"Legislate in haste, repent at leisure" runs an old adage, the evident wisdom undiluted by the consistency with which it is ignored. Laws should not be written while the first flushes of anger redden the cheeks or the initial gasps of excitement fill the lungs.
In particular, it is a poor idea to react to a terrorist attack by reaching for the statute book. It is galling to see how frequently governments react to a bombing by introducing so-called "anti-terror" legislation. These new "tough" laws invariably involve the diminution of hard-won rights: to privacy, to a fair trial, even to a trial at all.
Any government which responds in this way is admitting its own culpability. If an administration argues that it needs new powers after a terrorist attack then wasn’t it remiss not to seek these powers before its citizens were blown to pieces?
Whatever lessons are to be learnt about the 7/7 attacks, perhaps the most sobering of all is that little could have been done to stop them. In the absence of good intelligence, what could have been done to foil the bombers’ plan? With so many disillusioned young British Muslims out there, and with the instructions for making an explosives belt just a few mouse-clicks away, it seems a hopeless task.
But such defeatism has never been Tony Blair’s stock in trade. Faced with the worst terrorist attack in British history, the urge to seem pro-active is overwhelming. So the government has introduced yet another anti-terror bill, or as Ken Clarke put it:
"A trawl through the statute book to find anything to prove that the government was doing something."
Caught up in this trawl are two ideas which have captured the headlines in recent weeks. Neither of these cunning wheezes seriously address the causes of terrorism but, by a strange coincidence, both do threaten to seriously undermine civil liberties.
The first of these is the notion that the "glorification of terrorism" should become a crime. Such a hideously subjective concept as this is clearly not fit for any courtroom:
"Your honour, as you well know, one man’s glorification of terrorism is another man’s glorification of freedom fighting. The defence rests."
The potential victims of this new law are many and varied. Perhaps the PM’s wife, who once remarked that she could "understand" why Palestinians became suicide bombers, will fall foul of her husband’s new law. Maybe George Bush, an ardent admirer of the American insurgents of the 18th century, will find himself arrested during his next visit to the UK.
Even more insidious is the proposal to hold terrorism suspects for 90 days without charge, a massive increase from the current limit of 14. Blair assures his people that this measure is essential for Britain’s security. This is the same man who assured his compatriots three years ago that Saddam Hussein could attack Britain with WMD in 45 minutes.
The idea of holding someone for so long without charge is more than a little reminiscent of internment without trial. Even those with the sketchiest knowledge of Irish history will realise that such a policy would be ill-advised.
Just as a previous generation of British politicians thrust young Irish men into the waiting arms of the IRA, Blair and his government seem determined to frog-march British Muslims towards al-Qaida. For, let there be no doubt, if a young Muslim does not hate Britain on day one of his detention, he will assuredly hate it by day 90.
In spite of this, recent polls suggest that for once, the people are with Blair. Whatever the opposition to the 90 day measure within the Westminster bubble, the general public have no qualms.
"Tell Tony He’s Right" cries today’s Sun, urging its millions of readers to show their support for the 90 day law. Splashed across the front-page is a gruesome picture of 7/7, the link is none too subtle - it’s 90 days internment, or it’s more of this.
But such a view flies in the face of logic. Since none of the July bombers were known to police, what difference would the 90 day measure have made? Unless the police actually know who the "ticking bombs" are, then what does it matter if terror suspects can be held for 14 days, or 90 days, or 900 days?
Unless of course you intend interning every young Muslim male. That would keep Britain safe. For about 90 days.
"