Some writings are more revealing than their authors realize in that they expose what was not intended for communication. During the last weekend of February The Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the Swiss paper I read – it is rated among the ten best dailies of the world – brought an interesting piece by Wolfgang Benedek: Free Societies Are Becoming ‘Security Communities.’ Fighting terrorism while preserving civil rights is turning out to be a quandary for free societies. The essay reverses the order, as it concerns the rights of the suspect whilst responding to terrorism. Time might justify the author’s priorities, namely if terrorism proves to be a passing episode marked by the resort to terrorism on the part of those who have become weak and irrelevant by taking the wrong path of development. If, however, terrorism remains a major theme of our time, then it makes sense to reverse the priorities.

The article states that since 9/11 terrorism has become global. Mr Benedek claims that under the Bushes (sic) the US strengthened its 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 culminates in “Guantanamo” where “kidnapped” persons are kept incarcerated, “without rights” and according to “credible reports” whilst being “mistreated if not outright tortured.”

According to Mr Benedek not only American but also European anti-terror laws were promulgated and enhanced. After the London bombings of 7 July 2005 the British government made it possible to keep suspects for up to 28 days without being charged, instead of the previous 14. The riots in France caused the French government to expand video observation of public places and to keep telecommunications data filed for up to a year. The period of detention of suspects was doubled while the laws regulating the presence of foreigners are being tightened. In Germany, although ordinances against racism and for the “rule of law” and the integration of aliens are maintained, naturalization is restricted and the surveillance of Muslim groups has been amplified. Similarly, the EU moved to disrupt the financing of terrorist organizations by freezing their assets.

The article continues under the heading “the insinuated state of emergency.” Mr Benedek says that “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 a state of emergency must be announced publicly. In addition, the state of emergency may not lead to “discrimination” on account of “race, color or religion.” However, this 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 Muslims instead of integrating them.” Such overreactions, the article states, remind one of “similar” policies in the past, such as the “anti-Communist hysteria of the McCarthy Era.”

In the article, 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 of terrorism.

Wolfgang Benedek concludes that instead of the “cult of security,” the “cult of togetherness” should 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. He exhorts his readers to remember that the exclusive concern with “national security is increasingly transforming into a threat to ‘human security’ which rests fundamentally on human rights.”

After reading the article I was 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 be imposing 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. In contrast to the French revolutions of 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871, the English and the American revolutions avoided this trap. The fallacy here is one that claims that anarchy is freedom and that the alternative is oppression. Freedom has been amalgamated into an order that also includes security. The voices that we now hear present a fake choice between freedom or security.

I believe, however, that freedom as a principle does not oblige 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. The latter are seen by ideologues as representing a competing world order, while they can tolerate only one. It is therefore irrational to assume that terrorism will cease once an examination – conducted by well-funded “Peace Institutes” – finds its “root causes.” The assumption that this will be followed by “convergence” and “coexistence” (don’t we remember these terms from another context?) arises 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 those on the “other side,” the bin Ladens, do not believe firmly what they profess. It characterises the threat that their position is not a chip to bargain away and that they – just like Hitler and Lenin by the way – hold convictions that are not up for sale.

Our traditional freedoms were developed into a system of laws and commensurate sanctions under specific circumstances. Rightly, these reflect the assumption that those in conflict with a law of a 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 an entire system and way of life was not foreseen by the 18th century rationalists. Hence 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 counterterrorism must not interpret sacrosanct principles in terms of a new – albeit aberrant – situation, are understandable. 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 a commonplace since the eras of National Socialism and Communism. Nevertheless, frequent usage does not invalidate a truth, just as the repetition of a lie, even if it is ultimately believed by multitudes, 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,” understood 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 territories shows how.