| |
 |
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 |
Chatham Report: "In April 2004 the government accepted the proposal that the UK's International counter-terrorism policy should be focused on four mission areas:
1. Prevention
2. Pursuit
3. Protection
4. Preparedness.
These broad principles seem eminently sensible, but their implementation is problematic in particular areas. A key problem with regard to implementing
'Prevention' and 'Pursuit' is that the UK government has been conducting counter-terrorism policy 'shoulder to shoulder with the US, not in the sense of being an
equal decision-maker, but rather as pillion passenger compelled to leave the steering to the ally in the driving seat. There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has imposed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism. It gave a boost to the Al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising, caused a major split in the coalition, provided an ideal targeting and training area for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists, and deflected resources and assistance that could have been deployed to assist the Karzai government and to bring bin Laden to justice. Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure, and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign.
Achieving the goals of protection and preparedness in the UK is also not an easy task because of the wide dispersal of problem 'ownership' between the public and private sectors. The MI5-based National Security Advisory Centre (NSAC) and the establishment in all police forces of Counter-Terrorism Security Adviser (CTSA) posts are key means of addressing protection and preparedness. However, the scale of the challenge is significant. For example, providing enhanced security around stocks of ammonium nitrate, which is widely used in agriculture, is a major
undertaking involving, among others, suppliers, storage site operators and the farming community. On a similar scale there is the problem of gaining adequate knowledge about the daily patterns present in the transport of hazardous materials by road haulage in the UK.
Terrorism and elections both make compelling television. With the growth in global attention to terrorism in the wake of 9/11, political imagery and terrorism have become more intertwined. Yet it is not particularly clear what political players, the media and voters make of terrorism when it comes to polling day. To address this gap, studies supported by the Economic and Social Research Council's New Security Challenges Programme are currently examining the role of terrorism and security concerns in recent elections in Russia, the United States and Great Britain.
At issue is how contenders for political office talk about terrorism as a domestic and international concern. If terrorism and security concerns are mentioned during elections, are the voters offered a set of rational policy alternatives or does the discussion merely focus on fear? Which groups are discussed as threats and how is this linked to the concerns of voters in certain countries? Does the television news really inform viewers about the issues surrounding terrorism and security? Finally, how do the voters themselves react to the manner in which the issues are framed by
politicians and the news media?"
To sum it all up: 1. the war in Iraq is a boost for Al-Qaeda; 2. protection is a huge problem exacerbated by privatisation which leaves the government out of control of essential areas of our society; 3. the role of the media in fear-mongering and party political gain based on fear.
It seems the London bombings come as a boon to the British government. Now they can pass the law reform they had planned earlier. This is something that should make us highly suspicious. Bombers always have a motive.
The result of more 'anti-terrorist' laws will make the situation even worse. Free speech and press are already hampered by the wish and actions of the government that doesn't want the truth to come out. Blair has lied and lied. Books are censored.
Yahoo: "One of Britain's most senior former diplomats has branded the US invasion of Iraq 'politically illegitimate' in an incendiary new book that the government has moved to block, a British newspaper reported."
CommonDreams: "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has collected at least 3,500 pages of internal documents in the last several years on a handful of civil rights and antiwar protest groups in what the groups charge is an attempt to stifle political opposition to the Bush administration."
This is the road to dictatorship and ruin. The workings of our democracy are disrupted but not the growing network of people bent upon retaliating against their attackers.
One of the purported bombers was said to be known by British secret services, but considered not to be dangerous. There is a link here, whatever the explanation we give to it.
AlertNet: "One of the suspected bombers in the London attacks visited Israel in 2003, an Israeli government official said on Monday, bolstering a news report the British-born Muslim helped plan a Tel Aviv suicide bombing."
Also in this case nothing was found to link the suspect to a suicide bombing. And you may rest assured the Mossad would not allow any real suspect to leave or enter the country. But again there is this strange link. Why would a Muslim visit Israel when he knows he would be under extreme scrutiny? Maybe he had dealings with Israeli authorities? Anything is possible. And there is a motive. We can't rule out anything. It seems our governments and Al-Qaeda have some similarities.
11:12:56 AM 
|
|
© Copyright 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
