On September 2, 1939, the day after Hitler invaded Poland, Neville Chamberlain had just told the Parliament why he was not calling for a declaration of war. Arthur Greenwood, speaking for the Labour opposition, presumed to favor war, rose, he said, to speak for Labour. From the Tory benches, Leo Amery shouted: "Speak for England, Arthur." And so he did.

John Major's essay in defense of British liberties is of a piece with that, and all the more welcome among those who had not been his supporters when he was at Number 10. I suspect many from the Labour benches as well are inclined to echo Amery.

Speak for England, John.

Generally when we speak of "conservatives" in a political context we use the term to mean people believing in limited government, with modest intrusion in the lives of the people living under its reach. And in the United States this would imply a commitment to the Constitution; indeed references to "original intent" are often understood to be a desire to assure contemporary Supreme Court decisions are understood to be consistent with the values invested in the original document.

For this reasons Americans embracing the stance of Justices Alioto, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas should not be described as conservatives. They are extremists bent on destroying the Constitution, not preserving it. We have urgent need of a national debate on how we have permitted a political class so opposed to American principles and values to rise to positions of power in the Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. But as Gleen Greenwald notes, those who drape themselves in the mantle of American conservatism are not conservatives at all. And when John McCain announces he will nominate justices in the mold of Alioto and Roberts he underscores his commitment to an American extremism which is anti-Constitutional to its core.

and the other blowhards of his ilk, is, "Since what you really want is for these detainees to be killed, would *you* walk up to each one, put a gun to his head, and pull the trigger?"

I think what you are trying to say is that there is a difference between Conservatism and Fascism.

Glenn, this has to be one of your best. Thanks for your writing and reporting.

The Government has been saying, in a catchy, misleading piece of spin: "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear."

A good satire on all this is "The Department of Homeland Decency: Decency Rules and Regulations Manual." The department's slogan: "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide. You have nothing to hide if you have nothing to fear. So fear nothing and you need not hide. Hide nothing and you need not fear." It's available at bookstores everywhere.

Great post, Glenn. I wonder if one reason British conservatives feel free to maintain their own values is that the British system has more than two parties. No one party is ever truly in the majority, so they do not see politics as a game where one side wins and another loses. In this country, Republicans and Democrats stop thinking about their values and only concentrate on keeping a majority. Just a thought.

I'm a little surprised, what with the fairly large protests in England over the Iraq debacle over the years, that the English Left, ostensibly represented by the Labour Party, seems to be absent.

Is this Blair's doing?

Has their government been as co-opted as ours?

As an American living and working in the U.K., it has been a confused state of ideological affairs. Listening to my British friends and cohorts here (mainly 25-45 yr olds), there is a strong, almost Thatcher-ite pull ot the right again (anti-immgiration, questions of British-ness, anti-Americanism: and this is in a university town!). But in the light of the Labour Party's (Brown/Blair) historical kowtow to Bush/Cheney prosecution of the Iraq war and related GWOT (or whatever they are calling it now), this isn't as worrisome as it may seem at first blush. The push back, from the right, is also remarkable given that the UK has been attached since 9/11 (7/7/05).

An irrefutable tour de force--congratulations. What pisses me off most about these reactionaries is their cowardice. Hell, they don't want to fight their enemies, they want to slaughter unarmed suspects from the safety of the sky. How revealing! How far we have come from "Give me liberty, or give me death" and "live free or die." Now it's "protect my lily white ass from those evil sand devils at any costs" (and that goes especially for Shooter and Elephant man, you gutless stooges--give away your own freedom, but leave mine alone--i don't shit myself in fear of terrorists).

As for John Major, his reminding people that freedom is worth the risk happens to be the most honorable thing I've heard out of any politician in a long time. Kudos to him, too.

I'll be harping on him for some time.

His dissent in this cases is truly deranged, deeply offensive to the Constitution and the rule of law, the ravings of a thwarted (for now) Monarcho-Fascist who should never have been confirmed to the court in the first place, and who, once confirmed, should have been removed a long time ago. But no. This is the United States of America, and we are just too darned polite for that. Besides, he's a "brilliant jurist, no matter how much you may disagree with his rulings..." This from so-called "progressives."

So it's not just the American Right that's the problem here; it is also elements of the acquiescent American Left and that vast Middle of Independence. Scalia wouldn't be able to get away with his crap if it weren't for those acquiescent moderates, contrarian indies, and so-called progressives.

The contrast between the rhetoric of the American Right and the British Right is pretty stunning, but we should not forget that British Conservative MPs are in opposition to a Labour government that has been expanding surveillance and detention powers exponentially. It is the job of Conservative MPs to oppose -- and they take their jobs seriously enough to actually and frequently do it. Whoa. Surprise, that.

That they oppose by reference to hoary tradition and ancient law and all that is... well... conservative, something our own Right Wing abandoned long ago. What the British Conservatives would do in power is something else again. I have little doubt they would somehow find a "conservative" reason to go much farther in pursuit of authoritarian control than the Labour government has already done, and they'd mock Labour's pitiful efforts at authoritarianism to boot. Just the way they are.

In this country, the so-called "opposition" is too polite to actually oppose the march of Autocracy. No, instead it has ceaselessly acted to enable and/or authorize such a march. There have been some pro-forma skirmishes over marginal details now and then. Most of such struggle as there has been, however, has been over the Executive's consistent "insults" toward traditional Congressional prerogatives. Law? Constitution? Fringe notions at best. Both parties have actively collaborated in the installation and consolidation of an Autocratic exectutive. And I have no reason to doubt they will continue their productive collaboration in the face of the threat to their cooperation and prerogatives, the insult, ideed, the Court has rendered here.

You watch. Scalia's dissent will become (has already become) the motor for further congressional/Autocracy collaboration in the interest of Saving Us All from the Terrorists. Habeus? Quaint. "An Old Law desperately in need of Updating."

Little Lindsay's tantrum ("I'll get a Constitutional Amendment!!!!") and Scalia's ravings over the ruling are only the beginning. They'll continue to fuss and fume until they get their way. And in the interests of Saving Us All, Our Dems will once again find compromise and comity is far more important than that tattered old piece of parchment they swore to protect and defend.