« September 2006 | Main | February 2007 »
October 12, 2006
Is this the justice you want
A lot of us who are opposed to more stringent anti-terror legislation are accused of being "soft", "pro-terror" and branded with many more unprintable epithets.
Today we discover that David Blunkett urged Blair to bomb Al-Jazeera's transmitter in Baghdad during the during the Iraq war.
The Mirror - BLUNKETT: WE MUST BOMB AL-JAZEERA TV
The disgraced ex-Home Secretary makes his astonishing revelation in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme, to be shown next week, saying he viewed the Arab television station as a legitimate target.
He brushes aside protests that, as a civilian organisation, the bombing of al-Jazeera would have been illegal under international law.
Now, at the same time as Blunkett is saying that not only was it okay to bomb a civilian TV station but he actually urged the PM to carry out such an attack, the two people charged with the leaking of the "non-existant" Bomb Al-Jazeera memo are facing a massively extended legal process. Originally their trial was set for 9th October 2006, but now that has been put back to next year.
BBC - Secrets case hearing in private
A pre-trial hearing of the case of two men accused of leaking details between world leaders has been held in private at the Old Bailey.
David Keogh and Leo O'Connor, both from Northampton, have been charged under the Official Secrets Act.
It is alleged that Mr Keogh passed a memo of a meeting between US President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair to Mr O'Connor.
Both men deny the charges and the trial will take place on April 18 next year.
So the whole process is to remain secret in the interests of national security. One can only presume that politcal embarassment would threaten our security, as the only reason for secrecy is to prevent the contents of the memo from entering the public domain.
Meanwhile, it would seem that letting intelligence material be used in trials could have a more negative impact on justice than first thought.
BBC - Judge critical of MI5 testimony
A judge in a secret hearing has criticised the Home Office over contradictory MI5 intelligence in the trial of two terrorism suspects.
The intelligence only came to light because - by chance - the same barrister was acting in both cases.
Mr Justice Newman said the "administration of justice" had been put at risk in the trial of Algerian Abu Doha and a suspect known as MK.
The government is getting away with playing fast and loose with justice under current legislation. Do you really want to give them even more powers?
Update - More info at Blairwatch and Bloggerheads.
Posted by Clive at 9:52 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 4, 2006
Colour blind
Read this and weep.
Bloggerheads - Bloody darkies
Meet John Lucas Preston. He was born in Britain in 1970 and grew up in Leeds.
At the age of 18, he visited Pakistan... and since then he has been battling for his life.
On 17 December 1988, while travelling from Rawalpindi to the village of Bhubar, John claims that Jamshid Khan (the taxi driver he had hired for this journey) attempted to physically/sexually assault him and - in the scuffle that followed - Khan produced a gun which then discharged, fatally injuring him.
John immediately drove to the nearest police station, reported the incident, handed over the weapon, and led police to the scene.
He was later charged with murder.
John has spent close to 18 years - almost half of his life and his entire adult life - sitting in a foreign cell or any one of a number of foreign courts. For most of that time, he has lived under a sentence of death.
Specifically, why isn't John Lucas Preston's face splashed all over the front page of the Sun newspaper?
Why isn't Rebekah 'Red Mist' Wade screaming for the blood of those who would dare to allow a fellow countryman to suffer such a blatant and disgraceful miscarriage of justice?
Well, let me give you a clue:
Everything you've read above is true... apart from the name.
John Lucas Preston is really Mirza Tahir Hussain.
In the war on terror, our leaders appear to be developing colour blindness, unable to see any British citizen in difficulties unless they are white. Especially if the difficulties have occured in an allied state.
And it's not just Pakistan.
BBC - UK 'turned down Guantanamo offer'
Britain has refused to repatriate UK residents held at Guantanamo Bay because the US terms of release were too stiff, the lord chancellor says.
Lord Falconer confirmed that there was "continuing dialogue" with the US over the Cuba detainees.
But he added: "We could not take people back into the UK on terms that we could not legally deliver."
At least nine UK residents are thought to remain among the detainees and nine Britons have already been released.
And here's a classic example of how entrenched this sort of attitude can be.
NOTWATS - If you're a muslim - it's your problem
Editorial by Lord Stevens
For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.
I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-cop—I fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?
No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.
And our Leaders wonder at the radicalisation of muslim youths. Internment didn't work in Ulster during the Troubles, Apartheid collapsed in S. Africa, the list is endless. So why do some Western Governments think that finger pointing is going to be of any benefit this time?
Posted by Clive at 12:58 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 3, 2006
Video killed the Radio Star
Video may well have, in the immortal words of Trevor Horn, killed the radio star, but the internet can be far more deadly. Back in 2000 E-studio produced a flash video based on the Buggles' song, called Internet Killed the Video Star.
Which is all very well, but as Webcameron has proved, it can also trash a politician's credibility; as Tim at Bloggerheads proves so well with a simple to show how inept the Tories grasp of the internet is.
On the other hand, the LibDems seem to have got the hang of viral marketing on the web, probably because they've actually employed someone who knows what he is doing. Even Zak Exley approves.
Posted by Clive at 10:15 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
October 2, 2006
You may like to think...
You may like to think that the following couldn't happen here.
BBC - US Senate backs terror trial bill
The US Senate has passed controversial legislation endorsing President George W Bush's proposals to interrogate and prosecute foreign terror suspects.
However, during a heated debate, Democrat senators accused the administration of tearing up 200 years of legal standards by removing detainees rights such as habeas corpus - the right to challenge their own detention.
Unfortunately, you'd be wrong as the Labour government has already attempted to introduce new anti-terror laws that would remove habeas corpus for terror suspects. That they have yet to succeed has not stopped them from further attempts.
And don't think that a Prime Minister Brown would be any better. His conference speech last week showed a continuing commitment to the War on Terror. What the Conservative stance on this matter is, should become clear at this week's Tory Party Conference. Unless they squander their time arguing about tax cuts.
"But", I can hear you saying, "this law only applies to terror suspects. Why should I worry?". The answer is simple, because Governments tend to extend the use of legislation beyond its original application. And the definitions of people covered by such legislation tend to be rather too flexible, with the consequence that more and more people are affected. There have already been numerous examples of anti-terror legislation used to prevent peaceful protest; define a peaceful protestor as a potential terrorist and you can detain the "trouble makers" for as long as you like.
Posted by Clive at 7:47 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack