electricinca.com

The Guardian reports that the UK is backing a plan to split Taliban from within.

The British government has thrown its backing behind an ambitious Afghan strategy to split the Taliban by securing the defection of senior members of the militant group and large numbers of their followers.

The strategy, spearheaded by the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, reflects a significant shift in British policy, and is showing initial signs of success.

This would seem to me to be a classic case of divide and conquer, a sensible course of action I think as the ultimate goal is to bring peace to Afghanistan not to capture or kill every single member of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the country. It can only be a good thing if more moderate members of the Taliban who are not really adherants to the ideology but are members out of tribal loyalty can be persuaded to lay down arms. politics, terrorism

Labels: politics, Terrorism

Admiral Sir Alan West has been appointed to the newly created Home Office post of Under-Secretary for Security, Counter-terrorism and Police of the United Kingdom.

The former First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff will need to be made a Life Peer in order for him to serve as a Minister in Gordon Brown's government.

I'm bothered that we now have a former senior military officer in a post as a Government Minister without him ever having to be elected by the voters. He will however have a great deal more experience in matters of security to call on than his colleagues at the Home Office.

Labels: politics, Security, Terrorism

BBC News: Al-Qaeda cell members imprisoned

Seven men have been jailed for up to 26 years over an al-Qaeda-linked plot to kill thousands in the UK and US.

Woolwich Crown Court heard they were in a "sleeper cell" led by Dhiren Barot, who is already serving a life sentence.

Barot planned attacks including an explosives-packed limousine, a dirty radiation bomb and blowing apart a London Underground tunnel.

Six admitted conspiracy to cause explosions and a seventh was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.

A rare piece of good news in the so called War on Terror with the police and presumably the Security Service, although they are not mentioned in the BBC article, preventing a cell of terrorists from carrying out an attack.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, head of the Metropolitan Police's Counter Terrorism Command, said

"The plans for a series of co-ordinated attacks in the United Kingdom included packing three limousines with gas cylinders and explosives before setting them off in underground car parks. This could have caused huge loss of life.

"The plans to set off a dirty bomb in this country would have caused fear, panic and widespread disruption."

I'm always wary when I hear that plots involving dirty radiation bombs have been foiled because the use of the term "dirty bomb" seems to be a preferred method of the government's for terrifying the British public when in fact the reality of the danger of such devices is far outweighed by the perceived danger.

This goes back to what I was saying yesterday about Walter Mitty like terrorist wannabes with outlandish unfeasible plots. Whilst in theory a "dirty bomb" is relatively simple to construct the construction and deployment of such a device in a manner that could kill a great number of people is a whole different ball game.

However in this case if the BBC article is accurate then the terrorist cell contained a wide range of skills and apparently enough expertise to carry out a devastating attack using conventional methods without the need for the movie plot device of a "dirty bomb".

In the trial of Dhiren Barot, the ringleader of this cell, an expert testified that if the radiation (dirty bomb) project had been carried out, it would have been unlikely to cause deaths, but was designed to affect about 500 people.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

Bruce Schneier has written an excellent piece on how the actual dangers posed by terrorist plots often differs widely from the dangers portrayed by the media and governments, it is titled Portrait of the Modern Terrorist as an Idiot.

The recently publicized terrorist plot to blow up John F. Kennedy International Airport, like so many of the terrorist plots over the past few years, is a study in alarmism and incompetence: on the part of the terrorists, our government and the press.

Terrorism is a real threat, and one that needs to be addressed by appropriate means. But allowing ourselves to be terrorized by wannabe terrorists and unrealistic plots -- and worse, allowing our essential freedoms to be lost by using them as an excuse -- is wrong.

These wannabe terrorists are often pathetic Walter Mitty type characters whose fantasies of martyrdom are undermined by their utter of competence and ability to carry out their ridiculous plots. The case of Russell Defreitas and his plot to blow up JFK airport is a good example.

It'S a plot straight from the disaster movie genre. Destroy New York's major airport, its terminals, and even parts of the borough of Brooklyn in one dastardly explosion.

Unfortunately for the alleged plotters, the real life Jack Bauers (of 24 fame) were ahead of the ticking bomb. Not only was the idea outlandish and highly unlikely to succeed, but authorities have been recording the conversations of the plotters for the past 18 months.

- Did these men pose a threat? Undoubtedly.
- Could they have blown up JFK airport? It's doubtful and in any case they were barely into the planning stage of the attack and had been under surveillance for a long time so whatever threat they posed could never be realised.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

Labels: politics, Terrorism, torture

Apparently after the walkouts of a number of "celebrities" from the Big Brother house the producers are thinking of putting 'the only transexual in the village' Lauren Harries in followed by her mother. I'm not sure who I feel sorrier for, Lauren who will be entering that most tolerant of environments, the other housemates as Lauren describes her method of dealing with people she dislikes

I can go into their brains and turn all the taps on so the water floods out of their ears and their nose and mouth. In the end they go insane.

Or the viewing public, well actually I think the viewers deserve to suffer whatever happens.

The same can said of viewers of Day 6 of 24. They've really upped the improbability and insanity this time around and Jack is even more the unstoppable killing machine.

Having endured close to two years of torture at the hands of the Chinese (have they learnt nothing? Torture is wrong and ineffective unless it's being carried out by Bauer himself) he is almost immediately handed over to Islamic terrorists for yet more torture.

Having suffered a grevious stab wound to a nerve cluster in his shoulder Jack then rips out an unsuspecting terorists jugular with his teeth and escapes. He then proceeds to save the life of the leader of a different terorrist cell (who Jack has learnt has given up the terror game and wishes to enter the peaceful political process) from an airstrike carried out by the US military, kicksplodes a subway suicide bomber, shoots fellow CTU agent Curtis and then witnesses a nuke going off in LA.

All this and it's only been a mere four hours.

Labels: Terrorism, TV

Prime minister Tony Blair in his valedictory speech to the Labour party conference declared

I don't want to live in a police state, or a Big Brother society or put any of our essential freedoms in jeopardy. But because our idea of liberty is not keeping pace with change in reality, those freedoms are in jeopardy.

Those freedoms are in jeopardy from him and his government that are pushing through legislation that will create a Big Brother society. He went on to say

We can only protect liberty by making it relevant to the modern world.


That is why Identity Cards using biometric technology are not a breach of our basic rights, they are an essential part of responding to the reality of modern migration and protecting us against identity fraud.

I remember when I introduced the DNA database. On it go all those who are arrested. We were told it was a monstrous breach of liberty.

But it is now matching 3,000 offences a month including last year several hundred murders, and thousands of rapes and other violent offences.

The Identity Card system that the government wants to introduce really is the foundation of the Big Brother state that Blair says he doesn't want to live in. I can only surmise that he intends to leave the UK once it has been implemented.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

The BBC reports that the Home Secretary John Reid was heckled by a couple of protestors during a speech he was giving to Muslims about combating extremists in their communities.

He was interrupted by Abu Izzadeen, an individual who it is believed is the leader of the banned group al-Ghurabaa, calling Reid an enemy of Islam.

The home secretary said "our fight is not with Muslims generally".

Instead, he said, there was a "struggle against extremism".

And, warning that terrorist fanatics sought to influence youngsters, he said: "There is no nice way of saying this.

"These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombings, grooming them to kill themselves in order to murder others."

Does anyone still believe this to be true that there are fanatics grooming young people to become suicide bombers?

