中国解放军20军军史：中国解放军20军军史简介

安全还是自由？

要保障国土安全，政府可以做什么、不能做什么？个人隐私与自由该如何定义？群己权界的确切边界在哪里？英国士兵里格比在光天化日下遇到恐怖袭击身亡的事件，再次激发了人们对这个古老话题的讨论。最近，英国内阁在一项反恐法案上分歧不小，FT专栏作家Janan Ganesh认为，争论的其中一方抛出“滑坡理论”，是有些敏感过度了。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

knee-jerk 膝跳反应，下意识的

IRA 爱尔兰共和军，希望用制造暴力事件把英国从北爱驱逐出去的恐怖组织。

Lee Rigby 英国士兵里格比5月22日在伦敦被两名伊斯兰极端分子当街砍死

neologism[n?'?l?d??z(?)m] n.新词；新义

quandary['kw?nd(?)r?] n.困惑；窘境

Lord 英国上议院议员

snooper ['snu:p?] n.刺探者，爱管闲事者

habeas corpus [?he?bi??s ?k?rp?s] 人身保护法。是在英美法系下由法官签发的手令，命令将被拘押者交送至法庭接受审判，让他能挑战拘押的正当性。也就是说政府不得未经审判长期拘押公民。美国宪法明文规定，除非战乱，人身保护法不得被暂停执行。

slippery slope 滑坡理论/谬误，是个经典的逻辑错误，即把一连串“坡度不一”的事件都当成必然。鲁迅有个文学化的描述：“一见到短袖…就想到私生子”。

Diplock courts 1973年，英国在北爱骚乱(the Troubles)时设立的特别法庭，它可以维护国家安全为由拘押骚乱分子但不及时给他们正常的受审机会

Magna Carta 大宪章

unconscionable[?n'k?n?(?)n?b(?)l] adj.不合理的，没良心的

Liberals provide the knee-jerks in today’s terror debate (858 words)

By Janan Ganesh

The novelist Martin Amis wrote that modern terrorism, with its uninhibited bloodlust, is better characterised as “horrorism”. Its object is less the paralysing fear that, say, the IRA aimed to stoke, than hideous violence itself. His neologism certainly fits the killing of Lee Rigby, a British soldier, in London last week.

The murder has not terrorised the British, who have summoned their usual restraint. When David Cameron counselled against “knee-jerk responses”, the prime minister was heeded. Although “questions will be asked” about the need for new security measures, he said, the mightiest response to these attacks is to “go about our normal lives”. Britons are doing that.

But the oldest quandary in politics – between liberty and security – cannot be finessed away like this, as he is finding out. His Conservative home secretary, Theresa May, long ago drafted a bill to give the security services more power to monitor emails, telephone calls and internet use. It failed to withstand opposition from Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister who derides the “snooper’s charter”, but it is stirring again. It has advocates in the Labour opposition, including the former home secretary Alan Johnson, who says Ms May should make it a resignation issue. The Liberal Democrat Lord Carlile, who served as the independent reviewer of anti-terror laws under three prime ministers, is another supporter.

Reviving the legislation because of last week’s attack alone would be rash. It remains unclear if the powers under discussion would have averted it. And whether we give it the name terror or horror, the dark truth is that no law can ever equip the state to eradicate such violence.

But it is not necessary to approve of the bill to sense that some of the opposition to it is overdone. And it does not take a hawk to worry that, over the past decade, the civil liberties lobby has become dogmatic and sensationalist. Liberals who show more fervour than rigour can be found in parliament, the judiciary and pressure groups such as Liberty, an outfit that proves you can get away with any claim, however silly, if you belong to the “third sector” of campaign organisations and charities. Civil libertarians grew in voice during Tony Blair’s premiership – sometimes thwarting anti-terror laws that commanded public support, such as 90-day detention without charge – and can now claim to represent the received opinion of the British elites. It therefore matters that many of their certainties are wrong.

