Paris Terrorist Outrage

(Please see UPDATE at end)



An attack on well-known satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has killed at least 12 people, including the editor and 3 other cartoonists and 2 police officers, with at least 4 seriously and a number of others less-gravely injured. It has been reported that two (later amended to three) gunmen used assault-rifles to kill those in the office before engaging in a gunfight with police outside and using a vehicle to escape, later found abandoned in a northern Paris street. The magazine obviously lampoons many targets, but it seems clear that its satirical cartoons mocking Moslem extremists have provoked this latest awful outrage. Free speech must be defended and maintained and terrorists not permitted to prevail!

Fuller details may be read in the BBC website here, with a regularly updated news and comment feed here.

I have added this awful outrage to the permanent memorial page in my personal website; the list of crimes marked there grows ever longer unfortunately.

UPDATE (Sunday 11JAN2014 14.15 GMT) Events moved swiftly after the first killings on 7th January, so this update attempts to summarise concisely the events of the next two days until resolution of the initial and later outrages was achieved. Summary - death toll in 4 separate locations; 17 victims and 3 of the terrorists. It began on 7th January with an attack on well-known satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in which 12 people were killed, including the editor and 3 other cartoonists and 2 police officers, with a further 11 injured. The attack was carried out by two Moslem extremist gunmen and after a hide-and-seek operation across a wide area north-east of Paris, two were cornered in a printing works in Dammartin-en-Göele (Seine-et-Marne) and very close to the main Paris airport of Roissy-Charles de Gaulle two days later; they were killed by police when they exited the building firing weapons. On 8th January a police officer was shot dead in the Paris suburb of Montrouge by one or two terrorists. On 9th January, two different terrorists took hostages in a Kosher (i.e. Jewish) grocery store, resulting in the deaths of 4 of the hostages. One of these two terrorists was shot dead, the other has escaped and is being searched for although various reports indicate she may already have left France and perhaps have travelled to Syria. Free speech must be defended and maintained and terrorists not permitted to prevail by intimidating us into silence!

Twelve years on - September 11, 2001 - in respectful remembrance and mourning

With time the pain becomes less raw, but it never goes away.



Terrorism cannot, and must not, ever be appeased.

(My permanent memorial to this and other terrorist outrages is in my personal website here - click on the arrow to see other pages from there.)

Note: comments are disabled for this blog entry.

Ten years on - 11th September 2001

It is hard to believe it is ten years already since the horrific events of 11th September 2001 (otherwise known as "9/11"), but it remains vividly etched in the memory.



There have many television programmes in recent days covering different aspects of this terrorist outrage and tragedy. However, I prefer simply to mark the tenth anniversary with this brief message and pictorial story-board.

This and other recent terrorist acts are commemorated permanently in my personal website here.

PS/ I wrote an article entitled "Terrorism and Civil Liberties" shortly after '9/11' in the comment area of my personal website (as I only began this blog 6 months later), as a reminder, still just as necessary today, that the fight against terrorism should not be used as a justification by governments in democratic countries to curtail civil liberties; fortunately we have now got rid of the Blair/Brown/Blunkett/Straw Labour Party 'cabal' of quasi-authoritarians who cynically used fear of terrorism to set about turning the UK into the most watched nation in the world, with the possible exception of North Korea, and whilst many of the worst aspects of their collective mania have since been rescinded (e.g. ID Cards) we are still living with many of their follies. A couple of wise sayings need to be borne in mind here:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (Wendell Philipps);
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin).

Finally, they got their man! Osama Bin Laden is dead.

It has been announced earlier this morning (White House website) by US President Obama that an operation by US Special Forces had succeeded in killing the terrorist and al-qa'ida leader Osama Bin Laden at a location in Pakistan not very far from the capital Islamabad. (see also this BBC news report)



The mastermind behind the terrorist outrages in the US on 11th September 2001 has finally been taken out of action and his victims at least partially avenged. I write this not in a tome of triumphalism, as the death of any human being [even one so misguided and despicable as Osama bin Laden] is not an occasion for rejoicing, but I am certainly not sorry to hear of his death.

