US revision: comparing civil liberties

Anyone looking at synoptic questions about the ability of the UK and US political systems to uphold civil liberties may wish to consider this story.

Today’s Guardian reports on how Blair may have known about the use of torture on British citizens during the war in Afghanistan.

Civil liberties have, of course, been massively advanced in both countries over the last couple of centuries. In the USA the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court has over the years advanced the rights of a gtreat many of its people, so much so that the USA could then be described as a country that had evntually managed to live up to the principles upon which it was founded. In the UK the judiciary has also become a lot more active and there are lots of good examples of judicial review being employed, but rights have been advanced to a greater extent through legislative mechanisms rather than judicial. Legislation, of course, being directed by governments intent on enforcing civil liberties.

In recent years, however, many campaigners see rights as having taken a retrogade step in both countries. This has been expecially evident in the response by governments to terrorism, but rights began to face limits before 9/11 - in the USA the war on drugs and rises in incarceration rates predate 9/11, as do the attacks on liberties during the Thatcher decade, extended through Major and the early Blair years.

But the most visible curtailment has been with regard to terrorism and while much is surely to be written on this by students in reference to Bush and the Supreme Court cases), less will be said about the UK’s record. This story is well worth mentioning since it shows that decsions on torture came from the top not just in the USA, but in the UK as well.