Below we post two excerpts from the parliamentary debate on the second reading of the proposed terrorism bill that took place on the 26th October. First, Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, raises the example of what would transpire if MPs questioned the evidence on a proscribed terrorist organisation. Secondly, John Denham describes how someone vandalising a statute of the President of Uzbekistan could be guilty of terrorism under the proposed UK legislation!

For the full Hansards transcript go here

Alan Simpson: The hon. Gentleman will recall the debate in the House two weeks ago about the extension of the list of proscribed organisations. Included on that list was the Islamic Jihad Union in Uzbekistan. Many Members raised concerns about the inclusion of that organisation and, a matter of days later, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan wrote in The Guardian that there was no basis for substantiating the allegations that had been made about it, that they had come from the Uzbek Government and that we had no embedded intelligence sources of our own in the region. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the provisions relating to encouragement in the Bill would place hon. Members in an invidious position, in that, if we sought to defend an organisation that had been improperly proscribed as a terrorist organisation, we would be committing a terrorist offence under the encouragement provisions?

Mr. Denham : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who makes a powerful case for legislation to deal with the terrorist threat that we face, but does he not acknowledge that this legislation goes far wider than that? It is a question not of someone in this country supporting an action taken somewhere else in the world, but of anyone anywhere in the world supporting any type of violence. If an Uzbek living in Uzbekistan supported the destruction of a statue as a symbol of opposition to the tyrannical regime in his country, he would be guilty of an offence under clause 17, and liable to prosecution and seven years’ imprisonment, should he come to this country. Is it really our intention to do the dirty work for some of the most oppressive and tyrannical regimes in the world?

Mr. Clarke: As my right hon. Friend knows, it is not our intention to do anybody’s dirty work; rather, we intend to do our best to protect this country’and, indeed, the world’against terrorism as a means of political change. All our constituents will want us to do that as best we can. That said, I concede, as I have to my right hon. Friend privately and in his Committee, that we have to look at these definitions in order to avoid such questions arising. I say again’

Finally, a quote from Charles Clarke on the proposed offence of the glorification of terrorism:

The encouragement offence also includes glorification, which was a manifesto commitment. After we published our initial proposals, it was clear that there was considerable unease about the proposal for a self-contained offence of glorification of terrorism. In the spirit of consensus, we have now responded to that concern. Accordingly, glorification is now an offence only if the person who glorifies terrorism believes, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that the remarks will be understood as an incitement to terrorist acts.

Ok, thats incredibly clear and not at all prone to misinterpretation or abuse. Nice work Mr Clarke.

Here we post two questions raised during the hearings of ‘The Joint Committee on Human Rights Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights’ on Monday 24 October 2005. The Home Secretary Charles Clarke responds to Baroness Stern. Just what is terrorism according to Mr Clarke, but more importantly, will the ludicrously loose definition be allowed to stand in the new legislation?

Q12 Baroness Stern: Can I ask you about the definition of terrorism in the Terrorism Act 2000 which is very wide ranging? Any violence, including damage to property, designed to influence the policy of any government anywhere in the world. That being the definition, is it your view that anybody who advocates political violence in any state, no matter how brutal or repressive, will be committing the offence of encouraging terrorism? For example, if somebody in Uzbekistan, for example, said, “Let’s go and pull down the posters of the repressive president” that is presumably damage to property. In your view, is that advocating political violence?

Mr Clarke: No. I do not think pulling down posters is political violence. Blowing up a bus, to give that example again, is political violence. I agree with you — this is where I concede a point to Lord Lester in the question he asked — that the question of where on this spectrum between tearing down a poster and blowing up a bus a particular act falls can in some circumstances be difficult. I do not think it is as difficult as it seems. To suggest that tearing down a poster is terrorism simply would not be substantiated by anybody in any circumstances. To suggest that blowing up a bus is not terrorism, on the other hand, would also be very difficult to argue. Though I agree it is possible in this great range of potential acts that one could conceivably describe to say there are some in the middle of this range where there could be an area of difficulty of judgment, I do not think most acts would have any difficulty of definition at all.

Q13 Baroness Stern: Do you consider that the broadness of this offence — it may not be tearing down posters but suppose it is breaking the windows in the Ministry of the Interior — is going to stop people discussing and debating what to do about trying to restore democracy in oppressive regimes?

Mr Clarke: In most cases it is a question of establishing rather than restoring democracy in the world at the moment because the striking feature of the world over my lifetime has been that, over whole swathes of the world, eastern and central Europe, southern Europe, South Africa, southern Africa, Latin America, central America, a democratic regime is now far more commonplace than was the case 35 years ago. I certainly think it is perfectly reasonable to have discussions about the right way to make change in any given circumstance but then you say to me what is my attitude to inciting changes in terrorist methods and my attitude is against it. I think the law should be against it.

By Jon Ungoed-Thomas writing in the Times Online

HAZEL BLEARS, the Home Office minister, has been accused of misleading parliament by presenting ‘false’ intelligence over the threat posed by an alleged Islamic terrorist group. Blears told MPs this month that an Uzbek organisation, the Islamic Jihad Union (IJU), was a threat to British interests overseas and announced that it was to become a proscribed organisation.

MPs questioned the wisdom of banning a group with the stated aim of bringing democracy to Uzbekistan, a dictatorship with one of the worst human rights records in central Asia.

It was pointed out that in May Uzbek government troops killed about 700 people when they opened fire on crowds in the eastern city of Andijan following an uprising.

To make her case against the IJU, Blears told MPs that information on the group had been received directly from British intelligence sources which showed it to have been responsible for a series of bombings in Uzbekistan in March 2004.

Her account was accepted at the time by MPs but has now been challenged by Craig Murray, who was British ambassador in Uzbekistan until 2004.

He said that while he was ambassador he had warned the British government over accounts of bomb attacks connected to the IJU. He suspected they may have been concocted by the Uzbek government to justify local police killing a number of dissidents.

‘The official accounts were not credible,’ he said. ‘I went to one of the sites where a suicide bomber was meant to have launched an attack. It was a triangular courtyard and not one of the windows was blown out and there was no sign of significant damage.

‘I sent a telegram to London ‘ copied to the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) in MI5, to the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence ‘ about the inconsistencies of the accounts.

‘JTAC agreed with my assessment that the official version of events was not credible. I am amazed to find it being repeated in the House of Commons by Hazel Blears.’

Murray said an organisation calling itself IJU also claimed responsibility in 2004 for attacks on the Israeli and American embassies, but there was no convincing evidence that such a group existed.

The former ambassador was squeezed out of his post by the Foreign Office after criticising the human rights record of the Uzbek government. He says MI6 has no staff in central Asia and was relying on information from other sources ‘ possibly the Uzbek government itself.