Unfortunately with his death it is highly unlikely that the threat of terrorism posed by al-qa'ida and its co-conspirator organisations is at and end. Indeed it is possible there may be retaliatory terrorist outrages in coming days or weeeks. Defending freedom against those who would seek to deprive us of it is never going to be easy - life, unfortunately, is not like that.

PS/ Although I watched most of the events 'live' on television from soon after the aircraft hi-jackings began I did not write about it immediately; this blog began only 6 months later. However in the comment area of my main website I did write an article on the general topic of Terrorism and Civil Liberties a couple of weeks later, once the impact of what had happened had begun to be absorbed. Like many others I sat open-mouthed in horror on that 11th September almost ten years ago, my only immediate analysis being that this was going to change the world in fundamental ways.

Terrorism in Russia - not much noticed in British media [so far]?

I don't recall having seen this very recent (Thursday 9th September 2010) act of terrorism in Vladikavkaz, capital of the Russian republic of North Ossetia, mentioned in the UK broadcast media - certainly not on the BBC; it seems more interested in peddling non-stories about UK actors and media personalities succeeding in Los Angeles. Perhaps such meaningless media-pap is considered more important than at least 16 people being killed and more than a hundred injured in what is just 'a small country far away of which we know little'? Personally I think the latest incident in Vladikavkaz merits a little more prominence.

(The only UK report Google News throws up on this outrage is this Reuters report carried in the Guardian; the France24 report first linked to above is also an agency report from Reuters, let it be noted.)

US Senate forced to accept its writ does not extend outside the US

So the US Senate has postponed its hearing on whether BP influenced the release of Megrahi from a Scottish prison. I wrote about this last week here.

As I have written at length, I disagreed strongly and fundamentally with the decision of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') to release Megrahi, a convicted criminal, on grounds of 'compassion'. However, I have always accepted that it had the right to make that decision in accordance with its interpretation of Scots Law, even though that decision was entirely discretionary and wrong in my view.

Scots Law, and I am no 'Scottish nationalist' (that hardly needs saying - Ed), is not subordinate to the English 'Common Law' any more than it is to US law. Scotland has always had its own legal system, prior to and since the Act of Union with England and the fact that since 1999 there has been a devolved Scottish Parliament has not fundamentally changed anything, except that many domestic Scottish matters are now dealt with by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') rather than the Secretary of State for Scotland within the UK government.

What is really laughable, though, is that a few US Senators seem to think that their writ extends beyond US borders and that they can effectively coerce governments of foreign countries to appear before their committees. The posturing of a few US Senators ahead of their mid-term elections this November is of no moment to me or anyone outside the US, however interesting and indeed important (in some respects) US domestic politics may be in the wider world. I think Senator Menendez of New Jersey is playing to an audience in his home State ahead of elections, and good luck to him - but it is of absolutely no consequence to our Scottish devolved administration, nor indeed to the UK government, which has, as politely as they can, told he and his colleagues to 'get knotted'. I do not agree with the decision to release Megrahi, but I agree completely with the decision of the Scottish Executive to decline Senator Menendez's 'summons' as completely outrageous. The US Senate can of course hold whatever hearings it cares to, and Senator Menendez can verbally 'stamp his feet' in frustration all he likes, it really is none of my business, but neither he nor the US Senate can compel or coerce the government of a foreign country to submit to its authority; it really is that simple.

The Megrahi release saga rumbles on ...

I'm not going to rehash the arguments for or against releasing Megrahi last year, a decision taken by the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government'), Mr Kenny MacAskill MSP; I thought then and think still that the decision was both wrong and foolish. My articles written at the time on the matter give my detailed view of the matter:

- Scotland sends a convicted murderer home "to die" (20AUG2009)
- Bill's not popular in some quarters locally it seems (22AUG2009)
- Majority 'oppose' Megrahi release (28AUG2009)
- My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga (01SEP2009)

Now that final article linked to above, written on 1st September last year, might be thought to be contradicted by this present article, but in fact it is not because this article is on a whole other aspect of this saga, relating to judicial and constitutional territoriality. However, before continuing this article I think it useful to quote the final two sentences from my last article above:

"Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are."

At the time of the release the US authorities expressed their view opposing the release very vociferously, but as I wrote in the first article linked to above "We have our legal system and they have their's and they have done many things in recent years which have been found by many in this country to be revolting or merely unjust in recent years, and precious little notice have they taken of the views and sensibilities of what is supposed to be their closest ally in the world."

