilling fear, and in that sense 'respect'. The islamist assault on the west will continue as long as the islamic world continues to create and feed islamism.  Unless that world pays a severe "price" it will continue to do so (just like the 'Barbary pirates' used to, two centuries ago).

7) At the moment Irak is the "central front" in the war with radical islam in a direct military sense, and that is very temporary.  Your list of European cities are the central front in a political sense,  and it would be wise to add a number of American cities to that list as well.  Because it is there that the nature of 'western' immigration policies will be decided.  However, in a military sense those cities play no significant role in the ongoing war with radical islam.  

MarcFrans: "But he is wrong if he thinks that the enemy should not be fought "on his own turf". That is like saying that it would have been better to fight the nazis in London or Brussels, rather than in Berlin or in Rome."

Evidently you make a great distinction between Islam and Islamism: I do not. The Germans had the willingness and capabilities (initially) to expand militarily at the expense of the entire globe, whereas Muslims only have the willingness. The Muslims' ability to colonize and therefore 'conquer' another society has been facilitated by that society's immigration system and border controls. Muslims only represent an existential threat to Western states so long as they compose a statistically significant percentage of those states' populations. Moreover, it is entirely possible for the armed forces of the West to prevent Muslims from expanding into Western territories.

MarcFrans: "Radical islam is at war with the west, and will continue to assault the west no matter what happens on specific battlegrounds."

However, Islam's primary assault is through demographic expansion inside Western states which is already impacting their electoral systems and political culture, and which will culminate in pro-Islamic foreign and domestic policies and programmes.

MarcFrans: "As long as the muslim world does not pay a severe price for the depredations of radical islam, it will continue to 'generate' islamism, and the war will continue."

They are not paying any "severe price." The United States cannot "teach" the Islamic world a lesson anymore than the Wehrmacht could beat any sense into the Russians. By preventing Islamic migration to the West/G8, Islamic governments will no longer have the 'release valve' that maintained their power. Thus, Islamic states will progress through violent revolutions and civil wars until they stabilize.

MarcFrans: "The war with radical islam is currently fought in many places, and Irak is currently its central front."

Wrong. Its central front is in London, Amsterdam, Toronto, Oslo, Stockholm, Berlin, Duesseldorf, Paris, etc.

Ignore this post please thanks.

MarcFrans: "...it is no longer really a "precedent", since in recent European history there have been many similar precedents before, both in the law and in jurisprudence."

I think it is a mistake to regard these precedents as "recent" or "European." There is a certain ebb and flow of civil liberties and social obligations on the individualism-communitarianism axis usually dictated by security concerns in the short term and by culture in the long term. Indeed, the United States government actively monitors and infiltrates associations that it deems 'extremist' or otherwise potentially harmful to the majority of Americans e.g. Ku Klux Klan, Black Panthers, anarchists, eco-fascists, etc. In many cases, the members of these organisations are not criminals and are in some manner facing legal persecution due to their socio-political beliefs.

MarcFrans: "...one cannot retain all the trappings of liberal democracy in times of war. At such a time, the individual must take a back seat to/for the survival of the 'polity'."

Agreed.

MarcFrans: "...one should expect a democratic government to publicly declare a state of war BEFORE infringing on democratic individual rights."

Either the public is conscious of the "state of war" or there is a grave disconnect between the government and its citizens. I am of the opinion that societies are organic to some degree in the sense that the state is a mere extension of the nation and represents the national will, or 'General Will' to quote Rousseau. Corrupt societies erect corrupt states, irrespective of the symptoms. I am not a believer in the Marxist (or indeed liberal) conception of the state (from Weber) as a wholly separate and/or adversarial entity. However, if a public holds its government in contempt out of a dislike for taxes, excessive ('every man for himself') individualism or unrealistic goals of libertarian society, the government will reflect these attitudes in its dealings with the public.

MarcFrans: "The American government has clearly done so..."

Incorrect. The United States never declared war on Islamists worldwide, Afghanistan or Iraq; rather, these were military engagements authorized and extended by congress.

MarcFrans: "By contrast, European governments generally have not been willing to recogise a 'state of war' and prefer to maintain a bit longer the fiction that the war on terror (i.e. the war with radical islam) is a matter of 'policing'."

Their martial spirit was left crushed after 1945, except for Russia, which had finally won a seat at the victor's table, and who continues to combat the advance of Islam in Chechnia and elsewhere.

