Blair's Dilemma

Until this week, the proposed anti-terror bill in Great Britain included a plan to extend the period for which police can hold terror suspects without charging them, from 14 to 90 days. But on Wednesday, November 9th, in Mr Blair’s first major parliamentary defeat since becoming prime minister in 1997, the House of Commons voted down the measure by 322 to 291. This is part of a struggle facing not only the British, but the U.S., Australia and other countries which treasure their liberties.
Benjamin Franklin wrote that “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” He presaged an argument that is raging almost two and a half centuries later. What precisely are the essential liberties which, when given up, make a liberal society unworthy of the name?
We are faced with struggles over aspects of the Patriot Act where persons deemed particularily dangerous could be held forever and the British are going to settle on a 28 day holding period. There will be cases where any given number doesn't fit the circumstance. For example, with the shorter 28 day period, we may well see things like unsubstantiated charges being leveled which might be avoided if things proceded more deliberately. On the other hand, forever seems like along time to some of us. Terrorism makes rule making tough.