What we know of the perpertrators of two of the most significant recent terrorist plots, the 7/7 bombers and the plotters of the failed plot of 21st July 2005, would refute that theory.

These men had become radicalized but there was no indication that they had fallen under the sway of a fanatic who had been a radicalizing force. Meetings with members of al Qaeda occured after they had already decided to carry out attacks as a response to what they saw as the murdering of their Muslim brothers in the war in Iraq.

Far from these extremist boogeymen that John Reid would have us believe in the thing that is most radicalizing young Muslim men is the actions of the British and American goverments overseas and at home. That's not to say that the ultimate ends of the government's policies are without worth but the means to those ends were clearly going to have negative consequences.

A free and democratic Iraq is a laudable goal but it is one that was never going to be simple to attain and the incredibly stupid idea of linking it in to the War on Terror gave the Islamic extremists the jihad they were looking for. Furthermore the incompetant manner in which the post-war operations have been carried out have resulted in thousands of innocent Iraqi lives being lost which furthers the extremists propoganda that the West has declared war on Islam.

Regardless of whether you believe that the War in Iraq was right or wrong only a blind fool could truly believe that it hasn't resulted in an increase in acts of terrorism. How much longer can British ministers continue to perpetuate myths and avoid the stark truth that is obvious to the rest of us?

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826) wrote that The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Recent history may yet prove him right as it is the blood of innocents that is being spilled at the moment and the tree of liberty is far from refreshed.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

Newt Gingrich argues in today's Guardian that attacking Iran is not a long-term solution. He does however belive that a regime change in Iran is needed in order to stabilise the Middle East and maintain the security of the US and the rest of the world.

Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program in defiance of the United Nations has led some to call for military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities to prevent the terror-sponsoring regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon. While I agree that a military option to replace the regime must be left on the table, I worry that some believe a military strike on Iran's nuclear installations is a viable long-term solution to stopping the Iranian regime's pursuit of greater power in the region.

In truth, until the Iranian regime itself is replaced with one that does not sponsor terrorism and does not seek a nuclear program, then the threat will remain and grow.

I agree with his assessment that military strikes are not the most sensible option. Such strikes would undoubtedly have to come from the US and its allies all of whom are currently overstretched as it is and even at full capacity those military forces would face a massive challenge to neutralise Iran.

But I disagree on his other points. Gingrich states that Iran must be stopped not because of its weapons and its pursuit of nuclear weapons but because of its evil intent. I believe it is the characterisation of Iran as evil by the US that is to some extent to blame for this situation.

It is because of the disengagement from Iran by the US that it suffers from significant gaps' in intelligence, which would undermine any attempts to force Iran to comply with UN directives. I don't believe that I'm an expert on Iran but even I can see that President Ahmadinejad's commitment to seeing Israel "wiped off the map" is empty rhetoric to gain public support in a country where such statements can be heard everyday on the streets of Tehran.

I too believe regime change must occur in Iran but I believe it will come from within in fact I believe that it must come from within for it to hold fast. The population of Iran is a young one and the old guard will fall under the liberalising westernised attitudes of that youth. But as Iran is a country with a long history of being manipulated and oppressed by western powers the regime change must be initiated from within or else it will be rejected as yet another intervention from outside powers for the pursuit of their own ends.

It can be seen from the examples of Iraq and the current crisis within the Labour party that forcing regime change ends badly with unforseen long term repurcussions and no one comes out of it smelling of roses.

Labels: politics, Security, Terrorism

Ze Frank recalls what he was doing five years ago on September 11th. Sombre yet still with that Ze Frank tinge of wry humour.

Meanwhile the ABC production The Path to 9/11 which stars Harvey Keitel will screen this Sunday and Monday on BBC Two. Rumour has it that the blame for the attacks that day are laid at the feet of the administration of President Clinton who apparently were so caught up in the Lewinsky affair that dropped the ball and failed to stop Bin Laden when they had the chance.

Wow, have I woken up in some bizarre parallel universe where things are very similar to my own but oh so slightly different. Was it not Bush who was the POTUS at that point and had been for several months and whose administration being informed of the threat that Al Qaeda posed instead chose to focus their attention on giving tax cuts, establishing a New American Century and planning regime change in Iraq.

In any case I expect that it and the many other documentaries and news reports over the next few days will do Bin Laden's job for him by plunging the populations of the US and UK into a state of terror yet again. Who needs to blow up planes and buildings when the public can be forced into a state of terror by a box of flashing lights in the corner of their living rooms?

Labels: Terrorism

BBC News reports that the police investigating an alleged bomb plot targeting UK to US flights have been given extra time to question 23 of the suspects.

The time police can hold 23 of the 24 suspects expired on Wednesday and a district judge had to decide whether to grant detectives an extension.

Warrants given to the Metropolitan Police Anti-Terrorist Branch allow them to question 21 people until 23 August.

Another two of those held can be detained until 21 August.

The maximum period that someone suspected of terrorist activity can be held without charge is now 28 days following the extension in the 2006 Terrorism Act.

This is the extension that the Home Office said was vital to the security of the country and it's ability to counter the threat posed by international terrorism. The extension that was actually a compromise between the former period of 14 days and the 90 day period that the Home Office and police wanted.

Curiously the 28 days detention without charge part of the 2006 Terrorism Act was not commenced when the rest of the act was in April but was actually only commenced as of July 25th 2006.

Odd that the extension to the detention without charge period that was so vital to our security that the powers weren't gievn to the police until just a few weeks ago.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

In an addendum to my previous post about the UK Threat Level it's good to see Home Secretary John Reid keep his tendancy for hyperbole under check. Quoting from this BBC News report.

Home Secretary John Reid said the government was "confident" the ring leaders were in custody but it was not complacent.

He said had the plot been successful, it would have meant "loss of life on an unprecedented scale".

I think the precedents of massive loss of life in our history are pretty fucking massive even if we only take a single incident rather than the wars or genocides of the last century the precedent of the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima killing instantly about 80 000 people easily outweighs any possible loss of life if this latest terrorist plot had been succesful.

Labels: politics, Security, Terrorism

At some point today unbeknownst to me the UK entered into the highest level of threat that of critical.

Oh my! How in the world could I have missed such an important event as the changing of our current threat level to its highest possible state? Whatever shall I do now?

That's the pertinent question what shall we as the public do now? No one knows because there is nothing for the public to do other than get scared.

The Threat Level System has according to the Home Office website been created to keep the public informed about the level of threat to the UK from terrorism. But it's of no practical use it's like shouting DANGER in a crowded city centre street, it can do nothing but cause confusion and fear as there is no specific advice associated with each different level of threat.

So what event has caused the threat level to be raised?

It was the arrest of 24 people by police who were suspected of a plot against UK flights to the US. The police believe they have disrupted this plot to blow up these transatlantic flights and are convinced they have detained the key players, but believe the network involved is large and global.

The plot apparently was to smuggle liquid explosives onto around ten transatlantic flights in water bottles or similarly innocuous containers. Airlines have now taken the precaution of preventing people taking anything other than the most essential pieces of hand luggage onto flights leaving the UK. The police have said that the plotters could have caused "mass murder on an unimaginable scale".

Yes they could have blown up many airliners and killed hundreds of people but for the fact that the people involved had been under surveillance for some time. We shall have to wait and see when more information is released about how far along there really were with their plot whether they were a credible threat to our security. I do not want to get caught up in the politician's gambit of who can imagine the worst scenario possible.

Security chiefs said the group believed to be planning the attack had been under surveillance for some time.

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the plot was "in some respects suggestive of al-Qaeda".

"They had accumulated and assembled the capabilities that they needed and they were in the final stages of planning for execution," he said.

It had only become apparent in the "last two weeks" that the target of the flights was the US, said Mr Chertoff.

Another problem I see with having a public Threat Level System is that surely it tips the terrorists off to the fact that they might be under surveillance. If the level increases correspondingly as the terrorist group gets closer to the commission of their act of terrorism is that not an indication that the UK Security Services are onto them.

Labels: politics, Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

According to BBC News the Home Secretary John Reid has announced that Britain is to get a Terror Threat Level system similar to that used in the US published by the Department of Homeland Security.

A new warning system is to alert the public to the threat of attacks by al-Qaeda and other terror groups.

From 1 August, details of current threat levels will be published on the websites of the Home Office and MI5, Home Secretary John Reid announced.

Great! Just what we really need, yet another channel for the government to terrify the public with.

Any alert system is useless unless those people that are being alerted have corresponding duties or actions to perform upon receiving such an alert for example on a warship. A threat level indicator for the general public can therefore have no value as there is no corresponding action that the public can perform.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

Andy McNab was on This Week tonight giving his take on the week. A week in which the headlines have featured every day the British military in some way from the 90th anniversary of the Somme to the deaths of two special forces soldiers in Afghanistan.

The programme turned to Andy McNab, best-selling author and former SAS Patrol Commander, to answer the following questions.

So what is the role of our armed forces in the modern world of warfare? And do we sufficiently care?

A number of interesting points arose.

Politicians that have never fought in a war have insufficient understanding of the difficulties of waging war and McNab sees this worsening as the next generation of people that have grown up on videogames and the embedded reporting of war from the frontlines grow up and take power in Westminster. He fears that they will believe that war is a relatively easy thing to carry out.

A related point is the lack of clarity of mission and clearly defined rules of engagement. This is especially true for those on the ground in Iraq where they are required to act in a way that they have not been trained to do. With only the vague rhetoric of politicians to guide them coupled with the fear that any action they take may be seen as a war crime the soldiers on the ground have lost morale.

Finally is the fact that the British military is underfunded for it's purpose. Now I see this more of a problem of funds being spread too thinly as the British military tries to be all things to all people in effect a mini-US rather than insufficient funds being made available.

We have a perfect opportunity to reassess the British military soon as the question of the replacement of Trident is to be discussed (although both Blair and Brown seem to have already made their minds up). At the projected cost of £25 Billion does Britain still need an independent nuclear deterrent?

The Warsaw Pact plan Seven Days to the River Rhine which was recently released by the Polish government indicates that during the Cold War that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent really was a deterrent. But as the Prime Minister is so fond of saying the rules have changed and we face a new enemy.

We no longer face the enemy that we faced during the Cold War and I believe that Britain no longer needs an independent nuclear deterrent particularly when the replacement of Trident surely would constitute a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty which this country signed in July 1968 and which commits us to long-term disarmament of our nuclear weaponry.

It is inexplicable particularly in the light of the British government's view on that other signatory of the treaty Iran and their burgeoning nuclear program.

How can me maintain our international standing when we don't respect the disarmament provisions of the treaty whilst insisting other countries abide by the non-proliferation provisions of that same treaty?

So I believe that
1. Britain does we not need a replacement for Trident given the changing geo-political situation and the nature of the new threat we as a country now face.
2. In the light that we do face a new threat in the form of terrorism which cannot be deterred by nuclear weapons surely the money could be better spent tackling a threat we do face rather than one we no longer do.
3. Our international standing is reliant on our honouring our commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the replacement of Trident would conctitute a breach. We could of course withdraw from the treaty but I believe that would be equally as damging to our international standing.

Labels: politics, Terrorism, TV

BBC News: US Guantanamo tribunals 'illegal'

The US Supreme Court has ruled that the Bush administration does not have the authority to try terrorism suspects by military tribunal.

Justices upheld the challenge by Osama Bin Laden's ex-driver to his trial at Guantanamo, saying the proceedings violated Geneva Conventions.

The ruling is seen as a major blow to President George W Bush - but it does not order the closure of Guantanamo.

So the tribunals are ruled as illegal, doesn't surprise me as they seem as fair as the trial of General Tomoyuki Yamashita. But having fair and open trials was never the reason for the prison at Guantanamo the prisoners were not there to be tried and punished for their crimes they are there solely for the extraction of intelligence in order for the US to carry out their War on Terror. Any open and fair trials would jeopardisde this and would reveal the true nature of the detainees there including that many of them are probably innocents that were sold to the US by corrupt members of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The fact that children were picked up and held before being released is surely an indication that people were detained without first establishing who they were and what threat they constituted.

I think that the pressure has built to such an extent that the prison will soon close particularly as the Bush administration seem to have finally woken up to the fact that it is a PR disaster. But any such closure will simply be the next step in a PR campaign as it will not mean the closure of those less well-known prisons around the world and the unknowable numbers of secret and hidden US military prisons.

I would be very surprised if we ever see more than a few token open and fair trials conducted under US law occur.

Labels: politics, Terrorism, totalitarian

The leader of the Conservative Party has said in an interview on the BBC that they are considering replacing the Human rights Act with a British bill of Rights.

A US-style bill of rights would outline the rights of citizens, while the Human Rights Act incorporates European rules into British law.

Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Mr Cameron's plans were "unworkable".

The Conservatives have long-pledged to look at the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

During the 2005 general election campaign, former leader Michael Howard pledged he would revise or scrap the act if elected, claiming prisoners' rights were being put before those of victims.

A British Bill of Rights sounds like a great idea but it should have been done decades if not centuries ago and is now irrelevant and unworkable now that Britain is signed up to European rights legislation.

Mr Cameron explains that he is not proposing a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights but instead wishes to set up a panel "to examine the issue to ascertain whether a bill of rights could be given legal status instead."

Well I would think that such a panel will find that a separate British Bill of Rights will be contradictory with the European Convention on Human Rights and will therefore not be possible for them to exist in parallel.

Both the Government and the Conservative party have been attacking the human rights laws we have claiming they are hindering the fight against crime and terror.

The problem as I see it isn't the legislation but perhaps it's application in the courts.

This seems to be all politcal rhetoric with no real meat to it. Be seen to attack what the tabloid media have portrayed as ridiculous examples of the use of Human Rights Act whilst still being in favour of human rights as a concept.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

The Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Colleen Graffy has described the suicides of three detainees at the US base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as a "good PR move to draw attention".

Colleen Graffy told the BBC the deaths were part of a strategy and "a tactic to further the jihadi cause", but taking their own lives was unnecessary.

But lawyers say the men who hanged themselves had been driven by despair.

A military investigation into the deaths is under way, amid growing calls for the centre to be moved or closed.

The suicides may have brought the Guatnanamo Bay detention camp back into the news but I don't think that any rational person could believe that the suicides were designed to draw attention. It's not like the camp is not an albatross around the neck of the US government in any case.

It has probably been the greatest tool for recruitment to the ranks of Al-Qaeda ever. It undermines the reputation of the US around the world amongst nations friendly to it and feeds it's enemies by giving them a talisman of propoganda about how the US hates Muslims and mistreats and tortures them.

What makes the notion that the suicides were just "a tactic to further the jihadi cause" even more sickening is the news that one of the three detainess was due to be released but hadn't been informed yet by the American officals.

Seriously if he was considered to be of such a low level of threat that he would be released is he really likely to commit suicide as an "act of asymmetric warfare".

Labels: politics, Terrorism, torture, totalitarian

Labels: Terrorism, YouTube

The Guardian reports that a cross-party select committee is to recommend that the UK should adopt a US-style terror alert system.

A cross-party committee investigating the background to the July 7 bombings is expected to recommend a transparent official public warning system for the threat posed by terrorist attacks. It would be similar to the kind that has proved controversial in America.

The idea, which is likely to be one of the conclusions in the intelligence and security committee's annual report next month, has caused consternation among the security services. The issue is at the heart of an intense debate involving MI5, the Home Office, and the committee, in the wake of the attacks on London.

Of course such a system has worked so very well in the US to date and US citizens know exactly what each level of alert actually means and how their behaviour should change accordingly. Well actually no that isn't true at all and so obviously we should adopt such a clearly useless system here also.

The very well respected security consultant Bruce Schneier wrote an excellent analysis of the US alert system in October of 2004. The most telling passage of his analysis is below.

In theory, the warnings are supposed to cultivate an atmosphere of preparedness. If Americans are vigilant against the terrorist threat, then maybe the terrorists will be caught and their plots foiled. And repeated warnings brace Americans for the aftermath of another attack.

The problem is that the warnings don't do any of this. Because they are so vague and so frequent, and because they don't recommend any useful actions that people can take, terror threat warnings don't prevent terrorist attacks. They might force a terrorist to delay his plan temporarily, or change his target. But in general, professional security experts like me are not particularly impressed by systems that merely force the bad guys to make minor modifications in their tactics.

I really don't think that the public really need to be informed of every alert as without any guidance as to how they should respond once they have been alerted it just causes a state of anxiety.

It makes sense to inform people to evacuate a building when there has been a specific threat against that building. But to issue an alert when intelligence has revealed a few scant details about a vague threat to a building in the London area clearly helps no one especially if the advice is to continue about your daily business as usual.

If the government is causing terror to it's citizens then they are doing the job of the terrorist for them. The terrorist would never need to ever follow through with any of their threats to achieve the same effect in this scenario.

Labels: politics, Security, Terrorism

In a follow up to yesterday's piece about John Reid's comments concerning whether the Geneva conventions are still adequate to cover all eventualities in today's world he offers this rebuttal.

I am relieved by this clarification of his motivation. Or at least I would be more relieved if his words in today's rebuttal more fully covered what he actually said in his speech and if I believed that the threats posed by terrorism or rogue states as outlined in his speech were as significant as he would have us believe.

He expresses the need for intervention to prevent mass killings or genocide - illustrated by Rwanda and Sudan among others. But then appears to go to say that such things are already covered under the conventions. The only problem then surely is the political will then to actually intervene in such situations.

John Reid's original speech, which was given to the Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies is available here at the MOD's website.

I am still concerned by the issue of 'imminence' and under what conditions does he believe the British military should be allowed to pre-emptively strike against another nation.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

Richard Norton-Taylor and Clare Dyer report for The Guardian on Defence Secretary John Reid's comments about how The Geneva Conventions are hindering the ability of British troops in the War on Terror.

John Reid demanded sweeping changes to international law yesterday to free British soldiers from the restraints of the Geneva conventions and make it easier for the west to mount military actions against other states.

In his speech, the defence secretary addressed three key issues: the treatment of prisoners, when to mount a pre-emptive strikes, and when to intervene to stop a humanitarian crisis. In all these areas, he indicated that the UK and west was being hamstrung by existing inadequate law.

I have to say that I'm very troubled by this, true laws need to change with the times if they are now out of step with the needs of society. But I really cannot see the case for any changes needing to be made to the Geneva Conventions. In fact John Reid has made no case at all and has not outlined in any way what changes he envisions are necessary.

What John Reid has done is to yet again raise the boogeyman of the 21st century that of 'barbaric terrorism' as he phrased it. Plus also straying into the game of I can imagine a worse imaginary threat than you.

"But what if another threat develops?", Mr Reid asked. "Not al-Qaida. Not Muslim extremism. Something none of us are thinking about at the moment." Terrorist groups were trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, he said.

We can all play the 'what if' game but surely it is only realistic to legislate for known threats or else there's no end to it. Should we legislate for any movie threat that the defence secretary has seen such as zombificating viral infections, invasion by hostile extra-terrestrial beings or marauding gigantic creatures. Of course terrorist organisations are seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but how realistic is it that they could actually acquire them. We live in a world where even nation states with all their resources are facing huge technical hurdles let alone political ones in their struggle to acquire them.

I have a struggle to understand what John Reid is actually advocating here in terms of changes to the Geneva conventions. Is he advocating the torture and mistreatment of prisoners? Does he seek the right for the UK to launch pre-emptive attacks on sovereign nations based on the mere belief that they pose a threat to Britain?

Labels: Terrorism

The Guardian: Surveillance on drivers may be increased

The case for cameras to be focused on people using mobiles as they drive is made by the independent adviser to the transport select committee, Robert Gifford, of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (Pacts).

He argues that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology should be applied in new ways to help defray costs of cameras and to catch offenders. "One of the good things about ANPR is that people are often multiple offenders so it would provide useful intelligence," he said. "Those responsible for 7/7 got to Luton station by car."

My god why is it necessary to mention terrorists or terrorism every time there is mention of new applications of surveillance technologies. Mr Gifford seems to mention it as an aside but the implication is that perhaps 7/7 could have been prevented if the system was in operation at the time. It's like he feels the need to justify the use of surveillance by using our greatest fears. But why should that surprise me it is what has become almost a standard line by government spokesmen so why not independent advisors also.

Mr Gifford said expanding the use of technology for tracking the movements of cars could lead police to people who had committed other offences in the same way that Al Capone was eventually caught through his income tax evasion. He claimed that for greater safety and "the greater good of society", most people would be prepared to accept "a slight reduction of our liberty".

Interesting that the public don't actually get to say whether they wish to give up some liberty in order for the greater good of society.

In any case as Marcel Berlins writes it's not a civil liberties issue.

Currently being floated in parliament is a proposal for more road surveillance cameras, partly to catch out motorists who use mobile phones while driving. I have seen several accidents caused by chatting drivers; someone I knew quite well was killed because she was talking and driving at the same time. I would have expected the proposal, aimed at deterring dangerous conduct and thereby reducing accidents and saving lives, to be greeted with enthusiasm. But no.

The whingers have emerged. It would cost too much; the technology isn't good enough; it won't prevent accidents; it's a cynical scheme to make money by fining the poor put-upon British motorist; Britain has become the most watched country in the world. To the last of those ill-founded objections I say, "So what?" I don't care how many cameras we have on the roads, provided they are used for the public good, which, to my mind, includes catching dangerous drivers and lowering fatalities. This is not a civil liberties issue.

If this technology leads to prosecutions of people like Donna Marie Maddock who was caught on camera driving whilst using both hands to apply makeup then it surely is a good thing.

But I think Mr. Berlins is mistaken in believing that the issue of whether the technology will work is irrelevant.

It's pointless to expand the system to catch people talking on mobile phones or applying makeup if the technology isn't good enough to distinguish between those behaviours and innocent actions such as scratching one's ear or sneezing or something equally innocuous. I don't know what the true case is but you wouldn't use speed cameras if the technology was unable to tell if a car was travelling at a legal speed of 56 MPH and an illegal 72 MPH so it clearly is an issue that needs to be at least considered before implementation.

