In Britain, the
elected House of Commons is currently approving a measure to extend some parts of a larger "emergency powers" act that just expired - after having been ruled illegal by the British courts. The new measure will skirt the most egregious parts of the old one
(while adding new ones), but the Blair government is claiming that there is still a need to place under indefinite house arrest and civil-liberties restriction those merely
suspected of terrorism. Due process, anyone?
The unelected House of Lords is in opposition:
The unelected Lords repeatedly voted to block the bill, weighing centuries-old rights against the need to protect Britain. Never before in modern times have the Lords defied the Commons with such tenacity.
There is good reason for their opposition, as well:
The old law allowed foreigners to be detained indefinitely without charge if suspected of terrorism.
The new measures would apply to Britons as well, allowing the government to impose a range of restrictions, up to house arrest without trial.
Both require Britain to suspend the right to a fair trial guaranteed under European law, the only country to do so.
(emphasis mine)
If I lived in Britain, I'd be wondering what my
elected representatives were doing supporting such a measure.
And the Lords are probably wondering why modern British people would be willing to ignore their pioneering rights document - the Magna Carta - just as we wonder at the apathy out there about the shredding of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.
I'll now quote a relevant passage, demanded and granted in the year 1215, by "Good King John":
To no one will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice.
Right now, all that stands between a civilized people and the loss of their ancient rights is a chamber full of hereditary peers, bishops, royal appointees and political appointees.