In recent weeks a US Senate hearing has been taking place into the oil-spill in the Gulf of Mexico involving oil company BP, a company with strong British links historically, even though it is today a truly multinational conglomerate with a large proportion of its shareholding outside the UK, with US shareholders holding a very significant stake in the company. It has been suggested by some US Senators that there may be a connection between the release of Megrahi and a deal agreed with the Libyan authorities by BP. Now these US Senators have 'invited' Mr MacAskill and the Scottish Prison Service's medical chief Dr Andrew Fraser to travel to Washington to give evidence before the US Senate hearing. The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has declined this 'invitation'. Also invited are Mr Jack Straw MP, former UK Justice Secretary and Mr Tony Hayward, BP chief executive, neither of whom have yet announced a decision on this matter. It will be recalled that Mr Hayward recently gave evidence before the US Senate in connection with the Gulf of Mexico oil-spill.

My view is very strongly that no official of the Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') should attend the US Senate hearing. I am no friend of the current ruling political party in Scotland, the SNP, nor do I care for the First Minister, Mr Alex Salmond MP MSP, but I watched him being interviewed earlier today on BBC News on the matter and have to say I agree completely with his analysis, which followed very closely the statement issued by a spokesperson on behalf of his administration:

"Since the Lockerbie atrocity in 1988, all matters regarding the investigation, prosecution and compassionate release decision have been conducted according to the jurisdiction and laws of Scotland. "Clearly, the Senate Committee has responsibility to scrutinise decisions taken within the US system, and Scottish ministers and public officials are accountable within the Scottish Parliament system. That is the constitutional basis of our democracies. "The Scottish Parliament's justice committee has already undertaken a full inquiry into the decision on compassionate release, and the Westminster Scottish affairs committee has also examined the issue in terms of the formal inter-governmental relations that exist within the UK. That is right and proper."

The US is a close ally of the UK (which includes Scotland), but the two are completely separate countries and it would seem to me totally invidious, on principle, for any official of a UK government or a devolved part of the UK such as Scotland, to accept or imply acceptance of the jurisdiction of a foreign country. I cannot imagine any official of the US Federal Government or one of the US States agreeing to give evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in the UK, nor would it be correct for them to accept such an obligation - the furore that that would arise in the US amongst the public there were such testimony to be offered by any US public official before the parliament of a foreign country, even of a close ally such as the UK, would be intense and entirely justified.

The Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') has stated its willingness to supply further written evidence to the US Senate and that is as much as the US Senate can expect, indeed my view is that even this is too much. I may disagree strongly with the decision taken by Mr MacAskill, but it is clear that he took that decision with due regard to Scots Law; that is the end of the matter so far as I am concerned.

Finally, the comments made by Labour's Holyrood justice spokesman Richard Baker, to the effect that it was "perfectly legitimate" for US senators to ask Mr MacAskill to travel to Washington and answer questions are in my view completely wrong-headed and betray a complete lack of understanding of the constitutional issues involved, specifically relating to the sovereignty of the UK; I have no love for the SNP, but it is immensely pleasing that the Labour Party is no longer in power in either Scotland or Westminster if this is the care and attention they give to this country's status as an independent country; of course Labour is the political party that when in government agreed the unequal US/UK Extradition Treaty 2003 with the US, so they have 'form' in their dereliction of national duty.

"This programme may upset some people"

This is the 'cover yourself legally' warning which is usually trotted out when something upsetting and/or violent is going to be shown on television. I'm just watching a recording of Channel4's pretty good documentary, shown last evening on More4, to mark the first anniversary today of the Mumbai terrorist outrages last year and this is the warning that was issued before the programme and after each ad-break before the programme resumed.

Who would not find such a programme disturbing? Being shown at 10pm, it was way after the 'watershed' when younger children should certainly not be watching. No, it's really often just used as a blanket 'watch your back' legal 'out' in case some viewer claims it has traumatised him/her and tries to sue the makers of the programme for the distress caused. I don't really blame Channel4 for trying to protect themselves in these circumstance, but still it strike me as a bit odd - but that's the society that we live in.