MPs were concerned at the inclusion of IJU when its name first appeared on the list of banned groups. Blears was repeatedly questioned in parliament whether it was right to ban the organisation.

Adam Price, the Plaid Cymru MP, said: ‘Should we not tread very carefully before proscribing an organisation that has less blood on its hands than a government with whom we still maintain diplomatic relations?’ Blears assured MPs she had taken a ‘particular look’ at the IJU. She said she was satisfied that it posed a threat and cited the attacks in 2004.

A Home Office spokeswoman said Charles Clarke, the home secretary, who took the final decision to ban the IJU, had been provided with a detailed intelligence assessment.

‘IJU is a proscribed organisation by the United Nations and there was a clear case for the government to follow suit,’ she said. Blears had presented accurate information to parliament and was drawing on the ‘full intelligence picture’.

Before the House of Lords this week the government has been arguing for the right to act on intelligence obtained by torture abroad. Channel 4 has obtained the statement to the Law Lords by the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Butler. In effect she argues that torture works. It foiled the famous ricin plot.

She omits to mention that no more ricin was found than is the naturally occurring base level in your house or mine ‘ or indeed that no poison of any kind was found. Nor does she recall that there has never been a successful large scale poisoning with ricin. But let us leave that for now.

She argues, in effect, that we need to get intelligence from foreign security services, to fight terrorism. And if they torture, so what? Her chief falsehood is our pretence that we don’t know what happens in their dungeons. We do. And it is a dreadful story. Manningham-Butler is so fastidious she even avoids using the word ‘Torture’ at all in her evidence. Let alone the reality to which she turns such a carefully blind eye.

Uzbekistan is one of those security services from whose ‘friendly liaison’ services we obtained information. And I will tell you what torture means. It means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle in both vagina and anus, and who died after ten days of agony. It means the old man suspended by wrist shackles from the ceiling while his children were beaten to a pulp before his eyes. It means the man whose fingernails were pulled before his face was beaten and he was immersed to his armpits in boiling liquid. It means the eighteen year old whose knees and elbows were smashed, his hand immersed in boiling liquid until the skin came away and the flesh started to peel from the bone, before the back of his skull was stove in.

These are all real cases from the Uzbek security services which we viewed as friendly liaison, and from which we obtained regular intelligence, in the Uzbek case via the CIA. A month ago that liaison relationship was stopped ‘ not by us, but by the Uzbeks. But as Manningham-Buller sets out, we continue to maintain our position as customer to torturers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and many other places.

The key point is that none of the above Uzbek victims were terrorists at all. The great majority of those who suffer torture at the hands of these regimes are not terrorists, but political opponents. And the scale of this torture is vast. In Uzbekistan alone thousands, not hundreds, of innocent men, women and children suffer torture every year. Across Manningham-Buller’s web of friendly intelligence agencies, the number may reach tens of thousands. Can our security really be based on such widespread inhumanity, or is that not part of the grievance that feeds terrorism? Every year the Uzbek government kills many times more innocent people than would realistically have died, even if someone had been able to scrape ricin out of their saucepan. Do those deaths not matter?

How many foreign Muslim lives is one British life worth?

These other governments know that our security services lap up information from their torture chambers. This practical condoning more than cancels out any weasel words on human rights which the Foreign Office may issue.

In fact, the case for the efficacy of torture intelligence is not nearly as clear-cut as Manningham-Buller makes out. Much dross comes out of the torture chambers. History should tell us that under torture people would choke out an admission that they had joined their neighbours in flying on broomsticks with cats. The narrative we get is the precise narrative that the foreign intelligence agency wishes us to hear. They often have their own agenda to plug.

A final thought. Manningham-Buller is arguing from the efficiency of torture in preventing a terrorist plot. If that argument is accepted, then in logic there is no reason to rely on foreign intermediaries. Why don’t we do our own torturing at home? James VI and I abolished torture ‘ New Labour are making the first attempt in English courts to justify Government use of torture information. Why stop there? Why can’t the agencies work over terrorist suspects?

I seem to recall that we tried that approach with the Birmingham 6 and the Guildford 4, and look where that got us.

The Security Services want us to be able to use information from torture. That should come as no surprise. From Sir Thomas Walsingham on, the profession attracts people not squeamish about the smell of seared flesh from the branding iron. That is why we have a judiciary to protect us. I pray that they do.

Craig Murray

Channel 4 News has published a MI5 statement on the use of information extracted by torture.

Channel 4 News has obtained evidence from the boss of MI5, submitted to the House of Lords, which lawyers say makes the claim that ‘torture works’ in obtaining evidence against suspected terrorists.

Eliza Manningham-Buller gave her submission to hearing on the use of torture to obtain evidence.

“In some cases, it may be apparent to the Agencies that the intelligence has been obtained from individuals in detention (“detainee reporting”), though, even then, the Agencies will often not know the location or details of detention. ”

“… experience proves that detainee reporting can be accurate and may enable lives to be saved.”

Citing a specific case, Manningham-Buller said;

“No inquiries were made of … the precise circumstances that attended their questioning of [Mohammed] Meguerba. In any event, questioning of Algerian liaison about their methods of questioning detainees would almost certainly have been rebuffed and at the same time would have damaged the relationship to the detriment of our ability to counter international terrorism.”

The full document can be read and downloaded here: Statement of Elizabeth Manningham Buller (pdf).

The news report can be watched here

By David Lister writing in the Times online

WITH her year-round tan, long blonde hair and designer clothes, Sally Cameron does not look like a threat to national security. But the 34-year-old property developer has joined the ranks of Britain’s most unlikely terrorist suspects after being held for hours for trespassing on a cycle path.

Ms Cameron was being hailed yesterday as Scotland’s answer to Walter Wolfgang, the 82-year-old heckler manhandled out of the Labour Party conference last month. She was arrested under the Terrorism Act for walking along a cycle path in the harbour area of Dundee.

Yesterday, after receiving a letter from the Tayside procurator fiscal’s office informing her that she would not be prosecuted, Ms Cameron said: ‘It is utterly ridiculous that such an inoffensive person as myself should be subject to such heavy-handed treatment.’

She was walking from her office in Dundee to her home in the suburb of Broughty Ferry when she was arrested under new anti-terrorist legislation and held for four hours.

She said: ‘I’ve been walking to work every morning for months and months to keep fit. One day, I was told by a guard on the gate that I couldn’t use the route any more because it was solely a cycle path and he said, if I was caught doing it again, I’d be arrested.

