This document discusses the paradigm shift in criminal justice from reactive to preemptive approaches and the erosion of traditional limits on interference with civil liberties in the name of security. It notes that this has been identified by many academics and reports. The normal principles of lawful interference like clear laws, individual justification, targeting, and open investigations are being replaced by vague laws, broad arbitrary interference, secret investigations. It argues that exceptions to these principles should only apply in a real state of emergency threatening the life of the nation, which Europe is not currently in legally. It quotes Lord Hoffman that terrorist threats do not rise to this level of threat to national existence. The document criticizes the mindset of security professionals that sees threats as existential rather

1. Hvor går langt kan vi gå?
Jon Wessel-Aas
advokat/partner i Bing Hodneland

2. Paradigmeskifte;
fra reaksjonær strafferett og målrettet bruk av
tvangsmidler, mot preaktiv strafferett
("precrime"-logikk) og vedtagelse av brede,
vilkårlige inngrep i sivile og politiske rettigheter
tilsidesettelse av tradisjonelle skranker for
inngrep i sivile og politiske rettigheter
utvisking av grensen mellom normaltilstand og
unntakstilstand - samfunnsvern blir overordnet

3. Identifisert av en mengde akademikere,
innenfor både jus og samfunnsvitenskap
Også i flere rapporter av FNs
spesialrapportør på terrorbekjempelse og
MR, EU-finansiert forskningsprosjekt
INEX, samt bl a International Commission
of Jurists, jf omfattende rapport
"Assessing Damage, Urging Action"

4. Normale prinsipper for lovlige inngrep i f eks
privatsfæren, kommunikasjonsfriheten m v ihht
EMK:
Klare, forutberegnlige lovhjemler - konkret
begrunnelse overfor den enkelte - målrettethet
ved valg av midler - åpen etterforskning
IKKE vage lovhjemler - brede, vilkårlige
inngrep - hemmelig etterforskning/etterretning
Det adferdsregulerende element

5. "grunn til å undersøke om noen forbereder
(...) å forberede" en terrorhandling

6. Unntak fra disse prinsippene: Når det
foreligger akutt unntakstilstand; krig eller
annet som umiddelbart truer "the life of the
nation"
Strenge vilkår - Europa befinner seg ikke i
unntakstilstand, juridisk sett.
Trusler mot rikets sikkerhet kontra trusler
om annen kriminalitet

7. “Of course the government has a duty to protect the lives and
property of its citizens. But that is a duty which it owes all the time
and which it must discharge without destroying our constitutional
freedoms. I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of
terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the
nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but
there is no doubt that we shall survive Al-Qaeda (…) Terrorist
violence, serious as it is, does not threaten our institutions of
government or our existence as a civil community. The real threat to
the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with
its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but
from laws such as these. That is the true measure of what terrorism
may achieve.” (Lord Hoffman, i dom av House of Lords 2004)

8. Security professionals believe that their job has strong ethical and moral
connotations, as they see it as a means to fight evil/disorder so as to achieve
good/a fair order. Their self-reflection is therefore not the result of an
objective analysis on the needs of society and the most effective long-term
responses to address them, in light of consolidated ethical principles, but rather
the consequence of irrational thinking. In light of this, security professionals
admit that threats such as violent extremism or uncontrolled migration flows have
been amplified by the media and manufactured for the sake of national political
elites. However, they also tend to believe in the existence of such threats; they
believe in the exceptionality of the policies they are mandated to implement and
consider them as ethically acceptable. Here, security professionals act
according to a ‘preventive logic’. In this framework, technology may then offer
useful tools to settle moral and ethical dilemmas arising out from the adoption of
precautionary tactics and methods against external threats. Extremists,
terrorists and uncontrolled flows of migrants are considered as external threats
to the internal social order, under a clear us vs. them rationale. (Rapporten
"Value dilemmas of security professionalism" s 8, INEX project 2011)