I came across DORA whilst looking at the UK licensing laws - still a hot topic - and started to wonder about how emergency laws are used and how they
affect civil liberties.
DORA or Defence of the Realm Act, 12 August 1914, was brought in during WW1 to help combat enemy spies, amongst other things.
Under the disguise of this act, licensing laws were reviewed and new licensing laws were introduced.
The terms of the act enabled the government to seize property, apply censorship guidelines and control labour as deemed necessary for the duration of
the war - except that the act continued to be enforced after the war was over, and parts (licensing for example) have only been repealed in the last
couple of years.
This got me wondering about a couple of EU and US laws which have been passed.
In the EU member states have various ways of dealing with terror threats, in the US they have the Patriots Act.
Europe and the US have co-operated to form a list of terror groups, many not even remotely related to Al Qaeda or the middle east, which was the
supposed point of the patriot act and in the UK, human rights laws have been suspended to keep terror suspects in jail for longer.
Governments are now able to freely tap into your E-coomunications, whether they be mobile phone, email or other.
This is not just Europe and the US - this is happening worlwide:
What I want to ask, is whether members feel that these laws would be repealed if the "war on terror" was won, if they have personal experience of
any of these laws, and perhaps most importantly, whether they feel that these infringements of civil liberties are worthwhile.
Personally, I think that laws will become more oppressive, and the continuing "war on terror" will be used as an excuse - after all, this is the
perfect opportunity to keep these or any other laws relating to national security, becuase the "war on terror" can never be won in a conventional