Similar rather idiotic warnings are shown on some packaged food products - one of the most extraordinary being the warnings which often appear on packs of nuts which say something like "Warning - May contain nuts.". I know nut allergy sufferers can become seriously ill, or even die, if they consume products containing even trace amounts of nuts or nut oils so some products where these ingredients may not be obvious do require to bear a warning, but on a pack of nuts? End of rant ... (for now)

NB/ My permament memorial pages in respect of recent terrorist events are linked to fairly near to the top of the right column under the sub-heading 'Memorial Pages', or you can visit the first page in the series here, or go to the Mumbai page direct.

والحزن والشفقة

Eight years already



My personal memorial is here.
('wal-Hazin wal-shafaqah' - The Sorrow and the Pity - this is of course the translation of the title of a French film about World War II in France, but I think similar sentiments are evoked when we remember the events of eight years ago today in the US.)

Labour, Libya and Oil - 'for the greater good'

The sordid truth about Gordon Brown and Labour's role in promoting trade with 'former' terrorist-state Libya at the expense of victims of IRA bomb outrages; the Semtex used by the bombers was, naturally enough, funded by Libya.

Maybe later stories will provide further clarification about what has been going on with our illustrious 'Great Leader'. Maybe. For the moment my reaction is one of simple disgust. But not surprise.

Remind me - why is this awful man still our Prime Minister? A Labour-putsch is urgently required! And a General Election.

My absolutely final word on the al-Megrahi release saga

There has been a lot of fall-out from the release of the release of al-Megrahi back to Libya and that fall-out may not be over as yet. However, there is an article in today's Times newspaper by the leader of the Conservative Party, David Cameron, that lays out pretty clearly what happened; three brief extracts:

"Decisions concerning the fate of criminals, not least those responsible for mass murder, often provoke widespread public anger. But the outrage at this one has crossed continents and damaged our relationship with our closest ally, America. It has been a fiasco. "At its heart lies a series of failure of judgment. The first failure was the decision by Kenny MacAskill, the Scottish Justice Secretary, to release al-Megrahi on “compassionate grounds”. Due process found al-Megrahi guilty, a verdict upheld on appeal. The Libyan Government accepted responsibility for the bombing and paid compensation to the Lockerbie families. Any doubts about the safety of al-Megrahi’s conviction should have been tested by the second appeal, which he instead withdrew. That is why I said that compassionate release was completely inappropriate. We are dealing here with someone convicted of one of the biggest mass murders in British history. Al-Megrahi’s victims were not allowed the luxury of “dying at home”. What on earth was Mr MacAskill thinking of when he made this utterly bizarre decision?" Then: "The second misjudgment was Gordon Brown’s failure to speak up clearly and promptly. On a matter fraught with such emotion, and with the potential to damage Britain’s reputation abroad, a decisive lead from the Prime Minister was required." And finally: "The Government needs to understand that it cannot reject this as an overhyped summer story and dismiss these suspicions out of hand. This issue goes to the core of how this Government operates. Unless these suspicions are properly put to rest, the al-Megrahi case will mark another damning chapter in the sorry history of Labour’s years in power."

- the whole article merits close study I think. I don't pretend to agree with everything that David Cameron has done so far, or that he seems to be planning should he become Prime Minister fairly soon (increasingly likely, on present trends, I'd say), but I have to say that those, both on the left of politics and on the gerontocrat-wing of the Conservative party itself, who declare Cameron to be 'light-weight' or 'shallow' seem to me to be way off-beam. That man is no light-weight and I think his clear-sightedness in this case makes that abundantly clear.

Almost done. Two articles in the Spectator's Coffee House are useful to read, too (here and here) - it is clear that Labour's connection to what happened is not as 'hands off' as they would have us believe. My earlier articles on the release are here, here and here.

Of course it's his interpretation, which I happen to agree with. A lot of people, particularly supporters of one of the political parties in Scotland (the governing Party here which made the decision to release al-Megrahi), disagree strongly with that view. Whatever we may think of the decision by Mr MacAskill, it was made in good faith I have no doubt (if in my view for misguided reasons), but it is done and cannot be reversed. We must now live with the consequences, whatever they are.

