> they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation
Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use.
Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use.
They are justified to the population on the basis of extreme measures for extreme opponents - if that is shown to be a smokescreen and the security services to be inveterate liars, I think the population will be far less inclined to accept any calls for special terror laws.
The war on terror as an excuse just became rather more transparent.
And I'm not so sure about the role of the population either. It's not exactly them who can either accept or not accept the call for such laws.
If you had someone, on a national ticket, who would openly call for their abolishment, matters would be different, of course.
But then -- how do you get onto a national ticket? A hysterical, broken democracy is a hard thing to fix from inside.