GOOD WORD, treason. First appears around 1225 in its Anglo-French form as treson, from the old French trahison, meaning to hand over, deliver or surrender and the verb trair, meaning to betray. Of course, in its modern government context, treason means nothing. A headline, maybe, or a bit of breathing space.

“What did you do in the War on Terror, Daddy?”

“I was in the front line, son. I was where the action was.”

“The Marines?”

“Marketing.”

The promotions department has gone to war and, to judge by the coverage, it appears to be winning. An advance party has established a forward position on the front pages of national newspapers and reinforcements are expected. Racial profiling, treason, secret courts, genius policemen, bombers on benefits: another day, another slogan. The rules of the game have indeed changed, although not in the way Tony Blair would have us believe. If this Government thought it c ould keep the public on-message for another 24 hours, the Deputy Prime Minister would announce the return of ducking stools and stocks on the breakfast news. “Pitch a rotten tomato at the radical imam, guv’nor. Go on — you know you want to. It’s the War on Terror. And look at ’im over there — if he floats, he’s a suicide bomber, if he drowns, he’s a Brazilian electrician.”

Treason has been the highlight of this preposterous stable door production. A stunt so spectacularly obvious should have come with a poster campaign. Picture of Captain Hook, late of the Finsbury Park Mosque, bold primary-colour background and the slogan beneath: “Treason: it’s what your right arm’s for.” Still, treason served its purpose — to give the impression that a government that is actually on holiday is in control and working round the clock to bring its policy in line with what every cab driver has been saying for years.

Of course, government sources and men in wigs were soon backtracking and by yesterday the entire process was in disarray, but they knew that would happen anyway. Twenty minutes on the web and it was perfectly clear there was more chance of Omar Bakri Mohammed pitching up at Butlins in Minehead than at the Old Bailey charged with treason.

For an accusation of treason to stick there must first be evidence of a genuine Guy Fawkes-style plot — the phrase about imagining the death of our leader the king is not as legally vague as it appears. The alternative treasonable offences require something truly out of left field to have occurred. Intercourse with the king’s companion, the king’s eldest unmarried daughter or the wife of the king’s son and heir would still do it, although while nobody can accuse the Windsors of being picky, even by their standards the image of the sheikh emerging from the Palace looking sheepish and straightening his robes would seem a little far-fetched. They didn’t seem to take too kindly to Dodi and he wasn’t even militant.

William Joyce, Lord Haw-haw, was arrested and successfully tried for treason at the end of the Second World War, but only after a struggle. Before the hearing it emerged that he was in fact an American, who had lied about his nationality to obtain a British passport. The treason charge was on the brink of collapse, as he plainly could not be guilty of plotting the downfall of king and country if his true allegiance laid elsewhere. The case hinged on whether it could be proved that, as a British passport holder, he was under British diplomatic protection while in Germany, and therefore owed allegiance to the king. Found guilty on a technicality, he was executed.

So if a man who was openly putting out Nazi propaganda during a world war was only nailed with legalese, why should we believe these same laws could be used to convict a Syrian national and Lebanese passport holder from a collection of soundbites on Newsnight? The marketing department has got it sussed. Give the public what it wants to hear, often knowing it cannot be done and, two days later, quietly place the initiative on the shelf. Many people in this country believe the security forces to be using the popular tactic of racial profiling to combat terrorism, because Ian Johnson, Chief Constable of the British Transport police, suggested as much. “We should not waste time searching old white ladies,” Johnson said, and his words went unchecked because the Government knew he reflected majority opinion. Yet this is what the most recent directive to Metropolitan Police officers actually states: “Avoid racial profiling . . . do not focus on specific groups . . . be aware there is no specific racial, ethnic, sexual or religious profile for terrorists.”

In other words, common sense went the same way as treason, Asian-British and every other catchphrase the PR corps of the War on Terror has concocted since carnage came to town. It was a stunt, a scam, a skit, a diversion. It served its rabble-dousing purpose and was quietly consigned to the bin.

The difference is that the treason proposal was unworkable populist nonsense, while racial profiling is a tough call with obvious benefits, provided it is not taken to extremes. New York, London and Madrid have been attacked by 35 known, or alleged, bombers since September 11, 2001, and not one looks like Dame Thora Hird. Yet the instant dismissal of racial profiling to placate liberal and ethnic sensibilities is typical of official reaction. They posture for the public on the subject of treason, talking tough, while genuine actions remain lame and ineffective. “Enjoy your holiday, make it a long one,” sneered John Prescott to the space left by the departed Bakri Mohammed, while later admitting that if the preacher wanted to return there is nothing the Government could do. The War on Terror is already reduced to marketing speak and childish name-calling.

He might as well have shouted: “Bye, bye, beardy.” Treason? We’ll probably turn out to have paid his airfare.

JOIN THE DEBATE
Send your e-mails via www.timesonline.co.uk