MarcFrans: "...the state [United Kingdom] is taking (undemocratic or unconstitutional) wartime measures without first declaring war on a defined enemy."

When the enemy is every single Muslim residing in the British Isles, irrespective of their professed loyalties, and the British people remain opposed to mass re-settlement, terrorism and genocide (a'la Yugoslavia), how can London declare war?

There's been countless "dangerous precedents" set in Europe in my lifetime, what's one more?

1) I agree that this judicial decision further "blurs the distinction between words and deeds", and that such a distinction is essential for the maintenance of democracy and of 'civilisation'.  However, it is no longer really a "precedent", since in recent European history there have been many similar precedents before, both in the law and in jurisprudence.  

2) Moreover, one cannot retain all the trappings of liberal democracy in times of war.   At such a time, the individual must take a back seat to/for the survival of the 'polity'.   But one should expect a democratic government to publicly declare a state of war BEFORE infringing on democratic individual rights.   The American government has clearly done so, and the Patriot Act (in its various successive incarnations) is  the main legislative result.   This act essentially has strengthened government's effectiveness of surveillance, and has NOT infringed on freedom of political speech).  By contrast, European governments generally have not been willing to recogise a 'state of war' and prefer to maintain a bit longer the fiction that the war on terror (i.e. the war with radical islam) is a matter of 'policing'. 

It is therefore ironic, that it is in Europe - not the USA - that the distinction between words and deeds is most blurred.  And, it is doubly ironic that those legislative and judicials assaults on freedom of political speech in Europe are directed most often, not against the perpetrators of islamist violence, but rather against critics of government policies (especially policies on immigration and on 'ethical' issues).  This British court case is an exception in that it is directed against the actual-declared (jihadist) enemy of the democratic state, but without the state first declaring war on radical islam.   In short, the state is taking (undemocratic or unconstitutional) wartime measures without first declaring war on a defined enemy.   More generally, European governments and the public better make up their minds as to whether they are at war, or not, and about who the real enemy is of 'democracy'.

3)  Kapitein Andre is right where he states that "it is time to see the larger picture".  But he is wrong if he thinks that the enemy should not be fought "on his own turf".  That is like saying that it would have been better to fight the nazis in London or Brussels, rather than in Berlin or in Rome.   But, the Kapitein is of course blinded by his habitual anti-Americanism and by the numerous tactical mistakes made by Bush in Iraq.  Radical islam is at war with the west, and will continue to assault the west no matter what happens on specific battlegrounds.  As long as the muslim world does not pay a severe price for the depredations of radical islam, it will continue to 'generate' islamism, and the war will go on.

The war with radical islam is currently fought in many places, and Irak is currently its central front.  The way it should be fought there, and elsewhere, is very much under debate in Washington today.  The American public understandably wants 'change', i.e. it wants a fairer sharing of this burden, and it wants 'results'.   It is going to get neither from a cynical world.  And the net result will be that the war will spread, out of Irak to other places.

Brendan O'Neill: "This case sets a dangerous precedent indeed. It further blurs the distinction between words and deeds. The 007-jihadists were imprisoned as if their words were deeds – that is, their words were so potentially destructive that they had to be punished with six to 10 years’ imprisonment. The slackening of the category of incitement under Britain’s anti-terror legislation – where you can now even be convicted of ‘indirect incitement’, a situation where your allegedly inflammatory words inspire someone somewhere to do something, even if it was not your intention – has seriously denigrated universal legal principles. It has long been a principle of all civilised systems of criminal justice that people should be held accountable for their actions, not their ideas or opinions."

I felt similarly when I read about this case and its outcome. However, the United Kingdom is on the brink of civil war, and charging Muslims with "indirect incitement" is certainly far more preferable than hanging one hundred of them from lamp posts after the next bomb blast or summarily executing protesters, etc.

The weakness of neo-conservatives and liberals is that while many have identified problematic "trends" in Western states, few are prepared to offer any comprehensive solution. Moreover, when a solution is enacted, they feign horror at the infringement on civil liberties, democracy, etc. Unfortunately, police cannot prevent a civil war on their own and liberal democracy is not capable of waging one. Unless someone is going to lament the incarceration of Sir Oswald Mosley in 1940, it is time to see the larger picture. When a Western government has the cajones to dust-off the APCs and roll out the tanks, please keep to the side. And no, fighting the enemy on his own turf (Iraq) is not going to do anything for the West.