‘The next thing I knew, the harbour master had driven up behind me with a megaphone, saying, ‘You’re trespassing, please turn back’. It was totally ridiculous. I started laughing and kept on walking. Cyclists going past were also laughing.

‘But then two police cars roared up beside me and cut me off, like a scene from Starsky and Hutch, and officers told me I was being arrested under the Terrorism Act. The harbour master was waffling on and (saying that), because of September 11, I would be arrested and charged.’

Ms Cameron, who said that at one stage one of the officers asked her to stop laughing, described the incident as ‘like a scene from the movie Erin Brockovich, with all the dock workers cheering me and telling me to give them hell’. She said: ‘I was told that the cycle path was for cyclists only, as if walkers and not cyclists were the only ones likely to plant bombs. There are no signs anywhere saying there are to be no pedestrians.

‘They took me to the police station and held me for several hours before charging me and releasing me.’

She said that she was particularly galled by the letter from the procurator fiscal’s office, which said that she would not be prosecuted even though ‘the evidence is sufficient to justify bringing you before the court on this criminal charge’.

Keith Berry, the harbour master at Forth Ports Dundee, said yesterday that Ms Cameron had been seen as a ‘security risk’. Speaking about the incident, which took place in May, he said: ‘We contacted the police in regards to this matter because the woman was in a secure area which forbids people walking. It was seen as a security risk. We were following guidelines in requirement with the port security plan set up by the Government.’

A spokesman for Forth Ports said: ‘We will robustly prosecute anyone who breaches these new security measures because they have been introduced by the Government and we are obliged to enforce them.’

On 13 October the House of Commons debated new government anti-terrorist measures being rushed through the house, including the proscription of 15 terrorist organisations. There was little time for debate and no opportunity to vote individually on which organisations should be banned.

I am not, in a practical sense, concerned by the proscription of the Islamic Jihad Union. The evidence that this organisation exists at all is extremely tenuous, and if it does it is almost certainly the fruit of an Uzbek agent provocateur operation. I am greatly concerned by the glib repetition of Karimov propaganda by British ministers.

Craig Murray

13 Oct 2005

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Liberal Democrat Members do not take substantive issue with the substance of the order, although we have some reservations, to which I shall turn. As my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said in business questions earlier, we have strong reservations about the manner in which the Government have introduced these measures. Introducing an order listing 15 specified organisations in a circumstance where debate is limited and there is no opportunity for amendment could have put the House in a very difficult situation. As it happens, we do not have any substantive information that would contradict the information that the Minister has helpfully supplied in her letter, but that is a happy circumstance and would not necessarily apply in every case. When I first approached this matter, I shared the unease that was expressed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) about the listing of the Islamic Jihad Union. Indeed, I continue to feel uneasy about the inclusion of that group among the list of 15. If it had been the subject of a specific order, there would have been greater opportunity for the House to scrutinise its inclusion.

I hope that nobody outside the House will be in any doubt about the view that we take of the Karimov regime, which is entirely despicable and despotic. The Minister’s PPS, the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Stephen Pound), recently did a brave and laudable thing in going there and bringing to the attention of the regime the revulsion that we all feel. I know that the hon. Gentleman and I share a concern about the practice of the Uzbek Government with regard to the operation of the death penalty. The Government’s signals to the Uzbek regime have not always been helpful. I am thinking especially of their treatment of my old friend, the former ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, who has done us all a great service in graphically highlighting the appalling human rights record of the Uzbekistan Government.

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): I question the Minister specifically on the Uzbek organisation that appears in the list. According to the right hon. Lady’s own note, it has as its principal aim the holding of elections in Uzbekistan. It does not organise or recruit in the United Kingdom. It was involved in the Andijan uprising in May, which left hundreds of civilians dead. They were killed not by the Islamic Jihad Union but by the brutality of the Karimov regime that it is trying to overthrow. Should we not tread very carefully before proscribing an organisation that has less blood on its hands than a Government with whom we still maintain diplomatic relations?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I took a particular look at the organisation to which he refers. The indication, given the information, was that it was perhaps less active here than many of the other organisations that are set out in the explanatory memorandum. I have been assured that the group would cause a threat to British interests overseas in particular. It is always open to any of us to seek to weigh the balance between the actions of one group or another. As for the organisations that are set out in the list, I am saying that the information of the security and intelligence services has been sufficient, when scrutinised carefully by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for him to reach the decision that proscription is appropriate. I will deal with the provisions on appeal, which are extensive for any organisation that finds itself proscribed.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): Reading the note as carefully as I could, it appeared to me that in respect of the Islamic Jihad Union’I would be grateful if the right hon. Lady were to clarify the matter’it was not its resistance to the Karimov regime that was causing the Government difficulties, but the fact that it was associated with direct acts of terrorism in third countries such as Kazakhstan. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case?

Hazel Blears: There is a range of activities that all these organisations will be undertaking. We have attempted in the explanatory memoranda to outline, as far as we can, the activities that have taken place. As for the Islamic Jihad Union, in March 2004 there was an explosion in Uzbekistan that killed nine people who were involved in the construction of portable improvised explosive devices. Over the following three days, there was a series of shoot-outs and suicide bombings that were carried out in Tashkent, Bokhara and Uzbekistan, leaving about 25 dead and 35 wounded. I also asked about the impact on British interests to satisfy myself that the order was an appropriate way forward.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has carefully scrutinised the information that is available to him. We are being told by the security services that the organisations on the list are of particular concern at this time. That is why the decision has been reached.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): I want to return to the Islamic Jihad Union. It is the organisation that causes some of us concerns because of the country in which it is clearly operating. Can the Minister reassure me that her primary channels of information come from British intelligence and not from Uzbek sources?

Hazel Blears: The information that we receive is from our own security and intelligence services. Obviously, we have very good relationships with intelligence services throughout the world, and it is right that we should also take account of that information. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in his careful scrutiny of the evidence available to him, will have taken into account a range of different sources in relation to each of these decisions.

Adam Price: Have the Government either sought or received intelligence from the Uzbek Government on this matter?

Hazel Blears: I can give hon. Members the reassurance that they are seeking, as the case on the IJU is based on our own intelligence.

Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South) (Lab): Do other EU countries include the IJU on a proscribed list? Concerns about the Uzbek Government would prompt many of us to prefer to see them on the list rather than groups that oppose them, given that they have carried out acts of cruelty and torture against their own citizens. Have the British Government received representations from the Uzbek Government and other Governments about the inclusion of organisations on the list? It can be argued that many of them display anti-western attitudes, so what representations have been received from the United States?

