Last month's news may have been dominated by the Hutton report, but the keen reader might have spotted an equally important story which has major potential consequences for civil liberties in the UK. On Monday, 2nd February, David Blunkett revealed plans, almost unnoticed over the din of the Hutton aftermath, to allow British terror suspects to be tried and imprisoned before actually committing an offence. Under the innocent-sounding description of "preventative risk management", the bill will give powers to lower the standard of proof required to obtain a conviction from the traditional "beyond reasonable doubt" to the rather more vague "in the balance of probabilities". Speaking from India, Mr Blunkett said that evidence in the trials would be kept secret, to protect intelligence sources used. This nightmarish Orwellian scenario is nothing new, however. The American and British governments have, since September 11th, imposed the tightest restrictions on civil liberties since the Soviet Union. Just 45 days after the tragedy in New York, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, with only one dissenting vote against it. The act essentially gives the FBI the right to secretly access private documents, medical records, library records and credit card records, wiretap a suspect's phone, monitor their internet and email use, search their premises and seize documents and computer files and even access genetic material, all without a warrant or even probable cause. As if that weren't enough, a new act, entitled PATRIOT II, is being considered by Congress, which will give the authorities even greater powers to undermine personal freedom. For all their sanctimonious claptrap about defending freedom and liberty, Bush and Blair's regimes have done more to destroy civil liberties than any other Western governments in recent memory. Of course, protection against further terrorist atrocities should be of the highest priority, but if the fight against terrorism rids us of the very liberties we are trying to protect, then what is the point of fighting?

The strangest and most worrying thing, however, is that it all seems to have happened so smoothly, with barely any resistance. Besides a minor disagreement involving librarians taking offence at plans to search their customer's library records, the bitter pill has been swallowed with a worrying degree of calm by the American people. Most of this can of course be attributed to the ever-present fear of terrorism, but it is still worrying that in George Bush's America, dissent seems to have become an act of terrorism in itself. Likewise, Tony Blair is attempting to go down this route, but with rather less success. While many of the American news networks have a hopelessly right-wing bias, rarely questioning the decisions made by the beloved Commander-in-Chief, the British media has been much less lenient on the government's policies. Much of this can be attributed to the BBC, whose mauling in the Hutton report last month seems if anything to have strengthened its position in the public perception as an independent and reliable source of news. The reason Blair hates the BBC so much, and was willing to sustain so many wounds in his fight with the organisation (including the resignation of Alistair Campbell) is not that the corporation is biased. The truth is quite the opposite. In fact, it is one of the few news outlets which were not afraid to take a stand against Blair and Bush, to ask awkward questions and observe with a critical eye some of the more important aspects of the conflict in Iraq. The problem is that when placed side-by-side against many of the unashamedly pro-war media outlets, it naturally appears to be the odd one out; the cynical, untrusting old man amidst a sea of thinly-disguised propaganda. Put seven liars in a room and ask one man to tell the truth, and the honest man will naturally look to an outside observer like he is the liar. Such is the case with the BBC.
For a modern government to be exerting such pressure over the media is worrying in the extreme. We supposedly live in a free world, with the right to a free press, and yet government bullying and intimidation are still winning out. In political terms, the war between the government and the BBC was almost as bloody as the real conflict in the Gulf, and at times it felt as though Blair was more concerned trying to effect regime change in the BBC than in Iraq. All that needs to be done now is to have a dishevelled Greg Dyke shipped off to Guantanamo Bay, and Blair's personal mission will be accomplished.

The assault on personal freedoms and flouting of international laws by the major Western countries since September 11th is a worrying trend, and one which must be challenged, though fairly, at every turn. Far from what the Bush and Blair propaganda machines may claim, questioning authority and standing up for the rights of the ordinary citizen in our society is not unpatriotic. What the two leaders seem to have forgotten in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks is that the freedoms and liberties we have fought so hard to gain must not be allowed to be eroded in the name of national security, or national security will become meaningless. Freedoms that do not exist cannot be defended, and if the threat of terrorism drives us to destroy the most fundamental rights of our societies in a frenzy of fear, then Osama bin Laden and his men have won, and the war on terror is not only pointless, but ultimately lost.