Also it would seem to me that if every single motor vehicle is scanned by the ANPR then there may be a civil liberties issue here as well depending on what is done with the data. I wrote briefly last year in a much longer post about the use of ANPR in Bath following this article in The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals.

It's fine if my number plate is scanned checked, against the database of offenders and then discarded but if my travel into Bath is logged then eventually the police will have built up a log of my movements into and out of the city along with every other drivers'.

Labels: Surveillance, Terrorism

The BBC news website has a good piece of analysis of the glorificatrion of terror law by Nick Assinder titled The politics of terror laws.

The obvious fact that Blair is playing politics with such an important issue just sickens me. Sickens me more that it has me siding with the Conservative party on the issue.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

BBC News: MPs back ban on glorifying terror

MPs voted 315 to 277 to reinstate the plan for a new law to stop the glorifying of terrorism into the Terror Bill after last month in which the House of Lords voted to remove the measure form the bill.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said

Weakening our law on terrorism at this time from what is proposed will send the wrong signal out to the outside world and will do no service to those people in our police and law enforcement who are anxious to get on with the job of prosecuting people.

Since when has it been the role of government to send signals when creating legislation? Also in what way is not putting the glorifying terrorism measure into a bill weakening our law on terrorism? Maybe I'm just arguing semantics on this point but until the bill is made law the law on terrorism is unaffected by whatever happens to the bill in it's passage through parliament.

Mr Blair earlier said the new law was "vital" to defend the UK against people like jailed cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.

Okay so again Abu Hamza is mentioned by the Prime Minister even though he was convicted under existing laws.

We don't need new laws we need better facility for prosecuting people under the existing laws. Allowing phone tap evidence to be used in court would be an excellent start. Perhaps now Abu Hamza has been imprisoned there will be less fodder for such knee-jerk reactions by the government to tabloid newspaper hysteria.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

Prime minister Tony Blair says it beggars belief that members of his party would be considering to rebel against the government in the parliamentary vote on anti-terror legislation.

The Guardian: Anti-terror rebels 'beggar belief', says Blair

Tony Blair today used the Labour party's conference platform to attack rebel MPs who plan to derail the government's anti-terrorism legislation ahead of a raft of key votes due to take place in parliament next week.

Mr Blair attacked dissenters in the party, saying that it "beggars belief" that "some of our own" would try and remove references to glorification of terrorism in the parliamentary bill now making its way through parliament.

"It simply beggars belief that we send such a signal at such a time," he told delegates. "And I profoundly disagree with the view of those who want to water down the laws against terrorism that these laws infringe our civil liberties. Yes, freedom of speech is an ancient British liberty. But it should be exercised with responsibility because if it isn't, another ancient liberty - the right to life - is put at risk."

I wrote briefly about the issue of the opposition to the anti-terror legislation when writing about the jailing of Abu Hamza. Frankly I think it 'beggars belief' that a Labour government would be pushing to introduce even more draconian laws than we currently have and infringing people's civil liberties all in their 'war on terror'.

This is the role of parliament isn't it to debate proposed legislation and weigh the benefits against the costs. Is new legislation really necessary? Are we at far greater risk than we were during the height of the IRA's campaigns of violence?

Labels: politics, Terrorism

The Islamist cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri has been jailed for seven years after he was found guilty of preaching murder as a religious duty.

But oddly the Government saw this as a vindication of their belief that new laws are needed.

Gordon Brown said the sentence showed there would be no tolerance for "preachers of hate". But he added: "It shows why we need laws against the glorifying of terrorism and why we need to stop extremist Muslim clerics trying to enter the country."

Now I'm not opposed in principle to the introduction of laws against the glorifying of terrorism but to use a case where someone was convicted under existing laws seems like political opportunism.

The terrorism bill failed not just because the opposition were just trying to defeat the government but because the clauses dealing with glorification of terrorism were ambiguous and badly constructed.

Labels: Terrorism

An amalgamation of what would have been a number of seperate posts that I then decided to unite under the banner of the Surveillance Society. Every day there seems to be further incursions into the public's privacy.

Firstly we'll llok at the recent news that media companies wish to use legislation that was proposed to combat terrorism, by allowing the police access to communications data, in order to tackle illegal file-sharing.

Fight for your right to privacy

BBC News: Media companies want to take advantage of laws designed to counter terrorism. Bill Thompson thinks they have to be stopped.

The Guardian: Music industry seeks access to private data to fight piracy

The music and film industries are demanding that the European parliament extends the scope of proposed anti-terror laws to help them prosecute illegal downloaders. In an open letter to MEPs, companies including Sony BMG, Disney and EMI have asked to be given access to communications data - records of phone calls, emails and internet surfing - in order to take legal action against pirates and filesharers. Current proposals restrict use of such information to cases of terrorism and organised crime.

"The scope of the proposal should be extended to all criminal offences," says a letter to European representatives from the Creative and Media Business Alliance, an informal lobby group representing media companies. "The possibility for law enforcement authorities to use data in other cases ... is essential." The attempt to pressure MEPs comes as they prepare to vote on an extension to the period for which data must be held by telephone networks and internet service providers. The plans, championed by the British government, would harmonise and extend the broad range of policies across the continent.

The Home Office says such moves are necessary in order to assist proper investigation of suspected terrorist activity. But if successful, it would mean communications companies would be obliged to keep information on phone calls, emails and internet use for as long as three years.

"It is not for us to get involved in the wider issue of national security," said a spokesman for international music industry association IFPI, parent body of the CBMA.

If the demands were met by European legislators, it would open use of such private information across any number of criminal cases. "Even the Bush administration is not proposing such a ludicrous policy, despite lobbying from Hollywood," said Gus Hosein, a senior fellow at Privacy International.

The music industry has already pursued a large number of cases against illegal downloaders, but the letter claims that wider access to private information would be an "effective instrument in the fight against piracy" and help secure more legal actions. Critics say it is simply a case of litigious industries attempting to gain access to protected data by the back door.

The proposals, to be put to the vote on December 13, have already faced censure. More privacy-conscious nations such as Germany have voiced concerns about long-term data retention, and telecoms companies say they cannot afford to keep more information about their customers.

"The passing of the data retention directive would be a disaster not just for civil liberties and human rights in Europe," said Suw Charman, director of digital rights campaigners, Open Rights Group.

The music industry has been waging war against illegal filesharing for some time, with film companies closely behind. An Australian court this week ordered Kazaa, one of the biggest file-swapping services, to filter out copyrighted music from its systems or face closure. Last week the British Phonographic Industry announced its latest batch of cases against illegal downloaders, taking the total number of UK actions to over 150.

Such prosecutions already rely on voluntary data supplied by internet providers, but the music industry would like it made compulsory. At the same time, the legitimate digital download industry continues to grow at a startling pace.

It seems to be that every time that there is some harmonization of EU intellectual property laws they are brought in line with the most restrictive laws that exist in a EU state. But in this case there is no harmonisation taking place as no state has such legislation currently.

Even the US isn't seeking such powers and they're the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.

I oppose the legislation in any case as I believe this wholesale retention of data is a violation of innocent citizens privacy and is unlikely to be more effective in combatting terrorism than a specific targetted wiretap of a suspect's communications.