Hazel Blears: The IJU is proscribed by both the US and the UN, so other countries have concerns about that organisation. As I said, the intelligence on which the Home Secretary reached his decision was from our own sources, so I hope that that reassures Members that the matter has been scrutinised properly and that this is a proper decision. I shall come on to the appeal provisions, which are robust. If groups feel that they have been wrongly proscribed they have recourse to a review.

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Before you come on to that point, I would like to ask you another question about the Uzbeks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady must correct her use of language. She is not asking questions of me, but of her right hon. Friend the Minister.

Helen Goodman: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I am sure that what the Minister said about the IJU is correct, but after the uprising in Andijan people were massacred by the Government, and others were tortured into saying that they belonged to radical Islamist groups. How will the Minister make a judgment in practice about whether people truly belong to the IJU, which is to be proscribed, or have simply been tortured into claiming that they do?

Hazel Blears: If an organisation is proscribed, anyone seeking either to become a member or to give it support would be guilty of a criminal offence. Prosecution would be a matter for the courts, and it would have to be brought properly. Evidence would be tested and there would be an opportunity for all the issues raised by my hon. Friend to be explored within the criminal justice system, as would happen with any other kind of offence. There would be an opportunity to discover whether evidence had not been obtained properly or did not stand up under scrutiny or cross-examination. I accept the points made by several hon. Members that other people may have carried out acts that we would all find abhorrent. However, we are talking about whether particular organisations pose such a threat that they should be proscribed. The fact that other organisations may be involved in other activities does not mean that the listed organisations should not be subject to a proscription order.

Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con): I reassure the Minister that the official Opposition will support the order. These are difficult areas, and hon. Members have highlighted the point that it is no light matter for this House to proscribe organisations that may want to set themselves up in this county or that are already operating in this country, if they can be shown to have legitimate aims.

I suggest that a common-sense distinction can easily be made between organisations that seek political change in their country’they might even support freedom fighters’and organisations that support terrorism. The random slaughter of innocent individuals can play no part in the process of trying to bring about political change. The hallmark of the various organisations identified by the Government is that they have engaged in that very activity.

I am mindful of hon. Members’ comments about the Islamic Jihad Union. The Government of Uzbekistan undoubtedly leave a great deal to be desired and may properly be described as “a tyrannical regime”. The fact that opposition to that regime may manifest itself outside the law is perhaps understandable, but that it should take the form of random suicide bombings that kill innocent civilians must be unacceptable. If this House does not send out a signal that it considers such behaviour unacceptable, we are on dangerous ground.

By James Kirkup writing in The Scotsman

Key points

‘ Tony Blair is facing questions over MI5’s backing of the Terrorism Bill

‘ The Bill will allow suspects to be detained for up to 90 days without charge

‘ According to one official, MI5 made no request to extent the detention period

Key quote

“Given this government’s record of making claims of this kind about the position of the intelligence and Security Services, I am extremely sceptical that the Security Service has made the recommendation being suggested,” – Dominic Grieve, shadow attorney general

TONY Blair and the minister in charge of counter-terrorism are facing questions about whether they misled the public over MI5’s backing for the government’s controversial new Terrorism Bill.

Opposition MPs have challenged the government to prove claims by the Prime Minister and HazelBlears, the Home Office minister overseeing the bill, that the Security Service has recommended a crucial part of the legislation.

In an echo of previous controversies over the veracity of government statements about the intelligence and Security Services – such as the row over the “sexing- up” of intelligence over Iraqi weapons programmes – Whitehall insiders have cast grave doubt on claims made by Mr Blair and Ms Blears about the Security Service, also known as MI5.

The Terrorism Bill, published last week, would allow police officers to detain suspects without charge for up to 90 days. Under current law, suspects must be charged or released in 14 days.

The proposal has been criticised by opposition parties, civil rights groups and even the government’s own terror law watchdog.

Ministers, led by Mr Blair, say they have been convinced by arguments for the change made by senior police officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers has publicly called for the new rule.

On 5 August, before the bill was published, Mr Blair clearly suggested that MI5 was also backing the move. “We will also examine whether the necessary procedure can be brought about to give us a way of meeting the police and Security Service request that detention, pre-charge of terrorist suspects, be significantly extended,” the Prime Minister said at a Press conference.

And last week, on the day the bill was published, Ms Blears also said that the Security Service, had argued for the 90-day rule.

“The three-month period is what the police and Security Service say is necessary,” Ms Blears said last Wednesday at the Home Office.

In fact, The Scotsman has learned from credible Whitehall sources that MI5 has not given any such advice to ministers.

The police proposal for the 90-day rule was made at a Whitehall meeting of senior security officials in the wake of the 7 July suicide attacks on London.

According to one official who was briefed on the meeting, MI5 made no request for an extension in the detention period. Nor has the Security Service expressed a view on the need for the rule in its informal discussions with ministers since.

“MI5 were present at the conversations, but they made no recommendations on the detention period,” said a Whitehall official involved in the discussions. The 90-day proposal “was police-led. It originated only with the police”.

Security sources say that MI5 chiefs take the view that their service has no role in recommending specific policies to ministers.

The Security Service has not objected to the 90-day proposal, either. “They don’t object to it in any way, but it didn’t come from them and they’re not pushing for it – that’s not what they do,” said a Whitehall official. “It would not be accurate to say they have said it is necessary.”

Mr Blair’s comment remains on the Downing Street website.

The Prime Minister’s official spokesman declined to repeat the assertion that the Security Service had recommended the 90-day rule, confirming only that MI5 officials had been present at meetings to draw up the bill.

As for what, if any, advice MI5 had given, the spokesman said only: “We never comment on the advice of the Security Service.”

Ms Blears’ remark, made to a group of journalists at a Home Office briefing, was reported in several national newspapers last Thursday. The Home Office has not challenged the accuracy of those remarks.

Asked by The Scotsman to reiterate Ms Blears’ comments about the Security Service and the Terrorism Bill, the Home Office last night issued a statement that failed to back up the minister’s position.

“This extension is necessary as the police and law enforcement agencies have to take on increasingly complex and international terrorist organisations who make ever-greater use of new technology such as encrypted computers,” the department said.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, yesterday said he was “very concerned” that MI5’s position could have been misrepresented.

“Given this government’s record of making claims of this kind about the position of the intelligence and Security Services, I am extremely sceptical that the Security Service has made the recommendation being suggested,” he said.

“If there is any evidence to support this, it must be published, if not in parliament, then to the Intelligence and Security Committee.”

Mark Oaten, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, agreed. “If the government is going to say that the Security Service is recommending this power, then they should publish the evidence to support that claim.”

“On something as fundamental and serious as this, the government should make available the advice of the Security Service before MPs debate the bill.”

Since August, Mr Blair has not suggested the new measures were recommended by MI5.

Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, has been even more reticent. He surprised MPs on the Home Affairs Committee last month when he admitted the Security Service had not actually advised ministers that foreign-born “hate preachers” should be deported to their home countries.

By Martin Bright writing in The Observer

The Foreign Office has effectively killed the publication of a controversial fly-on-the-wall memoir of the Iraq war by one of Britain’s most senior diplomats, which would have called the conflict ‘politically illegitimate’.

In a move that brought immediate accusations of censorship from its author, The Observer can reveal that Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations during the preparations for war in 2003 and the Prime Minister’s envoy to Iraq following the war, has been blocked in his efforts to reveal ‘certain truths’ about the conflict. He was uniquely well-placed to provide the inside story of the conflict and its aftermath.

But this weekend his publishers in Britain and America were set to pull the plug on the book after the Foreign Office demanded drastic cuts and the removal of references to conversations between Greenstock and the major players in the conflict, including Tony Blair and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.

Greenstock told The Observer he was considering other ways of getting his story out: ‘My personal view is that it might be worth saying what I want to say rather than being censored to blandness.’

He refused to elaborate on what this might entail, but opposition politicians last night demanded that Parliament be allowed to question the former ambassador about the contents of his memoirs.

Greenstock, now director of the international affairs institution, the Ditchley Foundation, said it was a pity that the government’s culture of secrecy had prevented him from putting his experiences on the historical record.

Civil service rules prevent senior public servants from writing their memoirs without first submitting them for official approval. The Observer understands that the first two-thirds of Greenstock’s work, The Costs of War, were submitted to the Foreign Office in the spring, when officials indicated that there were only likely to be minor changes.

However, when the final manuscript was delivered in the summer, Downing Street was said to be ‘deeply shocked’ by reports of private ministerial conversations and the deliberations of the UN Security Council. It is now thought the Foreign Office has gone back through the book and demanded further cuts.

The American publisher, Public Affairs, has already removed the book from its online catalogue, and Random House in Britain is now thought unlikely to publish a watered-down version.

Extracts seen by The Observer show that Greenstock saw the conflict as ‘politically illegitimate, but militarily a startling success for the US-led coalition’. He said the decisions made to remove Saddam were ‘honourable’, but that the promise of the post-war period had been ‘dissipated in poor policy analysis and narrow-minded execution’.

In the catalogue entry, now withdrawn, Greenstock wrote: ‘In the UK retired public officials do not normally write books on events still current. I am breaking that convention because the lessons drawn from the saga in Iraq are too important to leave until later.’ Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said Greenstock should be called before Parliament to discuss his book: ‘There is an opportunity here for one of the committees of the house, Foreign Affairs or Defence perhaps, to show its independence from the government by requesting Sir Jeremy to come before it.’

The new chair of the Foreign Affairs committee chair, Mike Gapes, said there had been no communication with Greenstock concerning his book.

A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: ‘The book is still under discussion in keeping with the proper procedures.’

Although Greenstock said he had not yet decided to defintively pull the plug on the book, he indicated that the cuts required by the Foreign Office would leave little substance to his memoirs.

Publishing sources said the book was highly unlikely to see the light of day while Blair was still Prime Minister

Nodira and I were visiting Oxford Street today for its ‘Street Party’, which convinced me how much nicer London would be were Oxford Street to be pedestrianised permanently. As we were passing one of the stages for the event, the announcer caught sight of Nadira, and went into a wonderful babble.

‘Look,’ he said, ‘That looks like the wife of that politician bloke from the TV programme. Yes it is her. Oh yes, and that’s him as well. Stood for MP. You know, the one who said Jack Straw’s a bastard!’

It was nice to hear that ring out across Oxford Street, and while the announcer may not have been too politically sophisticated, he had certainly grasped the main message.

Which was, of course, precisely the same message that Walter Wolfgang was trying to get across when the heavies came for him. As well as saying that Straw was talking nonsense, he called him a liar over the Iraq war. Straw of course is a liar, multiple times over. He lied about when the decision was taken to go to war ‘ we know from David Manning’s Downing Street memos that this was before September 11, not after. He lied about the legal advice. He lied to the Security Council ‘ in fact he handed over and defended a whole dossier of lies.

I had the great pleasure to call Straw a liar, twice, on national TV two weeks ago, with 1.4 million viewers. Straw lies when he says that the UK does not knowingly receive intelligence from torture ‘ which, as the excellent David Leigh of the Guardian pointed out, he has secretly admitted we do to the House of Commons intelligence committee. Mr Wolfgang achieved far more than me, but the public must be noticing that a theme is emerging. It is interesting to google ‘Jack Straw’ and ‘Liar’. One of the first things you find is that as Home Secretary he lied over the medical advice on Pinochet’s fitness to stand trial. There are plenty more examples.

The Wolfgang incident highlighted just how authoritarian Labour has become. It is not just that octogenarians get manhandled for indicating dissent. No-one was allowed to speak up for Mr Wolfgang’s viewpoint from the podium. There was no ‘Debate’ at a New Labour rally, any more than there was at Nuremberg when Mr Wolfgang escaped that persecution.

I had believed that, by becoming nominated as a parliamentary candidate for Blackburn, I would have the chance to debate with Jack Straw. But Jack controls Blackburnistan. Blackburn cathedral, Blackburn College and even BBC Radio 5 all held constituency candidates’ debates in which I was not allowed to participate, because Jack’s minders made clear I was not welcome. Jack said he would not take part if I did, and everyone gave in to him. So to a large extent I know how frustrated Mr Wolfgang feels.

Our foreign policy is built on lies. Thank God that people like Mr Wolfgang have the guts to challenge the increasing restrictions on our liberty to argue back. It is to our shame that it takes someone from the generation that already fought for freedom, to remind us of our duty.

Craig Murray

Evidence has emerged of Prime Minister Blair’s involvement in a secret Saudi trade mission and its link to the attempted deportation of anti-Saudi dissidents.

By David Leigh and Ewen MacAskill in The Guardian

“Tony Blair and John Reid, the defence secretary, have been holding secret talks with Saudi Arabia in pursuit of a huge arms deal worth up to ’40bn, according to diplomatic sources.

Mr Blair went to Riyadh on July 2, en route to Singapore, where Britain was bidding for the 2012 Olympics. Three weeks later, Mr Reid made a two-day visit, when he sought to persuade Prince Sultan, the crown prince, to re-equip his air force with the Typhoon, the European fighter plane of which the British arms company BAE has the lion’s share of manufacturing.