George Galloway banned from entering Canada

I have conflicted views about this story; George Galloway MP has been told he will not be permitted to enter Canada because the Canadians allege he is a supporter of the Palestinian group Hamas, an organisation which is a banned organisation there. A Canadian government spokesman is quoted as saying:

"Our border security officials conduct an assessment of who's eligible to come to Canada and on the basis of that assessment, they concluded Mr Galloway would pose a national security threat to Canada." He added: "Hamas is a banned terrorist organisation in Canada and this is an organisation that Mr Galloway has boasted in the past of providing support for."

- Mr Galloway says he will appeal against the ban, as he is due to speak in Toronto on 30th March at a public forum, Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar.

One part of me thinks: "Good on you Canada, wish we could do the same and keep him out of Britain, too!" That was certainly my initial reaction. However, then I began to wonder. After all, Hamas is the elected 'government' in the Palestinian enclave of Gaza - how can it be right simply to pretend that a governing political party, elected by citizens of a territory, is persona non grata, however odious their policies may be? And by all accounts they certainly are an odious group. No quarrel there and it's not particularly unusual for one country to refuse diplomatic recognition to another - the US and Cuba or Iran and until some years ago the UK and North Korea, to cite just a few examples.

I have no doubt that Canada generally permits 'free speech', but obviously does not want a conference in one of their major cities to be used as a platform by this notorious demagogue so has had to find some mechanism for keeping him out. Of course, it's not so long ago that the UK declined to let a Dutch MP enter the UK to screen a film he had made and speak at a forum being held by the House of Lords.

On balance I think the Canadian decision is wrong and ill-conceived, although undoubtedly motivated by the most worthy of intentions, just as I think the UK government's decision was although I am less certain that the aims of our government were quite so 'worthy', because I'm afraid I take a very jaundiced view of our own dear Labour government. If freedom of speech is to mean anything then it has to apply to those whose views you do not like, just as much and perhaps even more than it applies to those whose views you favour. Incitement to violence, if such can genuinely be asserted to be likely, would be one of the few justifications for such a ban. However, people whose views one dislikes should be taken on in debate and their ideas shown up for the nonsense they are, not simply be prevented from speaking. I would far rather engage the bigots of the British National Party or the Muslim Council of Britain, or indeed the Roman Catholic Church in debate to try and demonstrate how wrong many of their ideas are, even if I would know from the outset that not everyone could be persuadable to my point of view; that's what democracy is, not shutting up people one does not like.

Finally of course one has to accept that Canada has the absolute right to decide who it allows into its territory, whatever anyone else may think.

Police State Britain - Counter Terrorism Act 2008

"Attempting to elicit information" and secret DNA sampling and data sharing etc. come into force on February 16th 2009

Read this post from the ever-excellent Spy Blog and follow the link from there. Feel the chill run up your spine?

Because I can't put it better than Spy Blog I'll simply quote what is written there:

The War on Photographers , and Military Historians and Biographers etc. intensifies, by making it a serious terrorist crime to "attempt to elicit" information e.g. name, address, photograph etc.,about a current or former member of the Police, Armed Forces or Intelligence Services. It does not matter if there is a legal defence available to you in Court, it is too late for your liberty and career, once you have been tainted and blacklisted, by being arrested under a terrorism law, even if you are never charged or are found not guilty. How soon before this law is used to threaten, harass and arrest political demonstrators or activists, who take photos of the Police etc. who are taking photos of them ? Why are former members of these organisations covered, without exception i.e. including all those who have been kicked out for treason, espionage, corruption etc and those Walter Mitty fantasists or con artists, who exaggerate their former military careers, skills or experience, for vanity or to swindle people.? How soon before this law is invoked by those in the Police, Military or Intelligence services who want to hide or cover up incompetence, corruption or worse from investigative journalists or other investigators ?

Then on the Counter-terrorism Bill - covert DNA sampling and analysis with no effective safeguards:

Keep guard of your teacups, they may be stolen from you by official burglars or undercover agents, who want to secretly sample your DNA or fingerprints, if Home Office Minister Admiral Lord West's ideas on how this bit of the Act is going to be used are true.

