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

Money saving expert Martin Lewis has started a Number 10 Downing Street petition to call upon the Prime Minister to follow the Bank Charges Reclaiming Charter, which aims to end both the current suspension of reclaiming & the financial misery caused by unfair penalty charges.

Labels: politics

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

Labels: politics, Terrorism, torture

Somehow our media turned Ahmedinijad's benign statement "As the Soviet Union disappeared, the Zionist regime will also vanish and humanity will be liberated." into the menacing "Israel will be wiped out". Our media also conveniently ignored the statement by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that "We will never start a war."

read more | digg story

Labels: Digg, politics

Brian Haw has been named as the winner of the Channel 4 News award for Most Inspiring Political Figure.

Mr Haw received 54 per cent of the votes cast by the public in the channel's political awards for 2007.

Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, the head of the British Army, who embarrassed the Government by saying troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, came second with 18 per cent.

Tony Blair was backed by eight per cent and David Cameron by six per cent.

Clearly the British public have lost all respect for their political representatives in parliament.

Labels: politics, TV

The Guardian reports: Police want power to crack down on offensive demo chants and slogans

Present curbs are too light, Met chief to tell Goldsmith

This seems like nothing more than a power grab and an appeal to the right wing members sections of Britain that are incensed by these uppity sandal-wearing Lefties and Muslim types voicing their displeasure about various things.

The country's biggest force, the Metropolitan police, is to lobby the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, because officers believe that large sections of the population have become increasingly politicised, and there is a growing sense that the current restrictions on demonstrations are too light.

It seems to me that Tony Blair's government has recently freaked out about something which has been going on for quite a few years and that is issue politics. The populace seem generally apathetic about the political parties but a number are passionate about singular political issues be it marching in opposition to the Hunting Bill or demonstrating against the Iraq war etc. Also there has been a rise in political views being expressed online as the number of fora has increased where such views can be aired.

I think that they have freaked out because virtually all these views being expressed are anti-government. You'd be hard pressed to find any Joe Public commenter expressing a pro-Iraq opinion for example.

Most worrying is the following bit of it.

The police want powers to tackle a "grey area" in the array of public order laws. At present, causing offence by itself is not a criminal offence.

Causing offence is not a criminal offence and it never fucking well should be.

He talks about respecting freedom of speech.

We also need to think more laterally around how we police public demonstrations where 'offence' could be caused, while still respecting the British position around freedom of speech.

But this sounds like just a piece of management speak that means fuck all that has been bored from Tony Blair.

But then I'm part of the problem not the solution aren't I.

Labels: politics, Security, Surveillance

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

Leninology has posted on YouTube a number of short videos showing pupils protesting at their school, Quintin Kynaston in St John's Wood, North London on the occasion of a visit by Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Blair Protest Footage 1
Blair Protest 2
Blair Protest 3
Blair Protest 4
Blair Protest 5
Blair Protest 6

Labels: politics, YouTube

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

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

Arnold Schwarzenegger has apparently offered the role of the terminator in Terminator 4 to Tony Blair!

He quipped during a press conference that if Mr. Blair was looking for work after he finishes being the British Prime Minister he'd be able to get him a job in the movies.

Blair said that he was grateful for the offer, for as his second term as PM was coming to a close, he would soon be without a job.

"Now that is definitely the best offer I've had. Actually, the sad thing is, it's the only offer I've had," Blair said.

Fundamental misunderstanding here about why he will be leaving his job though. It is not because his second term as PM is coming to a close as he is in fact into his third term. US Presidents are restricted to only two terms the Prime Minister of Britain has no such restriction.

He will in fact be leaving his job because he said he would hand over the reigns at some point during this parliament and will do so with enough time remaining that his successor has a reasonable period of time to govern so that they have a good shot at leading the party to yet another General Election victory.

The sooner the better I reckon.

Labels: politics

Sunday Times - ID cards doomed, say officials

TONY BLAIR’S flagship identity cards scheme is set to fail and may not be introduced for a generation, according to leaked Whitehall e-mails from the senior officials responsible for the multi-billion-pound project.

The problems are so serious that ministers have been forced to draw up plans for a scaled-down “face-saving” version to meet their pledge of phasing in the cards from 2008.

However, civil servants say there is no evidence that even this compromise is “remotely feasible” and accuse ministers of “ignoring reality” by pressing ahead.

The government seems to want to push through their Identity Card scheme through by any means possible even if it means by way of a much reduced version. They will probably phase it in through the backdoor by way of renewals of passports and ease back on the introduction of ID cards for non-passport holders.

Give this it might be wise for people to renew their passports now even if they have many years before they expire. Renew for freedom from the Identity Register.

Labels: ID Cards, politics

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: humour, politics

The notion of best man for the job was never really the case in cabinet reshuffles of the past but at least many times ministers were chosen from the brightest and the best of a party's MPs.

The floundering Blair is I feel trying to shore up his premiership by shuffling in his most loyal supporters into key positions at the expense of the quality of the members of the cabinet. Back in November 2005 Tim Ireland wrote. [via]

The only people Blair can appoint to his cabinet or count on in the pursuit of his reforms have to have backed him over the war on Iraq then and continue to back him to this day. And anyone who can do that with a smile on their face is duplicitous, stupid or woefully misinformed. It's no longer a case of the best man or woman for the job.

The removal of John Prescott's portfolio whilst retaining his services as Deputy Prime Minister is the most bizarre result of this recent fiasco. Hopefully this farcical thing will doom Blair but I have a feeling that yet again for Teflon Tony the shit won't stick to him.

Does give the chance to make an awful political joke though about Prescott losing his briefs yet again. Expect to see that one in the Daily Mail if it hasn't already appeared there.