But to extend such legislation to cover cases of copyright infringement is ludicrous, government's should wiegh the demands of industry against the rights of the people they represent. The average filesharer is indeed infringing copyright but they do not pose a major threat to the businesses of the music and movie industries. It is the criminals that are making millions by selling pirated copies of CDs and DVDs that are the real threat and it these criminals that the proposal will not catch.

Unfortunately I don't have faith in the British government to weigh the arguments and consider the rights of the people.

There was a debacle several months back concerning the proposed UK National ID card. The main stumbling block for the government is that the majority of the British public is opposed to the ID card on the basis of the high cost.

(I wish the public would be opposing it due to civil liberties infringements and the complete uselessness of the proposal to tackle any of the major issues it is supposed to solve but that's another story)

Anyway there was a leak that the Government was intending to offset the probable cost of the ID card scheme and thus make it more palatable to the British public by the selling of the data in the National Identity Register to private companies. Which caused an uproar and the Government soon announced that in fact they had never considered doing any such thing.

Governments really should not be trusted with our personal data in my opinion. It's very easy for our privacy to be given away but far harder for us to reclaim it. The obvious counter-argument being that they must hold certain data or else how can such things as passports and driving licences be administered. In fact it is possible to create systems based upon crytographic principles that would allow officials to check whether an individual was authorised to drive a car or leave the country without knowing who they are or where they live or any other personal information about that individual.

I wrote earlier that

Even the US isn't seeking such powers and they're the home of the most powerful music industry lobbying for more and more powers to tackle filesharing and to extend the term and scope of copyright.

but that was merely in regard to media companies having access to all communications data.

Of course as you would expect the U.S. government wants to peer into phone service networks

The federal government wants to peer into your computer communications, forcing companies that provide high-speed access or Internet-based telephone service to design -- or redesign -- their networks to accommodate surveillance...

"This is like saying, `Everybody has to keep their doors unlocked because the FBI might need to get in,"' said Mark Rasch, a former attorney who handled computer crime cases for the Justice Department and is now senior vice president and chief security counsel of Solutionary Inc., an Omaha, Neb., computer security consulting company. "The harm of everybody keeping their doors unlocked all the time is much greater than the benefit."

As I argued above as they already have legislation in place to allow targetted wiretaps such a proposal is unnecessary and overreaching.

On a far more local level my car number plate is being read every time I drive into Bath to work and checked against a database to see whether I'm a wanted criminal. The Bath Chronicle: Cameras scan for criminals

Now I don't know if the data is retained or if the number plates are only in the system as long as it takes to make the check against the database. But I am worried that this data is indeed being retained and thus my and every other communter or Bath resident movements are being in effect tracked.

I have therefore pledged to create a standing order of 5 pounds per month to support an organisation that will campaign for digital rights in the UK.

The pledge is currently only a small number away from reaching it's target.

Also I intend to use the Write to Them service to contact my MP and MEP in order to express my opposition to the EU data retention legislation.

Labels: copyright, Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

The first rule of Security Theatre is never to talk about Security Theatre. (ruidh)

Foot-in-mouth Vanstone 'must resign'

ASTOUNDING comments from Amanda Vanstone ridiculing federal airline security measures and questioning increased spending on national security warranted an apology and the Immigration Minister's resignation, Labor frontbenchers said last night.

In a wide-ranging speech to Adelaide Rotarians, Senator Vanstone dismissed many commonwealth security measures as essentially ineffective. "To be tactful about these things, a lot of what we do is to make people feel better as opposed to actually achieve an outcome," Senator Vanstone said.

Like Bruce Schneier I don't know who she is but I also happen to think Amanda Vanstone is right about airline security.

A lot of what is presented as security measures are mere shams to create the illusion of security to make it look to the paying customers that the airlines value their lives and are doing what they can to ensure safe travel.

During her Adelaide speech, Senator Vanstone implied the use of plastic cutlery on planes to thwart terrorism was foolhardy.

Implied? I'll say it outright. It's stupid. For all its faults, I'm always pleased when Northwest Airlines gives me a real metal knife, and I am always annoyed when American Airlines still gives me a plastic one.

As one commenter wrote in Schneier's blogpost the replacement of real cutlery with plastic knives and forks is more likely due to a financial motive than a question of security.

Senator Vanstone has a great grisly turn of phrase also.

I asked him if I was able to get on a plane with an HB pencil, which you are able to, and I further asked him if I went down and came and grabbed him by the front of the head and stabbed the HB pencil into your eyeball and wiggled it around down to your brain area, do you think you'd be focusing? He's thinking, she's gone mad again.

I'm liking her more and more. As you might expect opposition politicians are calling for her resignation because as I wrote at the start: The first rule of Security Theatre is never to talk about Security Theatre.

Labels: Security, Terrorism

Just finished watching Dispatches: America's Secret Shame on Channel 4.

It has left me feeling so angry. It is a documentary about the human cost for Americans of the War in Iraq, particularly in terms of those troops who are injured a number which far surpasses those 2000 US troops that lost their lives in the conflict.

Due to medical advances injuries that would have killed a person in previous conflict can be sustained and survived. But inevitably they suffer loss of limbs or other serious impairment and return home disabled.

But even for the family of the surviving marine, their joy is tempered with concern for his emotional wellbeing – up to 80 per cent of Iraq veterans are suffering from severe post–traumatic stress symptoms and levels of drug and alcohol abuse are soaring.

But despite such pain and suffering endured by military families, Deborah discovers that the Commander–in–Chief, George Bush has not attended a single funeral or memorial for the dead . The government also tried to ban photos of flag–draped coffins being flown back into America from Iraq.

Now none of this is news to me but putting a human face on the statistics with interviews with the returned troops and their families has gotten me really pissed off with this insane conflict that has no resolution in sight.

Many of the people interviewed are calling for all the troops to be pulled out and returned home. This is a pragmatic move for the US that will stop the loss of American lives but Iraq will descend into civil war. There is no easy answer to the situation that has been created. For fuck sake the experts said that this would happen that it was only the Iron Fist of Saddam that was keeping the people oppressed enough to quell the tensions between the various factions that would inevitably lead to civil war.

You can't win the War on Terror by killing people.

Labels: Terrorism

Dame Stella Rimington the former head of MI5 has said that she believes that ID cards won't make us safer

Asked at a further education conference whether she thought ID cards would make the country safer, Dame Stella Rimington replied: "No is the very simple answer, although ID cards have possibly some purpose.

"But I don't think anybody in the intelligence services - not in my former service - will be pressing for ID cards."

Her own opinion was that ID cards would be of use "but only if they can be made unforgeable".

She added: "If we had ID cards at great expense and people can go into back rooms and forge them they will not make us any safer."

Of course the Tories leapt on Rimington's ID card rejection, what has the world come to when I find myself siding with the Conservative party against a Labour government.

The Conservatives said today that criticism of ID cards by former MI5 chief Dame Stella Rimington showed the government's justifications for their introduction were "completely bogus".

Dame Stella told a meeting of college heads yesterday that no one in the intelligence services favoured the government's plans to introduce biometric identity cards.

She warned that they would be "absolutely useless" unless they could be made impossible to forge.

Dame Stella's opinion will no doubt be dismissed as 'out of touch with what the public wants' by the government as they only seem to accept expert opinions of those experts whose opinions agree with their own.

The government has by and large given up on the prevention of terrorism aspect of the ID card proposal, which I find worrying as they now seem to focusing on the arguments about costs. This might indicate they think they have won the battle of ideas that ID cards are necessary and the only real question is whether the public will accept the high monetary costs of the scheme.