These powers exist and will come into effect on 16 February 2009. Based on past experience of this Government's tactics in using 'extreme' clauses, designed for use solely in "exceptional" circumstances, for purposes way beyond what was originally envisaged, but not statutorily defined as being limited for use in such situations, it is likely that one day, sooner or later (and probably sooner), these new powers will be diverted for use against you or someone you know.

Truly the "Police State" has arrived in Britain!

Police State Britain - Even MPs are not immune from Labour's 'Big Brother' politics

Conservative immigration spokesman Damian Green MP has been arrested; according to the Metropolitan Police:

"The man has been arrested on suspicion of conspiring to commit misconduct in a public office and aiding and abetting, counselling or procuring misconduct in a public office."

According to reports, Mr Green was arrested this afternoon at his constituency home and 'counter-terrorism officers were involved in searches of his home and offices'. Even supposing such an arrest was justified (which I strongly suspect it was not), why is it being dealt with under 'anti-terrorism' legislation?

Is it that the person that was arrested last week (a Home Office official appparently believed to be the source of the material passed on to Mr Green) proving more difficult to 'break' than anticipated? The real question is why the government thought it wise to conceal from the public factual information which it has every right to know and which Mr Green made known? For example:
- The November 2007 revelation that the home secretary knew the Security Industry Authority had granted licences to 5,000 illegal workers, but decided not to publicise it;
- The February 2008 news that an illegal immigrant had been employed as a cleaner in the House of Commons;
- A whips' list of potential Labour rebels in the vote on plans to increase the pre-charge terror detention limit to 42 days;
- A letter from the home secretary warning that a recession could lead to a rise in crime.

The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown MP, denies being complicit in the arrest, or aware of it before it happened. One assumes this is true and indeed that no other member of the government was aware either, for if they were they have a great deal of explaining to do. If the police acted solely on their own initiative, quite difficult to believe when a senior politician is involved, then they will certainly have their actions scrutinised closely. It almost seems as if they have confused the interests of the country as being the same as the undoubted embarrassment to the Labour government of having concealed information from the public (which they had no right to conceal), only for it to be 'leaked'. Is it now going to become an anti-terrorism matter to reveal the incompetence (or duplcicity, take your pick) of our Labour government?

Seven years on, we still remember ...

What I like about this video tribute is that there is no moralising or posturing; it tells the story of what happened seven years ago today clearly and simply by means of pictures and video-clips, with a lively tune to accompany it. Bittersweet is how I would describe it. I don't think any more needs to be said - it's a time for personal reflection.

My own small permanent tribute is here.

Ian Blair's bane?

Do you think this new law would apply to Sir Ian Blair if another incident like the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes were to occur? Fat chance in the quasi-'Police State' the UK now is!

Police State Britain - HoC resistance hardens

The government's latest proposals to increase the period terrorist suspects may be held without charge from 28 to 42 days will, it seems (thank goodness!), not succeed except with a struggle. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee has reached the conclusion that the government's case for an increased detention limit has not been proved. According to the committee's Chairman, Labour MP Andrew Dismore:

"If the government is genuinely concerned to build a national consensus on counter-terrorism policy, it should drop this ill-conceived proposal and work with us and others to identify better ways of ensuring terrorism suspects are successfully prosecuted. "We can see no reason why the proposal to extend the limit for pre-charge detention to 42 days should be brought before Parliament at this time."

I'm not naive enough to believe that this rebuke will stop the government in its tracks, but it is a hopeful sign that common-sense may ultimately prevail. The Committee makes the point, as have many others, that a better approach, less damaging to basic civil liberties in the long run, would be to permit 'the use of intercept evidence, such as evidence from phone taps or bugging, in courts and to continue questioning suspects after they have been charged', as happens in many other European countries. Now I don't particularly like that option either, to be quite honest, but I consider it a whole lot better than simply locking people up for increasingly lengthy periods without charge.

