Re[2]: David Davis' Resignation and fight over civil liberty

[Ian Batten]

>
> Is it also not a 'blind spot' with all Governments that they are
> unable to conceive a time that they may no longer be in power, a time
> when all those Draconian powers *they* forced through on the basis
> *they* would only be used 'in extremis', will fall into the hands of a
> 'less democratic' bunch of individuals.

I must say that I find that argument increasingly less compelling.   
Repressive regimes don't need legislation passed by previous  
governments that can be turned to their will: they just pass their  
own, or operate extra-judicially.

The argument you advance works in the face of law-abiding repressive  
regimes, which want to do repressive things while maintaining complete  
obedience to legal constraints and constitutional checks and  
balances.   But I'm not sure I'm worried about that narrow range of  
threats.

As someone pointed out to me a few weeks ago, for _data_ your argument  
has a lot of weight.  ``We are collecting this data for honest and  
good purposes'' is easily countered with ``ah, but others might mis- 
use it'', and the act of collecting data now is a hostage to fortune  
for what happens later on.  But stockpiling powers?  How does the lack  
of legislation passed by previous governments constrain a regime  
operating under an enabling act, or a military regime after a coup?

ian