Cicero and the drones

I have come to think that the issues raised by Cicero's conflict with Catiline in 63 BCE are not likely to go away for some time to come (which is actually why I started SPQR with it).  Cicero the consul of Rome, believing that Catiline was behind a terrorist plot, backed by a makeshift army, to destroy the city, rounded up some of the main suspects and executed them without trial. He repeatedly dubbed them 'hostes' or "(foreign) enemies", and so casting as them as men who had forfeited their citizenly rights to due legal process. His view did not prevail. In a campaign led by a personal enemy, he was exiled for flouting the civil liberties of Roman citizens, and his house destroyed -- and a shrine of Liberty erected on the site.

It still remains unclear whether Cicero was conveniently discovering 'reds under the bed', or whether Rome was really in mortal danger. But for ever after it has been the classic case of the clash between the rule of law and civic rights on the one hand, and on the other the obligation of the civic leader to ensure homeland security.

And that, I suppose, is the nub of the problem of Cameron and the drones. I dont want to oversimplify. My own view about shooting British citizens without trial and remotely, when their presumed unfulfilled crimes are in the past, are no doubt predictable. But, whatever I think about Cameron et al., I dont imagine that the prime minister or anyone else took the decision to kill the 'suspects' in any way lightly, or without realising what the implications are.

All the same, the issues of security vs civil liberties that the drone attack raises are much the same as those that Cicero faced. So it was curious to hear defence secretary Michael Fallon, a trained classicist, speak up for the goverment's line in getting rid of "hostes". I hope that he had not forgotten the Catiline moment.