Labels: ID Cards, Terrorism

The House of Commons has rejected Tony Blair's call to allow police to detain terror suspects for up to 90 days without charging them.

MPs voted against by 322 votes to 291, with 49 Labour MPs rebelling.

Then followed a vote on a rebel Labour amendment for increasing the detention period from the current period of 14 days to a period of 28 days. That was passed by 323 votes to 290.

The story is covered by the Guardian and the BBC.

I'm pleased that it was defeated, shows that some Labour backbenchers have the balls not to follow the party line and I believe democracy has prevailed. There seemed to be a lot of public support for the proposed extension so it could be argued that the MPs voted against the wishes of their constituents but there has been so little real public debate of the issue that I don't believe that the general public was informed enough to make a judgement on it.

It has really pissed me off that supporters of the 90 day period kept saying "well the experts tell us that this is the length of time needed."

Which fucking experts?

The police you say. What about all the fucking independent experts who are saying that such an amendment will not achieve what it is set out to do and in all likelihood will cause further problems and increased insecurity.

Of course the police want to hold suspect without charge for longer, they'd support any move that gave them increased powers. Yet given recent events can we really trust their judgement on who is or who isn't a terrorist suspect and who should be held without charge.

Of course the government will not fall following this defeat, I wouldn't wish it to, and I very much doubt Tony will go either although his authority has taken a severe bashing.

But it's the stupid cunts own fault. I really don't know what is going on in his fucking head. I'm sure he's imagining there are terrorists around every corner poised to strike at 45 minutes notice.

BBC News: Q&A: Blair's terror bill defeat

What are the implications of this defeat for Tony Blair's government in the commons.

BBC News: Point-by-point: Terror debate

The main points so far from the debate over whether to extend from 14 days to 90 days the length of time police can detain terrorist suspects without charge

Have your say on this issue at the BBC forum

Curious Hamster gives his response to the vote results.

Public opinion is not always the best indicator of what is best for the country. It's a difficult problem to tackle without suggesting some form of intellectual elitist power structure which opens a huge new set of problems. That's part of the reason why democracy can be so fragile and why protecting it properly is so very important.

I'm agreement on the fact that public opinion is not always the best indicator of what is best for the country.

Also disturbingly I'm in the position of having admiration for David Davis the Shadow Home Secretary who made some excellent points in the debate before the vote.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

The House of Commons today will vote upon the government's proposal to extend the detention period without charge by the police of terror suspects allowed from 14 days to 90 days.

The always excellent Curious Hamster presents his analysis and opinion on this issue.

The fact that the police want a 90 days detention period has been repeated ad nauseum by Blair and Blair. As regular readers may know, this doesn't cut much mustard with me. I suspect I've never explicitly stated why that is...

The police are charged with protecting us against terrorists. Their focus is, as it should be, on preventing terrorist acts and capturing terrorists. For understandable reasons they have a very narrow focus on the problem.

I couldn't agree more with this. Government should of course listen to the views of the police and take them into account but the police should not be dictating government policy.

Labels: politics, Terrorism

A British Jihadist

A very long interesting interview in Prospect magazine which reveals how young British men of Pakistani heritage might turn to radical Islam and become suicide bombers.

They are essentially rootless and unsure of their place in the world and thus become easy prey to those who offer 'answers' and a 'role' for them to fill.

One thing that has not been mentioned is that in many ways they very typical of young British working class men irrespective of race. Many young men have no role to play in society at all anymore. With the move towards a Service Economy the typical working class male jobs are disappearing. Young women no longer require men to support them financially and so for many men there is no real role for them as husbands or fathers.

Also I think there is a lot of anger and frustration amongst men of my generation which is resulting in drunken mindless violence. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that there has been a rise in violence in Britain in the last couple of decades.

These feelings which I believe are pretty general across the country for many men are being channeled in the particular case of British Pakistanis by Islamist extremists into acts of terrorism.

Labels: Terrorism

It appears that both the government and the Conservative party have seized upon the case of Kamel Bourgass, Al-Qaeda suspect and killer of DC Stephen Oake, to make political capital in the run up to the election.

Tory leader Michael Howard has said Tony Blair's failure over asylum led to ricin plotter Kamel Bourgass being able to commit his crimes.

Mr Howard said Bourgass should not have been in the UK and said the case showed "the chaos in our asylum system".

Does this extreme case indicate the general failings in the British asylum system or should we take a broader picture and examine many cases before judging if the system is in chaos. Mr. Howard's statement would appear to be little more than an implication that asylum seekers are a danger to our society.

I think that the Conservatives have taken the wrong tack with their efforts to focus their campaign on immigration and may well have been led astray by focus groups. Immigration is an issue that I think most people are actually less concerned about than they say they are. It is an issue that has been fuelled by the tabloids which makes the average bloke in the street feel he should have an opinion on when really he couldn't give a toss.

The Labour government have also seized upon the case for their own ends.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke earlier insisted: "Things like identity cards, stronger borders to deal with migration issues, the kinds of anti-terrorism legislation that we passed in the last Parliament are all necessary."

Perhaps if Bourgass' plot to poison thousands had succeeded and the reason he wasn't stopped was due to the fact that the Police and security services were unable to identify him then there might be a case to argue for ID cards but none of this happened.

He was identified and tracked and was arrested along with many other individuals who had some connection to him so therefore the present system worked perfectly. The only problem was that his arrest was bungled which led to him having an opportunity to try to escape and then kill DC Stephen Oake in the process.

In addition it was played up at the time that it was a terrorist cell plotting a Ricin attack that had been stopped. It is now known that he was a loner and all the other individuals that had been arrested at the same time have been released having had the charges against them dropped or the court cases abandoned. Yet the Home Secretary in giving his opinion on the verdict still used the term terrorist organisations.

The Guardian: Police killer gets 17 years for poison plot. Charles Clarke, the home secretary, expressed his satisfaction with the verdict. "What the case showed was that there are terrorist organisations which seek to challenge us in this country and challenge our basic freedom," he said.

The case clearly did not show that at all, there may well be terrorists seeking to disrupt our society but only the goverment is seeking to curtail our basic freedom. There appears to be very little evidence that Kamel Bourgass was organised in his plot let alone part of a larger organisation.

I wonder what happened to the Blitz mentality of 'business as usual' whilst we were suffering the equivalnet of a 9/11 every week now we seem to be in a period of 'hysteria as usual' precipitated I feel by the government.

It's all scaremongering for the sake of winning an election, coercion through fear for political reasons in effect 'electoral terrorism'.

Labels: ID Cards, Security, Terrorism

So the Prevention of Terrorism Bill was finally passed and Alan Moore's V for Vendetta is looking ever more prescient. The controversy of the Bill is mainly concerned with the Control Orders which would allow suspected terrorists, whether a UK national or a non-UK national to have severe restrictions placed upon under the orders of the Home Secretary without trial.

Thanks to the truly excellent website They Work For You the entire epic commons debate is available in an easily read format with much background information. It is split up into a m umber of segments due to the bill being passed back and forth between the Houses of Commons and Lords as amendments to the Bill were suggested and considered.

9th March debates
Prevention of Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill
Clause 1 — Power to Make Control Orders

10th March debates
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate
Prevention of Terrorism Bill Debate

Finally the Bill was agreed upon and given
Royal Assent.

However both the Government and the Opposition are claiming victory due to the Bill being now greatly diminished from what the government wanted and yet it has now passed into law. Whoever claims rightful victory it would seem to me that it is the British public that have lost.