If the evolution (i.e. lengthening) of the period of detention under this government is any guide, its current efforts to achieve 42 days (instead of the 56 or 58 days originally mooted, until the howls of opposition became too loud) will not be the last. It's not so long ago that the limit was only 7 days, up from the original 3 days, after which it was increased from 7 to 14 days, then doubled to the present 28 days, after the original proposal to have 90 days was defeated in Parliament. Most of these increases have taken place during the period since 1997 when the present government came into power; it is observed that no earlier government tried to increase pre-charge detention very much even during the height of the threat from the IRA. The government really does need to reassess its priorities, if only for base electoral purposes - there comes a time when even the most docile of voters (including Labour ones) rebels. If Labour does not wish to test this theory to destruction then it needs to think long and hard before the next general election, as people like Labour MP Andrew Dismore have presumably begun to. Labour's increasingly draconian (and misdirected) anti-terrorism laws will not be the only factor of course - think ID cards, the destruction of Britain's formerly excellent pension-provision regime, the sale of the nation's gold reserves at fire-sale prices, the huge increase in public long-term debt (including off balance sheet items), the misguided devolution projects, etc.

If you think I am being melodramatic then read what the ever-excellent Spy Blog has to say about the latest amendment to the Terrorism Act 2000, by Statutory Instrument rather than proper parliamentary scrutiny, which creates new criminal offences. One almost wonders whether the 28 to 42 days detention proposals are the smoke-screen that allowed this measure to slip through with few people noticing.

Need I go on?

When will they strike again?

... the 'war' goes on.

My permanent tribute is here.

Subtle US irony, or an amazing lack of self-knowledge ...

The US is considering the request from the UK to release five people from its detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who although not British citizens have prior to their detention been resident in the UK. I wrote about the British request yesterday.

However it seems, according to the BBC report I link to above, that:

A senior US official said Washington would seek guarantees that the men would be treated humanely and would not be allowed to pose a security threat.

This must be some kind of subtle irony from the US administration that I have hitherto been unaware of! Frankly I think it is a lot less likely that the UK will mistreat these five men than the US, which has held them in legal limbo under grtoesque conditions for some considerable time!

The next bit of the story is equally amazing:

When asked whether the US considered the men dangerous, the official replied: "We believe they are."

OK. So why hasn't the US been able to concoct some credible justification for charging these men with something before a recognised and credible court in the US mainland? I have absolutely no doubt that if these people are released into British custody they will be treated humanely as a matter of course and if the British government has credible reasons to hold them in detention it will do so, but if it does not have such reasons it won't; this country, unlike the US, operates according to the rule of law (even if I don't like some of the laws the Labour government has passed, it is clear that our own judicial system has called our Government to book on occasion in the past few years to force it to act in accordance with the law and don't doubt that such a sanction will be repeated if necessary). What this is all about is an attempt at face-saving by the US - it has dug itself into a very deep hole with its policy of illegal detentions at Guantanmao and as President Bush approaches his final year in power his administration is scrabbling to try and sort out its dirty little 'indiscretions' - it is probably desirable for the UK to [continue to] play along with this charade, at least until the five are released from detention, but at least as pertinently until our troops are able to withdraw from Iraq (and Afghanistan). With the benefit of hindsight, and whilst I don't regret in any way our initial involvement in these two 'theatres', it is clear that our acquiescence in the flawed policy agenda of the current US administration over the past few years (since 2001) has not been wise - nor has it resulted in a diminution of the threat from terrorism which we face, rather the reverse.

UK Government seeks residents' release from Guantanamo

BBC News24 is just reporting the Foreign Office have now requested the US authorities to release five of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, who were legally resident in the UK prior to their incarceration, but are not British citizens. This represents a change of policy by the UK, which has hitherto said that it cannot act on behalf of people who are not its own nationals.

Generally speaking I am very pleased at this development as the continuing existence of the illegal detention regime operated by the US at Guantanamo is a scandal which stains America's democracy. Perhaps the change by the British government is designed to 'help' the US close the site, by agreeing to take off its hands at least a few of those it continues to detain, but the real solution is either for the US to charge those it holds before a court in the US itself, where there is proper recourse to the norms of the US justice system, not to subject the detainees to the 'kangaroo' courts which not even its own military lawyers believe in any more and are becoming more and more vocal in denouncing. If it cannot do these things, credibly, then the detainees should be released. Period.

The US must be aware that should it release these five people into UK custody it is highly unlikely that grounds will exist for them to be detained in the UK if and when they arrive back here, any more than there were with the British citizens who were released from detention at Guantanamo some time ago.