Defence, diplomatic and legal sources say negotiations are stalling because the Saudis are demanding three favours. These are that Britain should expel two anti-Saudi dissidents, Saad al-Faqih and Mohammed al-Masari; that British Airways should resume flights to Riyadh, currently cancelled through terrorism fears; and that a corruption investigation implicating the Saudi ruling family and BAE should be dropped. Crown prince Sultan’s son-in-law, Prince Turki bin Nasr, is at the centre of a “slush fund” investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

The Saudis have been trying for years to get their hands on Mr Faqih, who they say was involved in a plot to assassinate the recently enthroned King Abdullah. Mr Faqih, who has asylum, denies support for violence, and privately neither the Foreign Office nor the security services regard him as a danger to Britain. Mr Masari fled Saudi Arabia in 1994, and the Major government made an unsuccessful attempt to exile him to the Caribbean island of Dominica under pressure from BAE.

The Typhoon, currently entering service with the RAF, has a price of more than ’45m a plane. Saudi Arabia previously bought a fleet of its predecessor Tornados from Britain in the Al Yamamah arms deal. Mike Turner, the chief executive of BAE, Britain’s biggest arms company, was quoted in Flight International magazine on June 21, just before Mr Blair’s Riyadh trip, saying: “The objective is to get the Typhoon into Saudi Arabia. We’ve had ’43bn from Al Yamamah over the last 20 years and there could be another ’40bn.”

There is concern within the Foreign Office at the apparent partiality of No 10 to BAE’s commercial interests. Jonathan Powell, Mr Blair’s chief of staff, and his brother Charles, Lady Thatcher’s former adviser and now a BAE consultant, are believed to be in favour of the deal.”

By David Leigh in The Guardian

The controversy over the UK’s complicity in torture is likely to be revived today when the BBC screens footage of a former British ambassador describing Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, as a liar. Mr Straw is shown in a BBC2 documentary due for transmission this evening denying any knowledge that Britain uses intelligence gained by torture. But Craig Murray, who was ousted as ambassador to Uzbekistan, responds by saying: “He’s simply lying.”

The programme comes at a sensitive time for the BBC, which was recently forced to rebuke the veteran presenter John Humphrys for making an after-dinner speech suggesting that some Labour politicians tell lies.

In November 2004, Mr Straw admitted privately to MPs: “There are certainly circumstances where we may get intelligence from a liaison partner where we know … that their practices are well below the line. It does not follow that, if it is extracted under torture, it is automatically untrue.” The documentary shows Mr Straw six months later, during the election campaign in Blackburn, denying that Britain uses intelligence gained through torture. Mr Murray stood against Mr Straw in the election on an anti-torture platform.

From The Guardian

The retreat from the rule of law – despite the enactment of the Human Rights Act – has been the deepest flaw of the Blair administration. Some retreat on civil rights was obviously necessary in the wake of this summer’s terrorist attacks. But as an eminent QC noted after the bombings: “It is all too easy to respond in a way that undermines commitment to our most deeply held values and convictions and cheapens our right to call ourselves a civilised nation.” Yesterday, towards the end of an interview on the BBC Today programme in which he unequivocally defended this week’s proposed strengthening of anti-terrorist measures, the prime minister was read a part of the QC’s opinion and reminded that the author was his wife, Cherie Booth. Expressing gratitude for the reminder, he conceded: “It’s important that we don’t respond in a way that damages the very fabric of our democracy.”

Here are three ways fundamental democratic principles are being quite unnecessarily damaged by this week’s moves. First, free speech. Under the proposed law anyone who “glorifies, exalts or celebrates” any terrorist act committed over the past 20 years could face a sentence of up to five years. Rarely, even within notorious conspiracy legislation, has there been such a broadly drafted clause. What makes it even more unnecessary is that the bill already tightens up the incitement to terrorism offence. If the test has to be overt endorsement of terrorism – as officials suggested this week – why not prosecute them under the direct incitement clause? More absurd still, the home secretary will be empowered to go even further and draw up a list of historical terrorist acts which if “glorified” could mean a criminal act had been committed. Consider the huge distractions such a list would generate, when all efforts ought to be concentrated on effective moves to pre-empt terrorism.

Second – which both opposition parties are rightly opposing – is a clause extending the right to detain suspects for questioning for up to three months. Remember, we are talking about suspects. Many will turn out to be innocent. The current 14 days was only recently introduced. Even at the height of the IRA campaign in the 1970s and 1980s, only seven-day detentions were allowed. Three months would be the equivalent of a six-month prison sentence given current 50% remission rules. Clearly the home secretary had doubts himself. An early draft of a letter he sent to shadow spokesmen was leaked yesterday. It included the line – “I believe there is room for debate as to whether we should go as far as three months” – that was deleted from the final version. Charles Clarke is not going to win the cross-party support which he was rightly seeking to build if he sticks to this proposal. He should drop it now.

The third threat to fundamental rights concerns the detention of seven Algerians earlier this week. They were alleged to have been involved in a plot to spread ricin, a deadly toxin. But the substances the police claimed were ricin contained no trace of the poison. Four who faced trial were found not guilty and the proceedings against the other three dropped, but they have still been declared by the home secretary as “a threat to national security”. There is no right for a foreigner in Britain to remain in this country once declared “non conducive to public good” save for two important caveats: that deportation does not lead to either torture or capital punishment. Algeria has a notorious reputation, documented by Amnesty International, for ill treatment and torture of prisoners. Our courts are bound to uphold these defences, set out in the Human Rights Act, and refuse their deportation to Algeria. The courts should stand firm – despite pressures from the prime minister -and uphold the rule of law. Our values, as Cherie Booth asserted, need protection.

In the Home Affairs Committee hearings Charles Clarke admits that there is no intelligence assessment to suggest that his plans for deportation will reduce the threat of terrorism. This admission follows concerns about the risk of torture for people being deported to countries with a track record of abuse. The hearing was also told of the first British citizen to be subject to executive detention without trial (control orders).

JAMES KIRKUP, writing in the Scotsman looks at what was said.

“MI5 HAS not told ministers that deporting alleged Islamic extremists will significantly reduce the threat of terrorist attacks, Charles Clarke admitted yesterday, prompting suggestions the government’s policy is driven more by politics than genuine security concerns.

The Home Secretary’s revelation came as he gave evidence to a committee of MPs investigating anti-terrorism laws.

The Home Secretary was asked by Janet Dean, a Labour MP, if he had been advised by MI5 that deporting foreign preachers would significantly reduce the risk of bombings.

“It does not reflect specific security service advice in the way that you put your question,” Mr Clarke replied.

A senior Whitehall official later confirmed that MI5 had not been involved in the formulation of the deportation policy, and would only become involved if asked to provide a security assessment of individuals facing expulsion. The deportation plan was conceived in the Home Office, the official said.

