Did David Trimble consult his deputy First Minister, Mark Durkan, before asking the British government to extend draconian new emergency laws, including the power to intern suspected terrorists without trial, to Northern Ireland?
The UUP leader told his party's annual conference, held in Belfast last Saturday, "We welcome the emergency measures introduced this week to guard against those suspected of likely involvement in terrorism. They must be used against all terrorists including those here. That is why I am writing, as First Minister, to the Home Secretary asking for the extension this legislation to Northern Ireland."
Mr Trimble went on to make the point that, in his view, there is no moral difference between terrorism in Northern Ireland and the terrorist attack on the World Trade Centre in New York on September 11th.
The new Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Bill, which is being rushed through parliament this week, has already provoked a storm of protest in Britain. The new measures involve the Westminster government seeking a derogation from part of the European Convention on Human Rights, something which is requested only in cases of national emergency.
They will enable David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, to detain foreign terrorist suspects, who cannot be deported to their home countries because they might be subjected to mistreatment. These detainees will not be informed of the evidence against them. They, or their lawyers, can be excluded from all, or part, of any appeal against detention.
Mr Blunkett had a rough ride when he introduced his new bill in the House of Commons on Monday. One of the Labour MPs who spoke most forcefully against it was the chairman of the House of Commons select committee on home affairs, one Chris Mullin. (Remember - as if we could forget - the way he campaigned to free the Birmingham Six?)
During the debate, the Home Secretary was subjected to constant heckling from his own backbenchers, something we do not associate with New Labour. But deep concern has been expressed right across the political spectrum in Britain and further afield. Douglas Hogg, a former conservative home office minister, and one not particularly well-regarded in these parts, asked why evidence about a suspect's activities should be withheld from the individual involved.
Mr Blunkett has dismissed the worries about his proposals as "airy fairy" and rounded on his critics, including those in the media, as never having had to take responsibility for any decision more important than choosing what to put in the shopping trolley at the local supermarket. Those critics include the Economist magazine, hardly representative of the loony left, which described the new anti-terrorist measures as "Kafkaesque".
In Britain, the new law is aimed primarily at Muslims who are suspected of being involved with Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. The security services are reported to have drawn up a list of suspects.
This is headed by a prominent Islamic scholar, who advocates the concept of jihad and has said that he "respects bin Laden", although he has had no contact with al-Qaeda. His lawyer Gareth Peirce - another name familiar to many former Irish prisoners in Britain - commented "We are in the grip of the kind of collective insanity that led to the witch-hunts of the McCarthy era".
Whatever about the arguments that are taking place at Westminster, the suggestion that this legislation should be extended to Northern Ireland is both dangerous and depressing. It may be that there are cells of the al-Qaeda network in Belfast and Derry, although it seems rather unlikely.
But David Trimble seems to believe that the new laws, including the provisions for detention without trial, should be used against republican and loyalist suspects, including those who may be involved in criminal activities such as drug dealing and smuggling.
Nobody denies there is still a serious threat of violence by paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland. The seizure of a massive car bomb on the outskirts of Armagh just a few days ago has been linked to republican dissidents. On the other side, building workers in Derry have been warned by police of the possibility of a major attack by loyalists. We also know, from bitter experience, that the erosion of civil liberties has been wholly counter-productive in combating terrorism in Northern Ireland. In the 1970s internment was a crucial factor in building support for the Provisional IRA.
In the present situation, when dissidents on both sides are determined to destroy the whole peace process, there will be more calls for tough action against terrorism. It will be said that these people do not represent the will of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland and cannot be allowed to derail progress.
But any moves of the kind envisaged in David Blunkett's proposals would only serve to create new martyrs and increase support for the paramilitaries in their own communities. They would also greatly damage the credibility of the new Northern Ireland
mholland@irish-times.ie