I have not yet been convinced of the necessity of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill 2005, the government is primarily argued for it's introduction to counter the threat of the 200 or so terrorists that are loose within our borders.

They fail to mention that of those 200 people most are only suspected of loose affiliation with terrorists i.e. funding or providing safe houses. Intelligence officials have estimated that perhaps only 30-40 individuals would be prepared to kill themselves or others.

In addition it must be said that the police and security services are doing their job in containing these 'terrorists'. They are clearly known individuals if we have accurate numbers and they are under surveillance. The fact that they have been in the country for years without having been arrested would be an indication that there is no evidence of wrongdoing. They may well have been trained at camps with Al-Qaeda but if they then do nothing at all with that training then they cannot really be considered as terrorists.

The BBC reports that the remaining foreign detainees at Belmarsh were released and that the Home Secretary was issuing control orders under his new powers for each of the former detainees.

The former detainees face bail conditions which include:

* Electronic tagging
* A night-time curfew from 1900 to 0700
* A ban on using mobile phones and the internet
* Obtaining permission from the Home Office if they wish to meet anyone outside their home
* Living at an address notified to the Home Office and police, who can search the property without warning
* No visitors unless the Home Office has been notified in advance, except for under-16s
* Notifying the Home Office of any intended departure from the UK, and the port of embarkation
* Bank account restrictions and sending monthly statements to the Home Office.

And finally at least we are aware that our civil liberties are being eroded unlike the Russian populace, if the newly retired chess genius Garry Kasparov's assessment is correct.

Labels: Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

Noticed this Daily Express headline at the newsagents this morning.



Having had my scare-mongering detector set off I looked for a more reliable source of information but apparently even the BBC is at it.

BBC News: Election 'could be terror target'

Terrorists might try to target the UK in the run-up to the election, London's most senior police officer has said. Sir Ian Blair said terror groups would remember the effect of the Madrid bomb on Spain's general election last year.

Other potential targets were the royal wedding and the UK's presidency of the European Union and G8, he said. He refused to say if there was specific information about the risk of a pre-poll attack. No 10 was similarly cautious but said the threat was real.

'Difficult issues'

The comments come after Tony Blair defended his controversial anti-terror proposals, warning that it would be wrong to wait for an attack before acting. Sir Ian told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority it would be "unwise" to speculate about whether there was specific information about risks of a pre-election attack.

But he said: "Terrorists have long memories. They understand what happened in Madrid and know what the impact of that was on the Spanish electorate. "This year we are responsible for the EU presidency, presidency of the G8, a royal wedding and a general election.

"There are obvious and enormous targets which we have to deal with." Sir Ian said the debate over anti-terror plans was one for politicians, not the police, who would enforce any new powers.
More...

This ain't news it is just speculation. There is no intelligence of any specific threat of terrorist attack, this is just yet more fear-mongering by the Government and the police.

Yes with such high-profile events happening in the UK this year the security services should be on heightened alert but it does not mean that the public should be fed this wild speculation. Call me cynical but I believe that this announcement is nothing more than another scare story to help justify the Government's proposal to hold terror suspects without trial under house arrest indefinitely.

Labels: politics, Security, Terrorism

Many stories from the last fews days have concerned the threat of terrorism to the UK and the Government's response to the perceived threat.

Two days ago during a debate in the House of Commons about the Prevention of Terrorism Bill Brian Sedgemore Labour MP for Hackney South and Shoreditch in his last speech in the house attacked the Government and his party's backbenchers who have supported the government in their trampling of individual's liberty.

In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically... because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us. They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial...

How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out.

The full transcript of his speech is available here or the speech can be viewed as video here.

Links via Phil Gyford and BoingBoing .

Labels: Terrorism

The excellent three-part BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares is to be broadcast again this week.

The Power of Nightmares will be broadcast over three nights from 18 to 20 January at 2320GMT on BBC Two. The final part has been updated in the wake of the Law Lords ruling in December that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial was illegal.

I watched it when it was originally broadcast and believe it to be an eye-opening experience for those people that have been convinced by their governments dire warnings of the threat of global terrorism.

The three part series tries to get to the truth of the threat facing us behind the politicians rhetoric and the media's sensationalist headlines.

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares.

The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares.

In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion.

It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media.

Part I: Baby It's Cold Outside
Part II: The Phantom Victory
Part III: The Shadows in the Cave

Labels: Security, Terrorism

The British government has introduced many new laws in the recent years to combat terrorism and antisocial behaviour. However in doing so they have eroded many of the rights that the public think they have, particularly if you are accused of a connection to terrorist activities even if that isn't the case. The BBC have a short quiz to determine whether you 'Know your rights'.

Labels: Terrorism

I watched the first part of a three-part documentary series titled The Power of Nightmares on BBC 2 early tonight.

This series shows dramatically how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neoconservatives and the radical Islamists. Both were idealists who were born out of the failure of the liberal dream to build a better world. These two groups have changed the world but not in the way either intended. Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. A fantasy that politicians then found restored their power and authority in a disillusioned age. Those with the darkest fears became the most powerful.

I would urge everyone to see this if you get the chance as well as watching Errol Morris's documentary film The Fog of War.

I've been saying this for a while but the concept of a War on Terror is nonsensical because not only is it a war on an abstract concept but you cannot defeat terrorists by waging war anyway. We are not at any greater risk of terrorism since 9/11 than we were before, that's not to say that there is no danger but that it is of the same level as it ever was.

To really combat terrorism requires the typical cloak and dagger stuff that the security services do such as surveillance, wiretapping and infiltration of suspect groups. Plus increasing the security of likely targets of terrorist attacks in a manner that not only appears like you are doing something to improve security but actually does improve security.

But it isn't easy to sell to the public that you are doing everything possible to combat terrorism if nothing is appears to be happening. Foiling a terrorist attack isn't something that can revealed to the public in many cases at it could hamper future operations. So for the governments to appear to their citizens that they are effective in this they need to go and wage war in the name of combating terrorism even if the enemy in these wars are only tangentially connected to terrorism if at all.

Labels: Security, Surveillance, Terrorism

If not I recommend you try the Dubya Programme. Your 12-step programme to becoming paranoid and misguided. Don't know what to think about the threat of global terrorism. Well we can remember it for you wholesale.
George W. Bush: Keeping America scared.

Found via Plasticbag.

Labels: Terrorism

About five weeks on from the time I wrote this blogpost about Annie Jacobsen and Northwest Airlines flight #327 I decided to revisit WomensWallStreet.com to see if there was yet another update to the story.

There is in fact two more parts.

Russian Airliners Were Likely Exploded From Their Toilets

Thankfully we have moved on from the hysteria and we now get a good analysis of the Chechen terrorists most likely responsible for blowing up two Russian airliners and their links to Islamic terrorist groups.

Gentlemen, Why Can’t We Get it Right?

In the latest article she tackles the role of the Air Marshals and the efficacy of their work to make aircraft safer.

Federal Air Marshals have become an integral weapon in America's war on terror. Until recently, the highly secretive, pistol-packing sky-marshals were portrayed as America's silent heroes: "unseen, unheard, unafraid." But a spate of recent articles about the beleaguered Federal Air Marshals Service (FAMS) have many Americans rethinking the reality behind the agency façade. It seems that a more appropriate motto for the FAMS might be "easily identifiable, not allowed to speak up, and concerned about their safety."

Labels: Terrorism