One example is the idea that anti-terror laws betray exactly the freedoms we are trying to defend from terrorists. This assumes that what al-Qaeda hates about Britain are the habeas corpus and online privacy. What actually defines western democracy, and riles its enemies, are its basic rights – to vote, to live freely, to worship as one chooses or not at all. Protecting these by compromising other liberties does not make the UK a despotism or reward murderers. The notion that all freedom is indivisible is a lovely thought but there are fundamental freedoms and slightly less fundamental freedoms. Pragmatic societies weaken the latter to secure the former when under threat, as they did during the second world war. If anything, the UK does it less than comparable nations such as France, a country that nobody confuses for Iran or North Korea.

Libertarians who concede this point then bring up the “slippery slope”. Some liberties may be secondary, they say, but losing them is the first insidious step to outright authoritarianism. Erosions of freedom are never reversed, and only ever expand with time. This is ahistorical. Britain has tightened security laws at many moments without becoming an unfree country. And policy does not move in one direction: wartime restrictions were lifted when peace arrived and the Diplock courts of Northern Ireland, which comprised a single judge and no jury, were abandoned when the Troubles eased.

There are other libertarian inanities, such as the habit of invoking the ancientness of certain freedoms as though menaces to public safety have not changed in character or scope since the Magna Carta was signed. But the worst argument of all is the pretence that restrictions on freedom do not even enhance security. This is merely a way of not having to do any hard thinking. Mr Blair’s plan to introduce identity cards was, on balance, a costly and bureaucratic scheme that deservedly came to nothing. But only a churl or ideologue could suggest that it would not have improved security at all. And yet many did.

Intellectually honest liberals should argue that counterterror laws can work, but at an unconscionable cost to personal freedom. They should also acknowledge that, if western security services have made it much harder in recent years for terrorists to launch large attacks, they did not achieve this by asking nicely. Their work has been helped by new powers, many of which were controversial at the time.

Mr Cameron was impressively restrained in his response to the killing of Mr Rigby. But the real knee-jerks in the immemorial struggle between liberty and security now come from the liberal side.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1.What is "the mightiest response to these attacks", according to PM David Cameron?

A. To "go about our normal lives".

B. Launch immediately a purge and hunt down the murderer.

C. That “questions will be asked” about the incident.

D. That “questions will be asked” about the need for new security measures.

答案(1)

2.What do we know about "Civil libertarians"?

A. Deputy PM Nick Clegg is one of them.

B. They sometimes thwart anti-terror laws.

C. They are becoming more practical and less dogmatic.

D. They prefer the France way that has less security regulations.

答案(2)

3.What do we know about PM Blair’s plan to introduce identity cards?

A. It failed to be passed into law.

B. It was a costly and bureaucratic plan.

C. It could've been useful to improve security.

D. All of above.

答案(3)

4."But the real knee-jerks in the immemorial struggle between liberty and security now come from the liberal side."

Meaning?

A. The debate between liberty and security will last forever.

B. The conservatives used to overreact on such issues.

C. It is not always easy to compromise betwenn the two.

D. Deputy PM Nick Clegg should not obstruct the security measures.

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：A.To "go about our normal lives".

解释：是文中的原话。

(2) 答案：B.They sometimes thwart anti-terror laws.

解释：无

(3) 答案：D.All of above.

解释：ABC都是正确的。

作者评价是：a costly and bureaucratic scheme that deservedly came to nothing.

C正确的关键在看懂这句话：only a churl or ideologue could suggest that it would not have improved security at all. 你们说它昂贵和官僚主义没错，但是说它对国家安全没有好处就没道理了。

(4) 答案：D.Deputy PM Nick Clegg should not obstruct the security measures.

解释：内政部长、保守党人Theresa May提议法案让政府部门有更多的权力来监控电邮、电话和网络，以便制止恐怖袭击。 克莱格不屑地称之为“snooper’s charter”。作者全文的意思就是，没必要这么敏感，克莱格先生。