Mr Clarke told the committee that in the wake of the London bomb attacks, the “climate” around terrorism had changed, which explained new government policies.

But, questioned about officials’ decision to lower their threat assessment in the months before the 7 July attack, he insisted that the level of danger had not risen and that intelligence did not suggest any specific threat facing Britain.

John Denham, the former Labour Home Office minister who chairs the committee, said afterwards that Mr Clarke’s answers suggested a government policy driven by the desire simply to reflect public opinion and not sensible precautions.

“The implication is that the decision to deport is based not on the actual threat but on the change of mood and atmosphere since the bombings.

Mr Denham pointed out that earlier this year the government had argued that its “control orders” curbing individual freedoms were an adequate safeguard against terrorism.

Since the London bombings, Mr Denham said, the government’s stance had changed, “even though there has been no change in the threat”.

He added: “Some of the policies from the government appear to be reflective only of the need to be seen to be doing something.”

So far, the government has not successfully deported anyone suspected of encouraging militancy, though officials have drawn up a list of several likely targets for expulsion.

Nine of the people on that list were previously interned at Belmarsh jail in London, then released and subject to “control orders.” Those orders have been allowed to lapse pending deportation proceedings, Mr Clarke revealed yesterday. He also said that the first control order has been imposed on an unnamed British citizen, last Monday.

There are now three people in Britain under control orders, among them believed to be Abu Qatada, a preacher who is linked to Osama bin Laden and was arrested last month.

Mr Clarke said he had refused three requests to modify terms of the control orders, which impose a loose form of house arrest on suspects, including a curfew and restrictions on who they can speak to and meet.

Mr Clarke also said “hundreds” of people in Britain remained under surveillance.”

BBC online report on a significant stengthening of Presicent Bush’s executive powers in the so called war on terror

“The US government has the power to detain a man being held as an enemy combatant without charges, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The court overturned an earlier ruling that Jose Padilla, accused of planning an attack with a “dirty bomb”, should either be charged or freed.

Mr Padilla, a convert to Islam, has been under arrest since 2002.

He is one of only two US citizens designated as enemy combatants. The other one, Yaser Hamdi, has been freed.

The three-judge panel ruled that President George Bush had the power to detain Mr Padilla, based on the resolution authorising military force which was approved by Congress in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks.

“The exceedingly important question before us is whether the president of the United States possesses the authority to detain militarily a citizen of this country who is closely associated with al-Qaeda,” the Virginia court ruling said.

“We conclude that the president does possess such authority,” added the ruling written by Judge Michael Luttig, who is seen as one of Mr Bush’s possible nominations for the Supreme Court.

A federal judge had ruled earlier this year that Mr Padilla could not be held indefinitely without charge.

Lawyers have argued that the president is exceeding his authority by denying him access to lawyers and courts.

But the government says such detentions are necessary to prevent terrorism in the US. A further appeal in the case is possible.”

As reported by the Washington Post:

“Attorneys for Padilla and a host of civil liberties organizations blasted the detention as illegal and said it could lead to the military being allowed to hold anyone, from protesters to people who check out what the government considers the wrong books from the library.”

By Aine Gallagher writing in Reuters AltertNet

European Union states may have to accept an erosion of some civil liberties if their citizens are to be protected from organised crime and terrorism, EU president Britain told the European Parliament on Wednesday.

Interior Minister Charles Clarke told EU lawmakers the right to life outweighed concerns over invasion of privacy and warned judges in European courts that if they failed to recognise this, the European Convention of Human Rights may need to be changed.

“It seems to me we have to give the same rights to those humans who want to travel without being blown up on an underground train,” Clarke earlier told reporters in London.

“If the judges don’t understand that message and don’t take decisions which reflect where the people of the continent want to be, then the conclusion will be that politicians … will be saying we have got to have a change in this regime.”

Clarke hosts a two-day meeting of justice and home affairs ministers from the 25 EU states on Thursday. They will discuss proposals to log and keep records of telephone calls, email and Internet use to help police track down terrorists.

Ministers will also meet telecommunications industry and law enforcement officials to find a way to reconcile concerns about the cost of the proposed measures, which industry sources in Germany say could run into hundreds of millions of euro.

Since al Qaeda militants attacked the United States in 2001, bombers have hit transport systems in two European capitals, killing 191 commuters in Madrid last year and 52 in London in July.

“THE RIGHT NOT TO BE BLOWN UP”

Clarke’s tough stance on human rights drew criticism from the EU assembly’s Liberal Democrats and Greens.

“We do not agree … that the human rights of the victims are more important than the human rights of the terrorists,” said Graham Watson, British leader of the Liberal Democrats.

“Human rights are indivisible. Freedom and security are not alternatives, they go hand-in-hand … Much as the public may dislike it, suspected terrorists have rights.”

Watson qouted criticism by human rights lawyer Cherie Booth — wife of British Prime Minister Tony Blair — of Britain’s hardline anti-terror measures.

“To … invoke a form of summary justice would in the words of the lawyer Cherie Booth cheapen our right to call ourselves a civilised society,” he said.

EU lawmakers, sticklers for civil rights, have strongly criticised Britain’s drive for a quick deal among EU governments on the data retention plans because it would deprive them of a say on the measures, with some threatening a legal challenge.

Earlier, Clarke told reporters in London there was an impression the EU was not doing enough to tackle some of its citizens’ main concerns over serious organised crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.

He said Britain’s presidency would seek to redress the balance between an individual’s rights and national security by giving authorities more access to information for intelligence.

Law-enforcement agencies needed surveillance cameras, passports and visas should include internationally consistent biometric data, and phone companies should retain details of all calls made for a year, including unanswered ones.

“I say the doubts about civil liberties of a person who’s being photographed on a CCTV camera … or a person who has made a phone call to another person are small civil liberties in comparison with the overall civil liberty of the right not to be blown up,” he said.

Clarke’s comments reflect a frustration felt by the British government that the rights of suspects and defendants, backed by UK courts, were hindering the fight against terrorism and were taking precedence over the rights of ordinary citizens.

“The judges both in my country and in the European Court need to understand that the people of Europe … will not for a long time accept that action cannot be taken against people who are offering a real threat to our way of life because of human rights considerations,” he said.

With religious ‘extremists’ being targeted by the British government for exclusion and deportation, how would Pat Robertson be treated if he turned up at Heathrow? As yet there appears to have been no statement from Charles Clarke on this important test of his new approach. Maybe the ‘Pat Robertson test’ should now be added to Ken Livingstone’s Nelson Mandela test of such legislation?

