process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be made by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove In a similar vein, Lord Steyn said that the dynamics of the role of the Secretary of State, charged with the power and duty to consider deportation on grounds of national security irresistibly supports this analysis. While I came to this conclusion by the end of the hearing of the appeal, the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in New York reinforce compellingly that no other approach is possible.' However, there is another approach possible and the question is why the House of lords and the Court of Appeal did not adopt it. This other approach would take seriously the faci that Parliament has set up a Commission, with review authority over both facts and law, staffed by a panel with expertise in law, immigration and national security and that the egislation responded to the fact that the prior statutory regime violated the human rights of individuals subject to decisions under its authority, in particular because the statute deprived individuals of an 'effective remedy' Rather than take seriously the legislative message in its context, the Courts chose to treat the new regime as a window dressing. Indeed, Lord Hoffman used the fact of legislative response to the decision in Chabal to undermine the message, by relying on a syllogism whose major and minor premises are strikingly flawed. He reasoned, first, that courts generally had no business reviewing national security decisions, and second, that the10 process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be made by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove.10 In a similar vein, Lord Steyn said that the ‘dynamics of the role of the Secretary of State, charged with the power and duty to consider deportation on grounds of national security, irresistibly supports this analysis. While I came to this conclusion by the end of the hearing of the appeal, the tragic events of 11 September 2001 in New York reinforce compellingly that no other approach is possible.’11 However, there is another approach possible and the question is why the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal did not adopt it. This other approach would take seriously the fact that Parliament has set up a Commission, with review authority over both facts and law, staffed by a panel with expertise in law, immigration and national security and that the legislation responded to the fact that the prior statutory regime violated the human rights of individuals subject to decisions under its authority, in particular because the statute deprived individuals of an ‘effective remedy’. Rather than take seriously the legislative message in its context, the Courts chose to treat the new regime as a window dressing. Indeed, Lord Hoffman used the fact of legislative response to the decision in Chahal to undermine the message, by relying on a syllogism whose major and minor premises are strikingly flawed. He reasoned, first, that courts generally had no business reviewing national security decisions, and second, that the Commission was such a court because it had been created in response to the criticism in 10 Ibid 142, ¶ 62