The Conservative leader David Cameron could be right when he says that the Cabinet reshuffle shows the government has lost its authority and is in terminal decline. There is still plenty of time and opportunity for the party to win back the electorate though and I hope they can see that ditching Blair would be an excellent step towards doing that.

Labels: politics

The Labour party were given a bit of a bloody nose in this election but it wasn't enough for them to get rid of the liability that is Blair. Sad to see that the voters swung the way of the Tories instead of the other way towards the Liberals or Green.

That bullying venal fat fuck Charles Clarke is out of a job though which is great news.

Labels: politics

Well there's only a couple of days to go now and the man known as Blair is still the Prime Minister so the only choice now is protest against the Labour party and show them we mean it when we say that Blair has stayed in office long after he should have been ousted.



As I have no local elections this Thursday (ours happened at the same time as the general election last year) I can't make the protest myself so I'm calling on my readers to do so on my behalf, I know some of you exist and reside somewhere in the UK. My visitors can't all be searching for information on Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto surely.

http://www.backingblair.co.uk

Labels: politics

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

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

Thanks to Murky.org for the following quote

"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
Winston Churchill, Nov 21, 1943

And for reminding me that Pledgebank has another pledge for people who wish to resist the introduction of Identity Cards but cannot directly refuse to register because of professional or family responsibilities.

Labels: politics, totalitarian

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

According to A Big Stick and a Small Carrot Charles Kennedy had the audacity to mention Iraq yesterday and was attacked for his naivety for what seems like a fairly measured statement in comparison to say George Galloway.

"I am not here implying some causal link between Britain's involvement in Iraq and the terrible terrorist attacks in London last week. Not at all. The mass murderers who attacked London last week did not need Iraq as an excuse. The blame for the deaths in London falls firmly on their shoulders and on their shoulders alone."

But it would be hard not to link the war in Iraq to the bomb attacks in London as our political leaders themselves link the war into the wider War on Terror.

If we truly are at war with the terrorists then this latest attack may be seen by many especially those who support the actions of the terrorists as a retaliatory strike. I believe that Britain would still have been targeted even if our government had decided not to participate in the removal of Saddam Hussein from power and that in time the majority of population of Iraq will be a lot better off than they would have if Saddam Hussein had remained. But there is no escaping the fact that war has resulted in many innocent Iraqis losing their lives thus aiding those people who wish preach hatred of our country.

In the end we may never know why four seemingly normal lads from Yorkshire decided to blow themselves and many innocent Londoners up. But to think there may possibly a link between the events in Iraq and the attacks on London should not be considered a thoughtcrime. Most of us are thinking it anyway but I don't think that the bomb attacks have at all changed our opinions on Iraq whichever side of the debate of whether we should have invaded or not we place ourselves.

Labels: politics

It was the Queen's Speech today in which she outlined what her government would be doing in this parliament.

Tony Blair has pledged to create a "culture of respect" as he put moves to tackle crime and disorder at the heart of his third term agenda.

Public service reform also figured strongly in the Queen's Speech, setting out the government's new programme.

A total of 44 bills and six draft bills are in the 2005 Queen's Speech - ensuring a packed legislative schedule in the parliamentary session that follows the general election.

The 44 bills for Parliament to debate by November 2006 included ID cards and laws against religious hatred.

The Conservatives say Labour has copied much of their agenda. The Lib Dems say Mr Blair has not listened to voters.

BBC News: Queen's Speech at-a-glance or in full.

As outlined in the speech the government has not yet given up on it's planned National ID card scheme.

Controversial plans to introduce a compulsory identity card scheme have been unveiled in the Queen's Speech.

The cards, which had to be dropped ahead of the election, will be linked to a National Identity Register holding information on all UK residents.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there had been "technical" changes to the new bill to take account of previous objections to the plans.

The Lib Dems say the plans could be defeated with Tory and Labour support.

I really wonder why they insist on pursuing this ill-conceived plan that will be both costly and inefficient, and will certainly not provide increased national security.

Further reading:
• My analysis of the scheme.
• The text of the Identity Cards Bill
• NO2ID NewsBlog

Labels: ID Cards, politics, Security

Get yourself represented.

BBC News: Blair sets 5 May as election date

The general election will be held on 5 May, Tony Blair has formally announced.

Speaking after asking the Queen to dissolve Parliament next week, Mr Blair said Labour had a "driving mission" for a third term in office.

The Conservative and Liberal Democrat leaders pre-empted the announcement by starting nationwide tours of key seats.

Michael Howard accused Mr Blair's government of "losing the plot" while Charles Kennedy said he would focus on people's hopes, not their fears.

I'm really torn this election as I am a Labour supporter from way back but can no longer support them given the way this government has acted on crucial issues in the last few years.

At least I can consider my vote a tactical one in order to oust the Conservative incumbant as Labour are the third party in the area and have very little chance of winning the seat.

If we had a sensible system like Proportional Representation I would be more torn I think.


BBC Election minisite

Labels: politics

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

The panel of the offical inquiry into the scandal of US soldiers' mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison has issued a report that lays some of the blame at the door of Donald Rumsfeld.

The Reuters news agency reveals that

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld came under fire on Tuesday from a high-level inquiry into the Abu Ghraib prison scandal but a U.S. military judge ruled he did not have to testify at a trial arising from the abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

A four-member panel headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger issued a report accusing the chain of command from Rumsfeld down of leadership failures that created conditions for the abuse late last year that sparked anti-American outrage across the world.

"Military and civilian leaders at the Pentagon share this burden of responsibility."

Labels: politics, totalitarian