The question of Pat’s visa is raised by Profindpages

“We wonder how this new list would apply to Pat Robertson in the U.S. who went on TV and said that the U.S. government should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Isn’t this “Advocating violence in support of particular beliefs”? Will Robertson be allowed into Britain after this, or does this new rule only apply to Muslims who might promote hatred?”

Why Pat Robertson won’t be treated as a terrorist in the US is discussed on the Media Monitors Network

“At the very least, Robertson should be charged under hate-speech laws. But such laws are weak in the United States, and many Americans fear the idea of hate-speech laws. So radio and television broadcasters continue spewing hate and dishonest claims in the exalted name of free speech.”

If there is anyone wanting to find out more about the man himself then Pat Robertson’s own site can be found here

Amnesty International respond to the anouncement of the UK government’s new proposal to allow deportation of foreign nationals. Their full press release can be found here.

“The new measures, proposed today by the United Kingdom (UK) government, targeting non-nationals considered to be threatening public order, national security and the rule of law, violate basic human rights and the UK’s international obligations, Amnesty International said today.

The Home Secretary Charles Clarke ordered an immediate review of his powers to exclude and deport non-British citizens suspected of “justifying or glorifying terrorism, seeking to provoke terrorist acts, fomenting other serious criminal activity, fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence. A global database will list foreigners who engage in different forms of “unacceptable behaviour”, such as radical preaching and publishing websites and articles intended to foment “terrorism”, to be vetted automatically before entering the UK.

“The vagueness and breadth of the definition of ‘unacceptable behaviour’ and ‘terrorism’ can lead to further injustice and risk further undermining human rights protection in the UK. Instead of strengthening security, they will further alienate vulnerable sections of society,” Halya Gowan, Europe and Cental Asia Programme Deputy Director at Amnesty International, said.

“The right not to be subjected to torture or other ill-treatment, or to be sent to a country where there is a risk of such treatment, applies to everybody, irrespective of whatever offence they may have committed. The so-called ‘diplomatic assurances’ that the UK government seeks when expelling people to countries where they may be at risk of being tortured are a clear violation of international law.”

“If the UK authorities reasonably suspect people of having committed certain criminal offences, their immediate duty is to bring criminally recognizable charges against them and promptly try them according to international fair trial standards instead of off loading them to a third country where they may be tortured.”

Amnesty International is concerned that the procedure to be used to process deportations or exclude people who may “threaten public order and national security” may once again include the use of secret evidence at secret hearings.

“The UK authorities will be violating the rights of non-British nationals if they seek to deport them or prevent them from entering the country by not allowing them adequate defence in the course of secret proceedings,” Halya Gowan said.

“The new measures are similar to those brought under the now repealed part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 in that they are discriminatory and arbitrary.”

Amnesty International has unconditionally and unreservedly condemned the attacks in London on 7 July 2005, and has called for those allegedly responsible to be brought to justice. The organization also considers that any measures the UK authorities take with the stated intention to protect people from repetitions of such crimes must be consistent with international human rights law and standards.

“Security and human rights are not alternatives; they go hand in hand. Respect for human rights is the route to security, not the obstacle to it.”

Tony Blair’s recent statements on deportation and torture receive further criticism, this time from the the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.

The original UN press release can be found here.

Detailed information on the work of the Special Rapporteur on Torture is available here.

“The Special Rapporteur on questions relating to torture strongly condemns all acts of terrorism, including the bombings which took place in London on 7 July 2005 and the subsequent attempted attacks and expresses his sympathy to the Govenrment of the United Kingdom and the families of all the victims.

The Special Rapporteur, an independent expert appointed by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, would like to refer to the Prime Minister Blair’s statement of 5 August 2005, where he indicated that from now on, due to changed circumstances of national security, the United Kingdom will deport persons to their home countries even in cases where these countries have been found to violate international minimum standards, including the absolute prohibition of torture, in the past. The Prime Minister argues that memoranda of understanding containing what he calls “necessary assurances from the countries to which we will return the deportees, against their being subject to torture or ill-treatment contrary to Article 3″ constitute a sufficient guarantee to avoid violation of article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. On 10 August 2005 a first memorandum was signed with Jordan. The Prime Minister also indicated that the conclusion of other memoranda is on-going.

The Special Rapporteur fears that the plan of the United Kingdom to request diplomatic assurances for the purpose of expelling persons in spite of a risk of torture reflects a tendency in Europe to circumvent the international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk that he or she might be subjected to torture. The fact that such assurances are sought shows in itself that the sending country perceives a serious risk of the deportee being subjected to torture or ill treatment upon arrival in the receiving country. Diplomatic assurances are not an appropriate tool to eradicate this risk.

Most of the states with which memoranda might presumably be concluded are parties to the United Nations Convention against Torture (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen) and/or to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Afghanistan, Algeria, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Tunisia and Yemen) and are therefore already obliged vis-a-vis other States parties (including the United Kingdom) not to resort to torture or ill treatment under any circumstances. Such memoranda of understanding therefore do not provide any additional protection to the deportees.

The Special Rapporteur calls on Governments to observe the principle of non-refoulement scrupulously and to not expel any person to frontiers or territories where they run a serious risk of torture and ill treatment. In addition, the Special Rapporteur requests Governments to refrain from seeking diplomatic assurances and the conclusion of memoranda of understanding in order to circumvent their international obligation not to deport anybody if there is a serious risk of torture or ill treatment.”

A posting on Medialens looks at the historical background to Lord Liverpool, a politician referred to in a recent article on this site.

“Prime Minister Liverpool equated Parliamentary Reform with treason. At a peaceful and massive meeting – around 50-60,000 – in Manchester’s St. Peter’s Field in 1819, demanding Reform , troops attacked the assembly and killed nine men and two women, and wounded 400. This event became known as the “Peterloo Massacre’

Far from reviewing the error of his resistance to reforms, Liverpool responded to Peterloo by rushing in the Six Acts. This law forbade meetings of more than 50 people, extended the power of summary conviction by magistrates, made ‘blasphemous and seditious libel” a transportable offence, and placed a heavy tax on newspapers.

There is a parallel today. Blair’s government, instinctively authoritarian as was Liverpool’s, seizes on catastrophic events, resulting from his own criminal policy, to take repressive measures and rush in laws against freedom of speech.

Lord Liverpool’s henchman and foreign secretary from 1812-1822 was Lord Castlereagh, about whom the redoubtable poet Shelley wrote after Peterloo.

I met Murder on the way

He had a mask like Castlereagh.

His come-uppance was a bitter one. Deranged by power, Castlereagh suicided in 1822. Chroniclers record that on the news the Capital’s “mob” celebrated in the streets, and at his funeral cheered.

Something perhaps for Blair and his henchmen to ponder?”